Qantas Sacking Tarmac Engineers [Archive] - Page 2

Big M

18th Sep 2014, 15:40

unfortunately a lot of our brothers will think of themselves at this time and are more worried about the annual leave arrangements, than the job security of fellow workers.

Mate, I don't think it will be a lot. It will be the same ones who come in on overtime whilst blokes are being marched to the gate, the ones bending rules to make flawed systems work, the ones who spend months away on postings not using their leave earning a huge whack and then complain about having to use annual leave, the ones who have 400 to 800 hours annual leave accrued, the ones who have 20-30 years LSL accrued and will whinge like spoilt children when someone suggests they should actually take it ( much less the fact that the company can legally direct them to take it and now there's a chance to take what they should've and it will save someone's job )- two dickheads today suggested that they didn't want to take a "paycut" by having to use LSL ! Same guys who have been given all the training/licences, come in on O/T, take postings with the extra cash - these ones will be the next "ops managers" but unfortunately they get a vote with the rest of us at the moment.)

I'm pretty sure these self-centred beings are in the minority.

As someone mentioned in the meeting today, if we don't as a group vote YES to saving all the guys jobs when the cost is taking the leave owing to you, what the *@ck is it we are after?

Well done once again to our illustrious Association, who represent us in an absolutely fantastic manner - despite the self centred actions of the minority of members who undermine by doing overtime, cutting corners and who whinge about having time-off ( god help me)

Ngineer

18th Sep 2014, 21:04

Hopefully, someone at Exec level, at this airline. has realised the endless BS perpetrated by Nasty, the Texan and that bloke from the railways.

It goes beyond that mate. You can also thank the DMM that runs the section that he hadn't worked in because he probably walked into an interview and bull$shi++ed his way through it (fooling the HR persons who care of nothing else but their stupid questions). He has been selling you down the drain to his managers with the mantra of "we are overstaffed" and "I can run this place with no overtime", although he sits behind his desk and reckons it's a quiet day because no-one is ringing him. And by the way, if you need to defer any tasks don't tell the truth and put it down to "lack of manpower" because it will make him look bad. This is why bigwigs think we are overstaffed. They are being fed nonsense.

Or the Supers that jump in and hijack your conversations with their "yeah I know...." attitudes and heads filled with egotistical crap picked up from some 2 bit leadership crap-in-the-woods and wipe your arse with gumleaves style training.

This place has become rotten to the core.

IMHO

ALAEA Fed Sec

18th Sep 2014, 22:27

Hi guys,

Just briefly I think there was a post about this being some cunning plan by the airline that they had orchestrated. Not so. The idea and proposal was put by us at court ordered mediation and it kinda blindsided them.

The package does not mean the nasty ones won't try and roll out changes over the coming years but I think we all know by now the best ways we can counter their efforts.

Whether people are terminated or the same levels of staff are provided with the accelerated leave, the Engineering Managers have pushed too hard and left insufficient LAMEs to do all the work. If an aircraft is delayed because there is no licence coverage or lack of staff, please don't put the delay down to something else. It needs to be recorded for exactly what it is.

Response from members so far has been good. Melbourne meetings today. Thanks for support fellas.

duderanch

19th Sep 2014, 02:05

Ok let me get this straight
I keep all my current entitlements
I can take leave and this will save my mates. (that will be interesting I can't get leave now)
I can buy more leave if I want to.
I can take VR next year.
And all I need to accept is a pay freeze for 18 months.

HOLY AMAZEBALLS !.

rtv

19th Sep 2014, 03:10

What added job security is there people keep talking about ?

ALAEA Fed Sec

19th Sep 2014, 03:24

They can't sack you if others have unused leave.

CAVEDWELLER

19th Sep 2014, 07:02

As the Australian dollar continues to fall their outsourcing policy will turn out to be a very poor and expensive decision but by that time they will have left the building with their pockets full of cash. The Aussie has fallen from $1.10 to below $0.90, outsourcing in $US has become 20% more expensive. How long before we hear the excuse that due to the depreciating $Aus our maintenance cost have blown out.

Annulus Filler

19th Sep 2014, 07:36

When do we start voting?

ALAEA Fed Sec

19th Sep 2014, 09:20

8pm tonight for all non Sydney members with a valid email address.

This is just an unofficial ballot to determine whether the ALAEA will postpone the court case against Qantas or not. If we get 60% in favour we would be comfortable to proceed.

Probing

19th Sep 2014, 11:45

Steve , Paul and team, thank you

33 Disengage

19th Sep 2014, 23:19

Apart from one wee laddie carrying on about his leave, everyone else seems to be very supportive. I would be surprised if the support for this proposal isn't over 80%. After all, isn't this what unions are supposed to be about. The collective supporting all from the individual through to the majority.

I'm engaged with the ALAEA, you never know, if upper engineering management get their marching orders I might even engage with the company again.

Nassensteins Monster

19th Sep 2014, 23:44

A great effort, but 1.8% per year is a bit poor. Better than the alternative. Have a think about how far we've come. We can afford to pull back a bit on our claims.

2 weeks buy back of leave? No thanks how about a training allowance of 2 weeks for any course you wish, not necessarily aviation related...
...External B1/B2 courses course excluded from training selection criteria, if externally trained then internal training to still be completed by QF training school, allow QF training school to offer QF employees courses to avoid potentially shutting down of our training school. This would produce an income for QF and also save QF engineers from having to spend +6K for practical training. WIN WIN WINNot really sure how these two fit together. I assume you mean external theory and internal POC/PCT and differences? So you do an external course and miracle of miracles you're lucky enough to be anointed with the holy water, get on a differences course and have your license recognised, then when push comes to shove your external license is not counted in selection criteria? Why bother. Many do the external course for job security but this concept provides none.
It also encourages the company to rely on sub-standard courses offered by external RTO's. Anyone who has done one will tell you the courses are woefully inadequate and are little better than a famil course. Compare the old ~10 week A330 course QF training ran. It produced LAMEs that actually knew something about the A/C. The current ~5 week Kellogs Packet licenses on offer leave many saying they still know little about the A/C.
I agree with you that QF should be keeping training in house. Once upon a time QF pilot and engineering training was a world-recognised highly desirable commodity that we charged a premium for. That has been wiped out by managerial short-sightedness, incompetence and apathy. QF has failed to build on our strengths and foregone major opportunities to train external engineering customers like Emirates and failed to buy A380 sims when they were avaialble at rock-bottom prices, and keep that training skill set and knowledge base in-house.

I would like to see a forward plan for obtaining internal and external work, maybe automatically QF work goes to QF Engineering. Wouldn't we all? Maybe we can "better utilise the manpower we have" by going back to how things were a few months ago, instead of the current shemozzle in evidence in Sydney.

Cat A licenses to all in LMO converted to full license within the term of the EBA.Unfortunately the ALAEA won't have much say on this issue, pending the outcome of legal cases to allow the ALAEA to represent Cat A's - which is the absolute last thing the company wants.

A review of new positions created over the last 3 years to determine WHAT they have brought to the business, if nothing then why are they there?Great idea. SDO once ran ~140 people with a planner, a secretary, 4 x DMMs and a manager. We now have <60 people run by a terminal manager (position vacant), 4 x ops managers, 4 x DMMs, a facilities manager, a MAC, a WHS manager, multiple planners, a secretary and one guy who sits in a corner whom I still haven't quite figured out what he actually does. Have I forgotten anyone? And the mooted response to this top-heavy structure is to cut back the DMMs - the ones who know a thing or two about running the operation, and giving more scope to the ops managers, many of whom are clueless neophyte wannabes.

Long service leave to be minimum of 4 days.Would suit the roster of SDO and SAM.

If keeping wage averaging then apply this to sick leave so we don't have to come in sick on weekends. Not going to happen.

More to followMoot point. The current WD will be rolled over to the new EA with absoulutely minimal changes. Save your mental energy.

Nassensteins Monster

19th Sep 2014, 23:53

I canvassed a couple of dozen LAMEs randomly at the terminals and SAM. I'd say it was a 90% yes vote for the in principle agreement. That said, people often vote differently in the quiet of their own homes to what they've publicly stated. This EA would definitely get up if it was a show of hands.

4 years of peace and certainty, not having to give any conditions away, plus the resurrection of 65 careers, the ability to choose and plan for one's time of exit, after the sh!t we've been through since 2008: I vote yes.

Nassensteins Monster

20th Sep 2014, 00:42

Finally, with the changes we are making in Line Maintenance there have been a lot of moving parts, particularly within the Sydney Precinct. Dave Filipetto and Chris Tobin will shortly be holding a Sydney Precinct Maintenance Forum where cross functional teams will come together to discuss any issues and workshop solutions that will achieve a greater consistency in the work movements and improve communication between the SAM, CE, A380 and Terminal teams.These changes have meant that SAM, SIO and SDO need to work more closely as a collective Line Maintenance team within Sydney. Groups that haven’t previously interacted will now be crossing paths on a daily basis as aircraft, people and work move between the areas so it’s important that processes, responsibilities and a chain of decision making is clear to all.

There will always be teething challenges to some extent as procedures are adopted and embedded, and we become used to working with new people and processes. We can see some areas that need to be resolved in this transition, which has been evident in the last couple of weeks.

We have had some feedback from our own Supervision that we need to do some work and to that end we will be putting together a combined Workshop Forum with staff representatives from SAM, SIO, SDO, CE Teams.

So as usual, we've got to come up with the ideas to fix the mess they made, much of which was foreseen by the people on the floor, and should have been foreseen by that layer of management closest to the floor - the ops managers, and could have been avoided by just such a forum... BEFORE implementing the changes! FFS!!! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

This will probably be the face-saving way for the company to about-face on some of the redeployments from the terminals, making way for the return of the SAM LAMEs in the CTC.

CoolB1Banana

20th Sep 2014, 01:47

If you don't like external training you better get used to it.

It will be a LONG time before the training school run any significant amount of type training.

There are about 50 people that have bought themselves a 738 ticket in SYD that are waiting to have it put on eQ. Similar numbers for 330. There's a 380 running now with 3 people on it! No more 380s or any new types to the fleet equals no more training.

The 738 course that caused so much angst at SIT is postponed indefinitely (will never happen)

Talkwrench

20th Sep 2014, 03:57

Just stepping a little off topic for a moment,

These changes have meant that SAM, SIO and SDO need to work more closely as a collective Line Maintenance team within Sydney. Groups that haven’t previously interacted will now be crossing paths on a daily basis as aircraft, people and work move between the areas so it’s important that processes, responsibilities and a chain of decision making is clear to all.

Is SAM considered "Line" maintenance with regard to CASA's definition for the use of "A" LAME's?
Is Qantas using/intending to use "A" LAME's in SAM?
I was under the impression "A" LAME's could only be used in the "Line" maintenance environment, which I understood to be SDO and SIO only.

Any comments?

domo

20th Sep 2014, 04:01

base maintenance is heavy maintenance. all other SAM/ Terminal / cabin interior is all line maintenance

Nassensteins Monster

20th Sep 2014, 04:10

CoolB1,

Sadly, I think you're on the money.

Domo,

ditto

Talkwrench

20th Sep 2014, 04:24

Thanks domo,

I am surprised SAM is considered Line maintenance and that "A" LAME's can be used there.

Thought the scope of work in SAM goes beyond "Line" maintenance as defined by CASA for the purpose of "A" licence use.

Surely if it could be proven SAM's work is indeed beyond "Line" level maintenance, "A" licences could be excluded from that department and therefore increase the requirement for full B1 and B2 staff?

Or is that just wishful thinking?

Didn't SAM used to be known as Base Maintenance?

Kiwiconehead

20th Sep 2014, 05:58

I am surprised SAM is considered Line maintenance and that "A" LAME's can be used there.

The definition of "Line" and "Base" Maintenance will actually be in the Qantas Engineering Part 145 Exposition as approved by CASA.

If that designates "SAM" as part of it's Line Maintenance activities then "A" Licences can be used there.

The range of tasks "A" Licences can perform are set down in the CASR Part 145 Manual of Standards.

Part 145 Manual of standards (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00526)

Appendix II is the "A" Tasks.

Some Q&As about Part 145 AMOs are here (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100653), including guidance on what "line" maintenance is.

It is worth having a ferret around as Part 145 is quite different - and to understand it definitely helps, not only during the day to day operations, but also when it is being used against you.

But from the outside it looks like Steve and the ALAEA have done a great job saving 65 jobs.

Annulus Filler

20th Sep 2014, 21:29

Steve, when will you post the results?

ALAEA Fed Sec

20th Sep 2014, 22:15

I will let people know on social media on Monday night (because our office will be closed by then). Will only be announcing whether our targeted 60% mark has been achieved or not.

BTW all members please feel free to join our facebook group. Just type in Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association and it should come up or simply ALAEA in capitals.

Big M

21st Sep 2014, 01:04

FedSec,

If you're reading this-switch off the computer. Have a BBQ, a beer, watch the footy, play with the kids etc. Same for Wes, Brad, Gary and everyone else at Bexley.

:D

blubak

21st Sep 2014, 22:05

our association has done us proud yet again,these are the guys who stand up for us & do their upmost to protect our jobs unlike the clowns that think we believe their weekly update e mails that are nothing more than a front to try & discredit our union leadership.
I often wonder how you guys feel when you have to consult with some of these people but it is very obvious now that your commitment to us(your members) is unquestionable & maybe it is time now for ALL of us LAME'S out there to fully support our leaders & take note of what has been achieved.
Well done Steve & team,we are proud of what you have achieved & your efforts dont go unnoticed.:ok:

The Bungeyed Bandit

22nd Sep 2014, 08:43

Results of survey in. Great result Steve and boys.
Common sense prevails from more than 60% of membership.
Lets wrap it up over the next couple of weeks and move on.

Suck&Blow

22nd Sep 2014, 08:48

What was the total percentage of Qantas LAME's eligible to vote FED SEC that did cast a vote? Whilst acceptable, 60% FOR the proposal sounds underwhelming!

The Bungeyed Bandit

22nd Sep 2014, 09:08

I'd say it was at least 60% of the eligible LAMEs that cared Suck & Blow.
Don't forget, this was just a survey to see if a proposal should go ahead.
You'll have plenty of time to lobby your fellow workers say that it's not acceptable.
Buggered if I know want more you want.

ALAEA Fed Sec

22nd Sep 2014, 09:35

700 voted. The result was of those who voted as in any ballot. I said that over 60% were in favour. The following numbers are over 60 -

61, 66, 67, 73, 79, 89, 91, 96 and 100.

All that people need to know is that the result was over 60%.

The Bungeyed Bandit

22nd Sep 2014, 09:39

Ah, at least 11% more than 49%.

Soldier of gear lube

22nd Sep 2014, 09:48

Thanks Fed Exec from one of the over 60%,

600ft-lb

25th Sep 2014, 10:46

An in principle EBA agreement reached already ? Good stuff.

Clipped

25th Sep 2014, 11:29

The 'tone' of the Texan's email is of .... reluctance.

He's not happy about this, but who cares. No mention of the LAMEs returning to duties. Perhaps, too little significance.

Why does every bone in my body sense, caution.

Steve and team, 'thanks for all you do'.

JETTRONIC

25th Sep 2014, 11:37

Fedsec......why is it that tony is full or praise for the new EBA in his emails but makes no mention of the CR guys coming back??? Are they shaking your hand with one and holding a knife with the other behind their backs? Call me cynical but something stinks.

Ngineer

25th Sep 2014, 12:17

My best guess is that there are a few plates of humble pie being swallowed.

arkmark

25th Sep 2014, 16:06

Hey Fed Sec ---

If your office closes after hours unlike your members, why not consider off shoring your staff?

This would save you costs, allowing you to operate your office for longer hours, whilst at the same time increasing your member service level.

You may even be able to pass on the cost savings by reducing your member fees.

KrispyKreme

25th Sep 2014, 23:02

JETTRONIC, was thinking exactly the same as you, no mention of the CR guys coming back? i hope there is no smoke and mirrors happening.

Imagine Tony and co saying how good they are by cutting engineering staff and implementing a pay freeze etc :mad:

PIOT Bord

25th Sep 2014, 23:42

JET and Krispy - On which occasion (in the last 8 years while Steve and Paul have been running the show) has the ALAEA lead you astray, given you false info, or cut a deal and ended up being blind-sided? They have a great track record. I think they know what they are doing.

As for the CR guys coming back, if the EBA vote gets up, you'll see them in a week; if the vote doesn't get up, you won't see them in Q uniform again.

ALAEA Fed Sec

26th Sep 2014, 02:17

Hey guys,

The company cannot legally link the EBA vote to the return of the sacked LAMEs. If they were to talk about it in the same notice or document, it could fall into the category of adverse action/coercion.

They do know however that if Texan Tony was to renege on the deal, not too many aircraft would be leaving the ground. He's been cut out of the loop anyway and has been told to pretend he is in favour of the deal. Just ignore him.

One EBA meeting was yesterday. 15 minutes later it was concluded with an agreed document. Will circulate shortly.

cheers

griffin one

26th Sep 2014, 11:18

Hope the deal is water tight.Not like when we voted on exactly the same EBA that originally was voted down only to lose first class travel.
I wouldn't trust anything from Texas or Nasty.

JETTRONIC

27th Sep 2014, 01:34

Hey Fedsec, thanks for the info and only hope as that as tony leaves nastystien is right behind him.

I've been advised that the company will soon be contacting the cr boys and bringing them in for an interview. Is their going to be a fair process for them or are they only going to be further screwed into corner. I'm sorry but don't trust the company in doing the right thing by them. None of them have heard from the company in the past week as to see how they are going. Will they be able to take their positions back from were they lost them?

Stally

27th Sep 2014, 06:41

Yes, Qantas never had 1st Class for travel for Engineers, even if they were rushing overseas for a urgent recovery.

Steve, as the EBA is agreed and the guys are coming back to work does that mean we are free to not spend so much time with our families?

the rim

27th Sep 2014, 09:03

have not been on in some time....but thought I might clear up the issue of First class travel.....Duty travel on QF before the merger was always J-class upgraded to First when avail...but only on QF aircraft.When the merger happened all went to this so domestically we travelled j-class as there was no first.On international duty travel you got upgraded to first if there was space and you met the requirements...like years of service and so on....now along comes the EBA and we want the to have access to First Class HOLIDAY travel....meeting with Geoff Dixon during the EBA on a weekend and a fed ex member who I wont name was very out of line with the CEO of the time{should mention that we should not have to bow down to them ...but} and as a result we were refused access to First class....I was told some time later that the CEO was heard to say that " they want this guy sitting next to a full paying first class pax ....I don't think so"...read into this want you want but this is the way it went down.....The Rim

howyoulikethat

29th Sep 2014, 22:08

Fair dinkum,blokes livelihoods and the future of how we handle a/c in Australia from an engineering perspective are on the line and ya worried about first/business class duty travel!
Mate there are some far more pressing issues me thinks........great job Steve and the union feeling proud to be associated with you blokes!
Now back on topic!

The Bungeyed Bandit

30th Sep 2014, 04:14

I think that might be appreciated Airsupport. Let's stay on topic.

Nassensteins Monster

30th Sep 2014, 23:21

SMH report the 4 year deal commences 1 Jan 2015, a pay freeze for 18 months then 3% per annum thereafter. Sorry fellas, but it ain't a 3% per annum deal. It's 3% p.a. from Jul 16 - Jul 17 and Jul 17 - Jul 18. Then it's 1.5% for the remaining 6 months of the deal: that's 0.75% per annum, not 3% per annum

For it to be a 18 month pay freeze, then 3 + 3 + 1.5 deal, the pay rise in the last year needs to be 3% for 6 months, not 1.5% for 6 months!

ALAEA Fed Sec

1st Oct 2014, 08:42

Sorry Monster you are incorrect about it not being 3% per annum after the 18 month wage freeze. There are many members who are incorrectly reading the EA offer document and talking about things that aren't correct.

The freeze is for 18 months then 3% per annum. That is -

3% to cover the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017.
3% to cover the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 and
1.5% to cover 1 July 2018 to 31 Dec 2018. (it is just half a year therefore half the rise)

You would negotiate your new rise to apply 1 Jan 2019. The above is 3% per annum and I cannot understand how anyone could see it differently.

Slim Dog

1st Oct 2014, 10:14

So the vote does not commence until the 12th October, but the website appears you could cast your vote now? What happens if you vote early? Does it get counted or omitted?

domo

1st Oct 2014, 11:30

Slim Dog you cant vote early. I tried it dump up and said vote not recorded

arcs'n'sparcs

1st Oct 2014, 13:06

I'm not that intelligent but 1.5% over 6 months is the same as 1.5% over 12 months. Twice the period but the same increase.

Nassensteins Monster

1st Oct 2014, 13:46

3% to cover the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017.
3% to cover the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 and
1.5% to cover 1 July 2018 to 31 Dec 2018. (it is just half a year therefore half the rise)Fedsec, I am annualising the pay rises. The first 18 months is a big fat zero.

Year 1: 0%
Year 2: 0% for the first 6 months + 3% for the last 6 months = 1.5% p.a. for Year 2.
Year 3: 3% for the first 6 months = 1.5% p.a. Another 3% for the last 6 months of Year 3 = 1.5% p.a. Total for Year 3 = 3% p.a.
Year 4: 3% for the first 6 months = 1.5% p.a. Another 1.5% for 6 months = 0.75% p.a. Total for Year 4 = 2.25% p.a. for Year 4.
Why is the second half of Year 4 treated differently to the second half of Year 2?

I make the assumption that we get nothing post 1 Jan 2019 because the EA doesn't stretch that far. Call me stoopid but I don't count the cash from the harvest till it's at market. 1 Jan 2019 is a long way away. Dice it another way: my calculator says annualised, 1.5% for the first 6 months of FY2019 and then 0% for the second 6 months of FY2019 is 0.75% per annum for FY2019.

But then who cares? I'm just being pedantic. It won't change my vote: I want peace and stability for 4 years, not give up a whole lot, and the boyz back from the CTC.

I'm not that intelligent but 1.5% over 6 months is the same as 1.5% over 12 months. Twice the period but the same increase. WTF? Your logic being? Two sentences expressing diametrically opposed views? Look, you can't count what you don't have. 1.5% in the first 6 months of FY2019 + 0% in the second 6 months of FY2019 = 0.75% over 12 months. Would you trade me a whole orange now if I gave you half an orange now, plus the promise of another half an orange in 6 months? Seriously, what is so hard to understand about that? With customers with logic like that, why am I not in banking? :sad:

For the other pedants out there, I am not counting compounding. That would clearly blow some peoples minds.

ALAEA Fed Sec

1st Oct 2014, 22:02

I don't know what you are doing with your calculations monster however you appear to have mixed calendar years with financial years. The wage rises that had generally occurred on 1 Jan will move to 1 July so the "year" rises are measured in is now the financial one.

As for the difference between the back half of years 2 and 4, it is as follows. Year 2 in your calculations ends 31 Dec but you know already that there is no rise on 1 Jan (because they have shifted to mid year). It is a known 0. Year 4 however concludes and we do not know what the outcome from 1 Jan would be because you will be ready for a new EA.

Sure don't count your chickens but consider the possibilities. If the airline are still in the poo I would assume the company would want to freeze wages again. If they are making a motza, we will be pointing our finger at the wage freeze and demanding it be returned with interest (maybe a 7.5% claim). A fairer guess would be that another 3% rise would be offered then. If that was the case, for the 2018-2019 financial year would include a 4.5% wage increase.

Rather than complicate the matter confusing everyone, I will ask you to look at it differently. It is a 4 year deal, the first 18 months are written off as a wage freeze. The next 2.5 years you have increases of 3% pa (excluding compounding). 3% x 2.5 = 7.5%. You are to get 3% in 2016, 3% in 2017 and 1.5% in 2018. Added together it is 7.5%.

Redphantom

1st Oct 2014, 23:14

As one of those yet to return to work , I have been contacted by the company and as soon as the vote is confirmed we will be contacted to arrange our dates to be brought back in.
I think someone brought up the subject of grade points during the term of the agreement but as far as I read the document the grades system is not affected by the wage freeze... People can still get regraded. Perhaps Steve can clarify this.

Nassensteins Monster

2nd Oct 2014, 00:03

I don't know what you are doing with your calculations monster however you appear to have mixed calendar years with financial years. The wage rises that had generally occurred on 1 Jan will move to 1 July so the "year" rises are measured in is now the financial one.

As for the difference between the back half of years 2 and 4, it is as follows. Year 2 in your calculations ends 31 Dec but you know already that there is no rise on 1 Jan (because they have shifted to mid year). It is a known 0. Year 4 however concludes and we do not know what the outcome from 1 Jan would be because you will be ready for a new EA.

Fedsec, we'll have to agree to disagree. I annualised the pay rises by both calendar year and financial year and assumed zero for the last half of FY2019. In my view, half of a half is a quarter, not a half. But as I said, I'm just being pedantic, and I'm comfortable with the price for peace, stability and 65 jobs restored.

We'll wait and see what happens in Jan 2019. Unfortunately due to previous history I have little trust in the company, and I won't be counting my chickens before they're hatched.

I do however have faith that my association is working in the best interests of all its members, and thank you all for a job well done.

Clipped

2nd Oct 2014, 02:24

You are to get 3% in 2016, 3% in 2017 and 1.5% in 2018. Added together it is 7.5%.

Over the life of the agreement it is actually a 7.68% rise. Yes, it's modest but in the grand scheme of things, it's a win-win for both parties.

We've rolled over our EA T&C's and helped our mates back, a modest pay increase to boot. I'm pretty happy.

Thanks again, Steve and team.

griffin one

2nd Oct 2014, 05:09

Ink on EA agreement not even dry and blokes from sections who watched people get marched now working heaps of O/T
As for voting yes will wait for the ALAEA feedback meetings some unanswered questions and dont trust current wording of agreement.

Bootstrap1

2nd Oct 2014, 10:25

Griffin they must have been tired of waiting for your email to say it is OK to work OT again.

Things are starting to look up. Be happy about that and stop whining.

griffin one

2nd Oct 2014, 10:36

Don't worry be happy.
bootstrap
glad your drinking the cool aid

Bootstrap1

2nd Oct 2014, 10:50

I don't do coolaid. And if you are wondering, I have been OT free since last year so I am not trying to justify others doing it to clear my conscience.

But seriously, when is it OK?

What makes you holier than thou to say they can't resume extra hours?

No doubt some people have been hurting from a lack of OT in support of their colleagues. As I wrote before things are looking up, the signs are there the EBA will be voted in.

This is no doubt great news for all of us and our mates waiting to return to the hangar.

CoolB1Banana

2nd Oct 2014, 14:22

I can't believe some of you people certify aircraft.

It's an 18 month wage freeze then 3%pa for the remainder of the 4yr agreement.

It's that simple.

Ask your high school teacher to explain if you still don't get it and leave the adults to their discussion.

Nassensteins Monster

2nd Oct 2014, 22:12

Hey CoolB1, wanna do a deal on some oranges?

Nassensteins Monster

2nd Oct 2014, 22:29

Regarding O/T:

As one of those yet to return to work , I have been contacted by the company and as soon as the vote is confirmed we will be contacted to arrange our dates to be brought back in.

I can only speak for myself. That's all the guidance I need. Part of the reason for the O/T is because these guys aren't in the business. We're a union: we're all in this together. Personally, when the guys are back in the business I'll feel comfortable accepting O/T again, and we all have an equal opportunity to share it if we want it.

griffin one

3rd Oct 2014, 03:53

coolb1
If only an EA is that simple.how many are returning?what is an A380 conversation allowance listed in document?
seems to me company could instruct you to take a single day off at their choosing no work this Saturday have a leave day.
very happy to see the guys returning and some stability but after years of abuse can't trust em

Ngineer

3rd Oct 2014, 05:48

I think it is about time there was a healthy debate on OT for the benefit of our members without people getting emotional or bad tempered. There is plenty of debate on the floor as to the pro's and con's of working it in this climate. (Whilst the majority of us are playing it safe ATM).

We all need to be on the same page.

CoolB1Banana

3rd Oct 2014, 06:42

No need for a debate Ngineer, it's simple.

Any union member that works OT while the said union are attempting to get other members jobs reinstated is a dog.

The way things are going, the guys will be back in a few weeks. Are you really that desperate for extra money that you can't wait that long?

Everyone knows who the dogs are and funnily enough, the same names come up every time the rest of the members are towing the line.

You will be remembered...

Gas Bags

3rd Oct 2014, 07:03

That's showin 'em coolb1........

Ngineer

3rd Oct 2014, 10:00

No need for a debate Ngineer, it's simple.

I disagree. 65 staff laid off, no-one works OT, planes still go out on time..... what exactly did you prove?

Its a question that needs to be asked, not fobbed off without any thought given (regardless of what you or I may think of those that choose do do it).

you really that desperate for extra money that you can't wait that long?

OT is not my thing, never was. But hang in there, after a few more weeks you can fill your troughs with all the OT your snouts desire.

Ngineer

3rd Oct 2014, 11:43

when the guys are back in the business I'll feel comfortable accepting O/T again

The way things are going, the guys will be back in a few weeks. Are you really that desperate for extra money that you can't wait that long?

But seriously, when is it OK?

Ink on EA agreement not even dry and blokes from sections who watched people get marched now working heaps of O/T

You all ban OT because it cost jobs, but rush in to do it again when the fallen ones return to work??

I am lost with that arguement fellas.....

A ship of fools.

Nassensteins Monster

3rd Oct 2014, 12:06

You all ban OT because it cost jobs, but rush in to do it again when the fallen ones return to work??

I am lost with that arguement fellas.....

A ship of fools.

Who's rushing? Just the usual few. And don't be so quick to rush to judgement against those who in normal times work the extra hours, just because O/T is not your thing.

I'll reiterate my position, with important bits emphasised:

I can only speak for myself. That's all the guidance I need. Part of the reason for the O/T is because these guys aren't in the business. We're a union: we're all in this together. Personally, when the guys are back in the business I'll feel comfortable accepting O/T again, and we all have an equal opportunity to share it if we want it.

I'll work O/T when I damned well please, but I'll only choose to do it when I can share it with 65 colleagues who just a few short weeks ago were facing a bleak future.

What was proven? From what I hear from Bullsh!t Towers, more than you may realise.

Capt Quentin McHale

3rd Oct 2014, 20:48

Monster,

Well said:D

CoolB1,

Where would you like the members to tow the line to???

McHale.;)

The masked goatrider

3rd Oct 2014, 20:51

I disagree. 65 staff laid off, no-one works OT, planes still go out on time..... what exactly did you prove?

You proved once again that you could build a backlog of work that gave your union a bargaining chip they used to save 65 jobs.

Some proved that they are selfish pigs and don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. They will be remembered.

Red Baron

4th Oct 2014, 16:12

What a mess!

And what of those from the other Unions (ASU for example) within Qantas whom weren't asked to take a wage freeze/wage cut in order to save jobs? Will they also be given the opportunity to get their jobs back should they agree to reopen their EBA? I think not!

For the LAME's who have been forced out, will they have to pay back Qantas their redundancy should they come back?

What about the other departments within Qantas whom are still going through the 30% reduction, is that now on hold if the Unions whom represent them agree to reopen their EBA and agree to the wage freeze, leave burn etc?

I think it's well overdue for the major share holders in Qantas to vote for the removal of the entire Qantas Board and start again. As stated earlier, what a mess!

33 Disengage

5th Oct 2014, 01:32

Red Baron - There are 2 reasons why this "mess" has occurred:-

1) Qantas Engineering senior management stuffed up the redundancy consultation so badly that as the court case started they were told to cut a deal or face another embarrassing loss in court.

2) Joyce is now doing his own engineering - engineering his departure with as much egg removed from his face as is possible.

JETTRONIC

5th Oct 2014, 09:06

Question for the ones that were tapped or the ones that watched their mates get taken away. How do we go back and act like nothing ever happened? If offered do you take a position elsewhere or go back and hope for the best, or is it a mater of the "battered wife syndrome". Like most of us I love the company but hate watching it go down the sh!t tube and being treated the way we were. I understand the union and the company want peace but how do we/they make a mend.

I'm still angry:mad:

Hell have no fury than a angry LAME with a pen.....but the ball is in your court now.

Pterois Volitans

5th Oct 2014, 23:41

I have to question what the "possible" returning LAME's are going to do, I certainly do not want to see any person loose there job. But the main reason they were taped was due to the fact the aircraft they could sign for are no longer flown by QF (Dec 27th for the 767) Retrain them... no chance it will cost to much!

So if they return, what are they going too do.......over paid AME's!!! The current "A'" license people will be able sign for more!

chockchucker

6th Oct 2014, 00:07

But the main reason they were taped was due to the fact the aircraft they could sign for are no longer flown by QF (Dec 27th for the 767)

Hmmm, not so much. Everyone I know was 738 licensed and classic (freighter) licensed. So, no shortage of work for them going on current overnight workloads.

Even people in Melbourne who had 747 licences are now back in demand due to the return of 747 services to LAX.

Entire thing was a colossal management stuff-up and over reach.

AEROMEDIC

6th Oct 2014, 04:40

Hmmm, not so much. Everyone I know was 738 licensed and classic (freighter) licensed. So, no shortage of work for them going on current overnight workloads.

Even people in Melbourne who had 747 licences are now back in demand due to the return of 747 services to LAX.

Entire thing was a colossal management stuff-up and over reach.

Yes. I posted back in Nov 2012 that this would happen and no surprise when it does. Large companies like Qantas ALWAYS do a redundancy overkill because it suits them. They have shareholders to keep onside and must be seen to doing something to mitigate losses. Particularly Qantas, because they can't seem to find people who are good at determining numbers and classifications to go, and with an eye on the future.
I've watched them do this 3 times over the decades and they don't get any better at it. Only the names change.

I said then in that post that it would be 2-3 years and recruiting would begin again, but perhaps it might take a little longer in this case.

JETTRONIC

6th Oct 2014, 05:59

pterois-volitans.....

Most of the guys I know who got tapped were either end of the scale. They were young with 738 or close to retirement with redundant licences. There was even someone with B1 738/330 who got asked to leave.....complete stuff up.:D

griffin one

6th Oct 2014, 08:00

Jettronic
If most of the guys had 738 then that would mean by returning to base instead of SIO or DOM
Then on return they would have more points then guys near the thin redline in base.

hopefully in 4 years of stability enough take VR or workload increases.

Arnold E

6th Oct 2014, 09:09

I'll work O/T when I damned well please

And I sincerely hope that you do it in a very lonely manner. I hope you are alone in the lunch room.

griffin one

6th Oct 2014, 09:23

I agree great offer for baby boomers but not everyone is in the 50-60 demographic.
we all get a vote thats whats great about the ALAEA and exec money well spent

Nassensteins Monster

6th Oct 2014, 10:09

I am sure you will.

And I sincerely hope that you do it in a very lonely manner. I hope you are alone in the lunch room.

Doubtful, very doubtful. I'll be there with 65 others, and not before. And thank you for selectively quoting and COMPLETELY missing the point. :ugh:

Romulus

7th Oct 2014, 03:17

Just to confirm the maths...

3% to cover the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017.
3% to cover the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 and
1.5% to cover 1 July 2018 to 31 Dec 2018. (it is just half a year therefore half the rise)

The last one is NOT a 3% annual payrise.

Let's assume you earn a nice round $104000 per annum ($2K a week) to make the maths easy.

July 1 2017 you get a 3% pay rise so your annual pay becomes $107,120 or $2,060 a week. Calculating the cross check from $2,000 a week with a 3% rise you get $2,060 for each and every week of the year.

Now, looking at July 1 2018 let's look at 1.5% for the first 6 months. Your pay would be $104,000/2=$52,000+1.5%=$52,780. If you then get a further 1.5% for the second half of the year you get $52,780+1,5%=$53,571.70. Total for the year $106,351.70.

Net difference = $107,120 - $106,351.70 = $768.30 less.

Alternatively it could be seen that you get an annual pay rise of $2,351.70 on your initial $104,000 which is a pay rise of 2.26%.

The reason for the differential is in the first 6 months you are only getting half the pay rise so you would need a larger percentage rise in the second half to compensate for the 6 months during which you only received 1.5% extra.

CoolB1Banana

7th Oct 2014, 14:40

Has anyone heard the term Tight Ar$e LAME...?

If you want more money, just vote no. But I hope you are up for a long and bitter brawl. You don't need to justify your position with all the calculations.

The rest of us with a conscience will vote yes and save other members jobs.

sys 4

7th Oct 2014, 20:01

we have got a LAME at Jetstar demanding a 787 coarse and he is turning 70.never get in the way of a Lame and his wallet or you'll get crushed

ALAEA Fed Sec

8th Oct 2014, 09:50

Romulus, you don't need a larger pay rise than 3% 1 Jan 2019 to be better off over the 2018-2019 financial year. You may be down $768 by 31 Dec 2018 but you would more than make that up over the next 6 months because you would most likely get two pay rises over the period.

Nassensteins Monster

8th Oct 2014, 11:15

I don't read anything that says the pay freeze applies to movements through the levels. I'm happy to stand corrected.

So, the way I read clause 16.7, it applies post-2014, so any LAME on Level 13 or below will progress to the next level on service points during the life of the agreement.

The lower the level, the higher the percentage pay rise.

Worst case, for a Level 13 LAME progressing to Level 14, that's a 4.5% increase regardless of the year of increase, and in addition to the 3% + 3% + "1.5%". For all levels below Level 13, the percentage increase is higher - up to 7.4% for a Level 1 LAME.

Food for thought...

Clipped

11th Oct 2014, 03:33

Good informative clip on the Tube. Thanks Steve.

scrubba

11th Oct 2014, 03:44

Romulus,

What happened to the 01 July 16 increase of 3%?

What made you think that the 1.5% would apply to your example salary of $104K rather than the increased salary of $107120?

The starting point should be the salary payable pre-July 16, which I think you meant to be $104000.

On 01 July 16, that salary would increase by 3% to $107120.

On 01 July 17, that salary would increase by 3% to $110334.

On 01 July 18, that salary would increase by 1.5% to $111989.

That new post-July 18 rate would apply regardless of how long it is paid. December 18 is just the end of the Agreement, so the post-July 18 rate would continue to get paid until a new deal is negotiated.

The key problem is the belief that the 1.5% is justified as if it is the same as 3% for only 6 months - it is not!

For the period July 18 to December 18 you will get paid $111989/2 = $55995 (rounded up). Over the same period to December 18 , a 3% pay rise would have yielded $113644/2 = $56822, a difference of +$827.

I reckon the easiest way to think about it is simply that the agreement gives a pay rise of $111989/$104000 = 7.68% over the life of the agreement. While the nominal 3+3+3 would yield 9.27% by comparison, I do not believe that that was on the table.

Redphantom

11th Oct 2014, 23:39

A little off subject , but with past EBA changes can anyone tell me what grade the quotas start at and the requirement for grade increase ie points or new a/c type?

Redphantom

12th Oct 2014, 00:03

Thanks Ampclamp , yes the changes in EBA'S has me a little confused. Anyway back to subject .Thanks to all those at the ALAEA that have put in so much work over the last few months.

Prolapsed Annulus

13th Oct 2014, 02:55

Redphantom

16.11.1
An additional full mechanical or avionics rating on a Qantas type will be the
prerequisite to move from:
• Level 13 to Level 14 (from the first full pay period on or after 1 January
2012 until the first full pay period on or after 1 January 2014)
(additional includes a full mechanical or avionics rating on a Qantas
type held by a level 13 employee for which they have not already
received credit for level movement);
• Level 14 to Level 15 (from the first full pay period on or after 1 January
2014) (additional includes a full mechanical or avionics rating on a
Qantas type held by a level 14 employee for which they have not
already received credit for level movement).

16.11.2
Movement in accordance with clause 16.11.1 will absorb any pre-existing
over grade payment, provided that an employee will not reduce salary on
moving from one level to the next highest level.

Implies an additional full mechanical or avionics rating on a Qantas type will NOT be the prerequisite to move up a grade from levels 13 and below.

Diabloblizzard

13th Oct 2014, 11:07

Off the 65 lames made redundant, out of curiosity what would be the percentage of b1 and b2?

griffin one

14th Oct 2014, 08:14

Of the 65 made redundant if for arguements sake 45 returned to base and none to the terminals,does this mean the line in the sand has moved?
Would the SDO/SIO guys/girls now have more points then the base guys/girls who were previously safe?

Also if FIFO slows too much will the company be able to use leave burn other then in Sydney/Melbourne?

What about if they decide to offshore more 737/330 heavy could they also not enact leave burn in Brisvegas.

before the grenades fly just Questions raised for sake of discussion get your votes in.

chockchucker

16th Oct 2014, 21:46

Any truth to the rumour that Tony Lowery has fallen on his sword this morning?

QF's gain could apparently be Jet Blue's loss if said rumours are true?

KrispyKreme

16th Oct 2014, 21:50

Yes it's confirmed Texas Tony gone, off to jet blue. Now to see who fills the void

Soldier of gear lube

16th Oct 2014, 22:18

I hear the slick one is available for the gig.

The Bungeyed Bandit

17th Oct 2014, 01:00

Soldier of gear lube.

Please spare me.

"Our Head of Maintenance Operations, Tony Lowery, has advised me that he has accepted a new role in North America and will be moving on from Qantas over the coming months. While it was a difficult decision for him to make, Tony has been offered a fantastic opportunity to join JetBlue as their Vice President of Technical Operations.

This is very sad news for us and an enormous loss for Qantas. Since joining QE three years ago, Tony has been instrumental in turning around the performance of our business. Tony has lead the effort to take Base Maintenance from three bases to a single, more competitive base, supported by a great team of people who are constantly challenging themselves to find new and innovative ways of working. The performance of Line Maintenance is consistently improving through the implementation of an operating model that matches demand and allows us to offer more flying time to the airline and our customers. All crucial things when we are trying to return the airline to profitability.

While these have been difficult changes to make, and have impacted many people, what has always impressed me is Tony’s absolute care and commitment to his people. Whether it’s chartering a plane to give the Tulla guys a chance to see Brisbane Base Maintenance, the hundreds of recognition letters he writes, his constant communications and roadshows for his people, or the development of his leadership team, it all comes down to the fact that Tony puts our people first. This will be the legacy he leaves behind, and something I’m sure his new company will benefit from greatly.

On a more personal note I have come to know Tony over the past three years as an incredibly genuine, kind and loyal person. It has been an absolute pleasure working with someone of his calibre, please join me in wishing Tony all the very best in his new endeavours.

We will communicate further around a replacement for Tony over the coming weeks.

Stay safe,
Chris"

Hope all you folks are happy!!!

QFBUSBOY

17th Oct 2014, 02:20

" It takes a miracle to reignite a fire once you've hosed it down"

Hopefully he and some of our wise leaders haven't totally destroyed what was once an icon in heavy jet engineering, and the next player can rebuild it back to an Australian aviation success.

bandit2

17th Oct 2014, 11:03

What are the odd's for "the railway Casanova" getting Tex's job? The Casanova has been saying the right things & staying away from the action.

going postal

17th Oct 2014, 12:38

so it only takes "weeks" to find a "suitable" replacement????
There must a whole plethora of suitable applicants, just like "lames"

600ft-lb

17th Oct 2014, 12:49

You can't blame the guy for wanting to leave.

Firstly Australia isn't his home and he's hardly leaving a place as if it were the third world to come here in the first place.

Secondly, he was given the task of being the face of engineering whilst the enlightened ones above him decided that a few thousand needed to be sacked. If you're a psychopath maybe that's just another job.. Most would do their best to move on elsewhere. I'd like to think that where his motivation lies.

Lean Sigma

17th Oct 2014, 13:45

Purvinas has outplayed him.:ouch:

Nassensteins Monster

17th Oct 2014, 13:54

Firstly, he was employed to get rid of people. He was on the losing side of an argument to return the 65 in the CTC to his own business. Frankly, the CEO has lost faith in his and his superior's industrial and business strategy.

Secondly, to anyone who had heard him speak on the subject, he displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of industrial relations in this country. He simply could not get why things were the way they were here vs the way they were in the Good Ol' US of A. Sometimes his tone came across as "how dare we?"

Both factors make his position untenable.

Annulus Filler

17th Oct 2014, 19:35

Would the next LMO Manager step up to the plate? Strike One GH, Strike Two TL, Strike Three ??????

Sunfish

17th Oct 2014, 20:42

Going on Qantas management performance, your next leader in engineering will:

1) Be female.

2) Have no experience whatsoever of Aviation maintenance and overhaul.

3) Have an Arts or Accounting degree.

4) Be well connected to "The Sisterhood".

5) Firmly believes (a) She can manage anything, and (b) Women are better managers than men.

Get ready for sensitivity training guys.

LAME2

17th Oct 2014, 20:48

Bets on Olivia anyone?

CoolB1Banana

17th Oct 2014, 21:38

Classic comment in a feedback meeting when Texas Tony points out that some LAMEs may have to move interstate to avoid redundancy. He says "Where I'm from people move to where the work is".

To which a LAME replies, something like, "unlike America, most LAMEs don't live in caravans".

Perspective

18th Oct 2014, 07:38

I would have thought Tony would have understood
The cultural differences by now.
It was made abundantly clear to him Approx 2 years
Ago.

FMU

18th Oct 2014, 11:39

Sandra Nieuwenhuijzen.
Current Head of Supply Chain.
Previously Line Maint Manager KLM.

Nassensteins Monster

19th Oct 2014, 12:55

http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx50/tony-sm/Avatars/Noidea1_zps7ebb8c0f.jpg

Clipped

20th Oct 2014, 03:12

Good one NM, the perfect candidate.

And another slap in the face for Australian aircraft maintenance, our Qantas, has just announced a 20 year lease at LAX and the build of an A380 hangar. The hangar that couldn't be built here because of too few of the aircraft.

Nasty and Texas (a man of the people, consolidated 3 maintenance facilities to one) Tony having their final dig. Feeding the Mexicans, how good of them. The Chandra empire evolves.

The masked goatrider

20th Oct 2014, 07:56

That LAX hangar is just to replace the existing shed. I hope they think carefully about their next manager.

sys 4

20th Oct 2014, 19:21

wasn't that what the Sydney jet base was ?3 lines at the 1 facility

ALAEA Fed Sec

20th Oct 2014, 20:36

Hi members. Just got word through that the voting on a new Qantas Enterprise Agreement 10 has concluded with 87.25% if favour with 942 participants voting.

For those unaware, the members have accepted an 18 month wage freeze then 3% pa increases across the 4 year agreement in return for re-instatement of 65 retrenched employees. Across the life of the EA, nobody will be retrenched whilst others are holding substantial leave balances.

Well done members and welcome back to our lost brothers and sisters.

crossdresser

20th Oct 2014, 21:28

Awesome job Steve and the team.That's what a union is all about.

howyoulikethat

21st Oct 2014, 00:22

Heard,possibly an JQ engineering manager coming over to take the helm!

Talkwrench

21st Oct 2014, 00:25

Thanks Steve, Exec and all the staff at the ALAEA. An outstanding result. Well played.

And so the wheel turns in the management ranks.

midas

21st Oct 2014, 05:39

Good luck with that! There are massive long waiting lists.

I've been locked out of level 13 for over a year. Half the guys I work with are locked out of level 14.

CoolB1Banana

21st Oct 2014, 07:41

... and the AMEs vote, in big numbers, to leave their CR guys on the scrap heap!

Good thing there is no training around, we don't need members like that.

opalops

21st Oct 2014, 08:42

I wish we had this executive in 2006 when they closed down HM well done Steve

Opal:ok:

ALAEA Fed Sec

21st Oct 2014, 08:42

It's good to be part of a united union.

Mobi LAME

21st Oct 2014, 22:42

If there is a JQ Engineering Manager coming over there is a very very good chance that person will be ex Qantas. There are not too many long term JQ Engineering people left in JQ HO, but there is a bucket load of ex Q people and most of them are not sharpest tools in the shed.

griffin one

22nd Oct 2014, 01:13

Welcome back to the 65.
Seriously hope in four years time when Sydney LAMES have burnt their leave and LSL that Nasties and Air Nairs LAX empire doesn't put us back to more CR.
If QE was serious they would be investing in Local Maintenance.
Can't help feeling we've played into their hands.

chockchucker

22nd Oct 2014, 01:47

Can't help feeling we've played into their hands.

Can you explain exactly how we've done that?

As for the LAX venture, as much as a slap in our faces that it is, it is a replacement for the current facility there. Not an additional one.

The agreement, as emphasised ad-nauseum by the FedSec, can never guarantee anyone against the future insanities of QE management.

There are only two guarantees in life and employment isn't one of them. However, there are at least a few more hoops that Qantas must jump through prior to repeating the shenanigans of July.

My gut feel is that come the end of the new agreement, all the current 65 "outstanding positions" will be more than over subscribed by volunteers. Combine that with the lack of training nationwide of apprentices (never mind proper LAME training outside of the cornflake packet courses being offered thru QAE et-al that people are suddenly climbing over each other to do), natural growth of business and natural attrition. Qantas will be absolutely screaming for qualified before long.

A major challenge will be to prevent them running to the government and playing the 457 visa card to bring people in from off shore to cover-up their negligence in lack of training and investment in the current QE employees.

Such actions by Qantas and Virgin would also be to the detriment of young Australians wanting to enter a career in Aviation Maintenance.

Unlike the recently department Mr Whitlam however, todays political leaders show little interest in local industry of any kind.

Perhaps that's the kind of fight we should be suiting up for in four years?:ok:

Of course you've played into their hands. All the leave will be used up and then it will be business as usual. Plus QF got their real win which is now being able to walk into negotiations with everyone else and say "look, the engineers signed up to the 18 months!". (Above quote posted by Tuner 2 before he/she deleted this and all subsequent posts in this thread)

....Absolute Bollocks! Nowhere is it stated or implied that people must use ALL of their leave!

The VR process will however, be open to all and sundry to take advantage of over the course of the next four years. Now, as I read it however, if you're one of those sitting on a $450,000 to $500,000 golden handshake in the quest of "just one more year" beware. For in the case of a port such as Melbourne for example, where there are only 10 positions (or less) to be mitigated, once those 10 VR's are handed out that's it. The music stops, all the VR package musical chairs vanish, and any future VR's over the remaining 4 years will be dealt with on operational requirements. i.e. If you've got an A330 or A380 license then fat chance you'll get your package once the first 10 put up their hand for the VR.

That's an awful big chunk of retirement income that some people are putting at risk in their misguided belief that packages will always be there at the time they wish to depart Qantas.

Just some additional food for thought.

Yes, people who have excessive leave will have to take it.

That is, right up till the point that, using the Melbourne example again, those 10 people looking for VR take it. After that, the requirement for "leave burn" will cease.

Unless, that is, qantas wish to dilute their workforce further. Then yes, you might be asked to spend some extra time at home with your family before Qantas could start summary executions as they did last July.

Of courses, as anyone who works in qantas currently knows, the ability to get leave is currently rather difficult owing to staff shortages and workloads.

So, bring on the leave burn program I say. Why anybody should fear a reduced leave balance is beyond me.:confused:

With regard to the EBA negotiations between Qantas and other unions, no other union is compelled to follow the ALAEA's lead.

They ( the ALAEA) just did what they are elected to do. That is look after their members. And everyone who's livelihood and careers have just been saved agree with me.

If other unions want to take Qantas on for a better deal, there's nothing the ALAEA has done here that should prevent them from doing so.

.....that is if they're not afraid to stand on their own two feet and exhibit some cohonas as the ALAEA have actually done here and in 2008 and 2011.

hangerpilot

22nd Oct 2014, 09:02

With all 65 LAMES coming to SAM no chance of me getting a 737 or 330 course now!!

CoolB1Banana

22nd Oct 2014, 18:44

It will be a LONG time before the tech school runs another type course.

KrispyKreme

22nd Oct 2014, 20:36

I beg to differ coolb1, there is a few courses that are running next year. There is other ports outside syd, Melb etc....oh and let's not forget the 737 course that gave people credits in the points system!!

CoolB1Banana

22nd Oct 2014, 21:08

Won't happen.

QE managers are a cunning breed. Why train anyone when so many guys are paying for their own and doing it on annual/LSL?

griffin one

22nd Oct 2014, 21:55

Currently 39 guys with outside 73 licences waiting for the green light plus 25 with 330 management can now really pick and choose and bypass any training criteria.

hangerpilot

22nd Oct 2014, 22:12

I'm sure the terminals will get looked after again!! They will also get all the OT while us base guys keep getting shafted.. Why aren't some of the guys that got CR and are returning not going back to the terminals??

Ngineer

23rd Oct 2014, 09:25

An EBA gets up, our brothers get their jobs back, and we all have piece of mind for a few short years, and people are still fighting each other over overtime-training-what dept they work in.....etc

No wonder management hate us so much.

ConcernedLAME

23rd Oct 2014, 09:30

Griffin 1 - welcome to life of a Base Maintanence engineer . Heavy maintenance that is , has been that way for years . Buy your own course and wait ...Nothing is a given anymore.

100% agree Ngineer- some people just dont get it ....

hangerpilot

23rd Oct 2014, 10:00

I don't care much for OT but a lot of others do!! I'm just saying that With the influx of LAMES in SAM and limited work! It will be us doing all of the leave burn while the terminals will struggle with their limited numbers.

Ngineer

23rd Oct 2014, 21:19

Buy your own course and wait ...Nothing is a given anymore.

Seems to be the new trend.

CASA maybe happy for the old company run type courses to be replaced with a 9-day type crash course run by non-airline based companies (where most people have the gems before it starts). However I think that the airlines are a little uncomfortable with this concept at the moment. Time may change that though.

CoolB1Banana

23rd Oct 2014, 21:50

I think you will find QE are more than happy with the services of the three main 147 training organisations in Australia. Considering one of the BNE based companies provided all the B1/B2 differences training for most A380 LAMEs and the other has provided various type courses for QF and it's customers over the years, in fact, their 738 course doesn't even require differences training in order to get a QE company approval. I would question the quality of the services coming from the Nowra based company QE is using for some training though. The mind boggles how so many AF/Eng LAMEs can go down there to play with an antique war bird for a week and come back with no category restrictions on their B1?

hangerpilot

24th Oct 2014, 01:36

Apparently more shuffling of LAMEs to come! Crew swaps and more to come from SDO AND SIO

Slim Dog

24th Oct 2014, 05:59

It is interesting to note people who are complaining about not being trained on a new type who managed to keep their job without being shafted unlike 65 other LAMEs who just got their job back. These 65 engineers also haven't been trained in years if not decades who took the bullet based on Qantas 'criteria'!
I just hope a playing field that has been the way it has been for so long gets ironed out and treated fairly for those who do get selected for type training (if a training course ever occurs again in house). Whilst I don't believe it is right to source your own training externally, unfortunately I think it will become the way of the future for companies even as large as QF is, to reduce their costs.

The Bungeyed Bandit

24th Oct 2014, 06:29

I'm with you Ngineer, his first four posts and this guy can't do anything but complain.

"No chance of getting a course NOW
With all 65 LAMES coming to SAM no chance of me getting a 737 or 330 course now!!"

"I'm sure the terminals will get looked after again!! They will also get all the OT while us base guys keep getting shafted.. Why aren't some of the guys that got CR and are returning not going back to the terminals??"

For F**K sake he can't even spell Hangar correctly. Even Texas Tony wouldn't spell it with an E.

hangerpilot

24th Oct 2014, 06:31

I was borderline out the door!! Next time the bullet comes around I don't think I'll be so lucky.. That's why I'm not happy about all these NG lames coming to SAM!! Better enrol in the next 330 course and start doing some serious ball licking!!

Clipped

24th Oct 2014, 08:11

QF LAMES Award Mod Vote
We request each member to reply asap to this email, we need a big response.
Your Qantas Enterprise Agreement which you would have just voted on, is underpinned by the Qantas LAME award that sets the safety net for bargaining. Currently Fair Work Australia is going through a process called “award modernisation” where each enterprise’s award is reviewed to see whether it would be kept or cancelled. If the award is cancelled the safety net would become the airline industry award which does not contain the QF LAME award classification structure, QF specific aircraft type payments, the Qantas redundancy payments or the extra 12 weeks' notice for redundancy, therefore significantly lowering the starting point for enterprise agreement bargaining.
The ALAEA is attempting to have FWC keep the QF LAME award and one of the criteria is that employees want to keep the award in place. So we need you to respond to this email urgently with a simple “yes” or “no” to the following question.
“Do you want the Qantas LAME award kept and modernised?”
We recommend a “yes” vote.
Reply now.
Gary Norris
Senior Industrial Officer

Just received this email. Not sure what has transpired but sure looks like some dirty antics by the airline.

The Bungeyed Bandit

24th Oct 2014, 08:36

Yes Clipped, they probably are, but if Gary advises us to vote YES to combat those dirty tactics and to do it ASAP, then I reckon we should.

I did as soon as I got read the email at 5 pm this arvo.

I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

griffin one

24th Oct 2014, 09:01

lets see 18 month wage freeze.AGM Joyce gets 2.5million Amazing.
game set match due to FWA weve just been outplayed

Clipped

24th Oct 2014, 22:18

Check out this link to our application for our award to be modernised. Interesting correspondences from Q and it's lawyers. What they really think of us.

https://www.fwc.gov.au/awards-and-agreements/awards/award-modernisation/variation-applications/EM2013/120

aveng

26th Oct 2014, 02:36

Heard about a newly minted unrestricted B1 from the Nowra factory that didn't know what a megger did.:ugh:

600ft-lb

26th Oct 2014, 05:32

Aveng get over it. The B1 rating is here to stay. A B1 is hardly ever likely to even use a megger, the rating is for avionic lrus troubleshooting/replacement that can be bite tested or with simple go/no go testing, it's not rocket science! If you've got a problem with it petition CASA that they've got it wrong. Getting upset at your fellow engineers for certifying what they're entitled to certify for isn't going to stop the condensing of functions to less people.

Aircraft flying around these days are not from the 50-60s anymore, hence the reason the industry evolved from single catagory engineers, eng or a/f, elec or inst or radio. Then the 70s-80s generation aircraft with the merged eng+a/f, e+i+r engineers. Today's aircraft engineering certification requirements are driven by bean counters in concert with regulators to suit today's reality. Evolve like the rest of the world already did 10 years ago or get left behind even further.

Besides, what has this got to do with the LAMEs that got sacked and have now been reinstated? The only thing that will save those jobs in the future is attrition, not trying to justify to the world that B1s are a failure and should be revoked.

aveng

26th Oct 2014, 08:14

Calm your farm 600ft/lb. Bit touchy mate - feeling inadequate?

I WAS referring to training standards.

Your sounding like QF management ie aircraft these days fix themselves.:D

600ft-lb

26th Oct 2014, 12:31

I'm not saying aircraft fix themselves. I'm saying generally these days aircraft tell you where to start looking when something goes wrong, especially the new generation of aircraft. 99% of the time you're not breaking out the WDM let alone a megger.

With regards to training standards, of you feel that an entire apprenticeship can't be condensed into 6 weeks or so of remedial training by outside MTO's, bring the issue up with CASA. The MTO's didn't sign themselves off as component, CASA did. They set the standard, they must be happy with the end result.

With regards to inadequacy, don't think the rest of the workforce doesn't roll their eyes when the superiority complex of a sparky on the couch rears its head, over and over. Please tell us how good you guys are over and over again. Who ticked the wrong box now?

Ngineer

27th Oct 2014, 03:18

If you've got a problem with it petition CASA that they've got it wrong.

HA! You're a very funny guy.

Why would you waste your precious time doing such a thing? Poor old Aveng may as well talk to his pot plant about it (IMHO). It would take much less effort and achieve roughly the same result.

Redphantom

27th Oct 2014, 20:58

As one of those to return to work I received the phone call to arrive for duty on Wednesday 29th and was last week told I would receive a letter in the post confirming this . Has anyone else not yet received this letter?

Slim Dog

28th Oct 2014, 10:23

I am also one to return to work. I finally received my letter early this afternoon that was promised last week as well. It also showed my roster for the next 6 months on my new crew - with XXXX for every single day! What a great roster to start with back at QF Engineering! :}

Short_Circuit

29th Oct 2014, 00:03

XXXX equals NNNN (at their discretion) I am guessing.

The Big E

2nd Nov 2014, 00:27

Getting upset at your fellow engineers for Certifying what they're entitled to Certify for isn't going to stop the condensing of functions to less people.

Case in Point. In the early 80s I was a Senior LAME at POM - A snivelling prick (who was ex East West and an F27 and F28 E&I LAME) dobbed me in to the PNG CAA for changing an Inertial Navigation Unit on a B707, and Certifying for it. He had a chip on his shoulder and went straight to CAA without making the diligent enquiries internally within the Company.:=
A newly recruited CAA Airworthiness Surveyor duly came to the Hangar and asked me to visit him at his Office, which I subsequently did soon after finishing my shift. During the interview I dragged out of him as to who had reported this totally non notifiable action.
I then proceeded to educate this Surveyor on the contents of the then CAOs (direct reprint of the ANOs) including the limitations and priviledges of my current and valid Airframe and Engine Extension(a) under which I had Certified for the INU change. Quite funny how the conversation suddenly went silent from his side of the fence though.:D:ok:
Point here is that there has always been continuing evolvement, and the days of the single Category (one armed bandit) have been gone for the last 40 years plus. The B1 is now the latest iterration of this process.

For the sake of professionalism ya all keep up the good work now, and minimise the internal bickering for the sake of your fellow workmates, as everyone is all in this together.
Regards, B E.

Ngineer

2nd Nov 2014, 04:49

Big E, you are right in some of what you say (about the certification privileges of a B1 holder). And the guy responsible for dobbing you in without raising the issue with you first sounds like a tool.

However the domain of the unrestricted B1 guy has now shut the door on the career path of many LAME's, and right in the middle of some of their careers. There is an imbalance of training between trades (the 380 was testament to that), and it is obvious that a lot of B1 restricted guys (and most B2's) will be tossed onto the scrap heap, all but a select chosen few.

Even most of the B2 MA holders that were trained up to a B1 unrestricted qualification have been dumped by the company with no follow up or commitment to SOE or conversion to a licence.

I have even heard some of the chosen few tell the managers not to carry out any more licence training in their department as they have enough coverage, then watch them moan about being flogged through their meal breaks and smashing the OT.

It is very easy to sit back and point fingers at the disgruntled when your own career path is a bright and rosy picture. Sure some people are peeved off about it, let them have their say. Sitting back and copping it won't fix things, nor is it unprofessional to raise these issues.

We are not all in this together (unfortunately).

upsidefront

3rd Nov 2014, 20:18

I'm happy to see the blokes back. It is even better to see them back working OT! Lots of people are happy we left ourselves open to be abused by the company re leave burn, for these blokes to have their OT back.

Well Done!!:=:=:=:=

Capt Quentin McHale

4th Nov 2014, 12:00

Upsidefront,

Can't agree with you more, fantastic to see your missing brothers/sisters back... BUUUUUUUT... you and many others on this thread have mentioned OT. Guys/girls, look outside the box.... the company have you screwed by working OT, and, by my way of thinking, you have screwed yourselves by DEPENDING on OT. Just my humble interpretation, that's all...

McHale.

ALAEA Fed Sec

4th Nov 2014, 17:56

Working excessive overtime will ultimately cost jobs.

hi-speed tape

4th Nov 2014, 18:45

Listen to the guy that has spent months of his time, 24 hrs a day, to get our friends their jobs back.
Overtime costs jobs ! I've lost count of the times he's tried to get his point across to some people.
Seems that unless there is a notice put out in black & white some of us just can't get it.
As the lovable Texan would say, Thanks Fed Sec for all you do ! Stay safe !

Big M

4th Nov 2014, 22:55

Fed Sec and hi-speed tape.

Amen!

Nassensteins Monster

5th Nov 2014, 02:25

Let me get this straight...

Firstly, we have 65 LAMEs back in the business. An admission that either they couldn't bear the risk of ANOTHER loss in court, or that somebody has badly miscalculated the workload vs LAMEs and the backlog was getting critical; perhaps both.

Secondly, we have the terminals requesting volunteers from SAM for secondments back to the terminals. They got rid of 26 from Domestic and now they're requesting 20 back. Another admission that they got their numbers wrong. The scope for backfilling is limited due to the understandable reluctance of former terminal LAMEs now comfortably ensconced in a 4-on 5-off roster and more sedate pace to volunteer to return to what is now a very hectic place; and due to the lack of appropriate licenses among those long-standing SAM LAMEs who would like to volunteer for a bit of exposure at the terminals.

So in an environment where supposedly, according to the company, we were SO overstaffed to the point that we had to redeploy people and get rid of 65 LAMEs, and yet the company is now calling in people on overtime, AFTER the return of the 65?

As the FedSec says, working EXCESSIVE overtime will ULTIMATELY cost jobs. I agree. But define excessive. And according to EA10 no LAME will be made redundant in a port while LAMEs in that port have leave to burn. The EA is for 4 years, in which time it is my view that the redundancies will be oversubscribed before the 4 years is up. There goes the "surplus" LAMEs and the leave burn.

In the absence of upgrading your fleet, and wholesale change to pay scales, the only way to profit for an airline is to better utilise your assets, whether that be aircraft or people. Utilisation of the A380, B747, A330 and B738 fleets is planned to be increased. Increased aircraft utilisation translates to more maintenance required. If fleet utilisation is increased, the opportunity for maintenance during ground time is decreased. So you have to work your people harder or smarter, or both. In addition, A330s are returning to the red tail fleet, and net B738 numbers have not yet peaked. Further, the 787s arrive during the term of EA10: 2016 - 2017. People will need to be removed from the workforce to be trained on the new type, creating a further crimp in numbers.

More aircraft, more flying, more maintenance, less time to do the maintenance, and a LAME workforce declining in numbers and license coverage. It is my view that in the term of EA10 the overtime will go from a trickle to a flood.

The necessity for overtime delivers a pretty stark message. Somebody, somewhere, has f@cked up: either they haven't trained enough people, or they have gotten rid of too many, or both.

If the O/T is not worked then the maintenance backlog builds up. Eventually the backlog gets to the point where QE can't fulfil the requirements of the MOU and the customer starts asking questions. QE will have no choice but to either recognise some of those external licenses widely held, and/or train people, so that the company can better utilise its people along with its fleet.

If the O/T is worked, and if as I predict the trickle becomes a flood, it starts to butt up against two things: the limitations imposed by the company's own fatigue management policy; and the mounting cost. It will get to a point where it is financially and humanly unsustainable, which justifies training people or recognising licenses already held to better utilise the people you have left.

The boys are back in the business, so there's no longer the moral imperative to not work O/T, and the only things the company understands are dollars and delays. Work the overtime or don't work it. It's your choice. Whatever you choose, you're sending a message that will be heard loud and clear in the months and years to come. But don't criticise your colleagues for working a bit of overtime here and there, so long as it's not "excessive", and it's fairly shared.

hi-speed tape

5th Nov 2014, 20:46

All good points N monster.
& you're right, O/T delivers a stark message to management eventually, but perhaps a workforce unwilling to work O/T can deliver a more prompt & clearer message ? A message that tells the management that the workforce is not engaged with them & not prepared to make a system that is flawed work.
Perhaps at this point O/T gives management an indication that the boys & girls are happy with their lot & can be manipulated more ?
Traditionally, at this time of an EBA terminating the management would be tied up fighting with our association & embarking on a buggery campaign, which would tie them up for months & cause them huge stress. But this EBA has been a dream come true for them & they can now channel their efforts into other more unsavory past times !
Don't forget, all the managers apart from the lovable Texan are still in office driving their same agenda.
I might save my O/T for a management team that would never contemplate terminating a loyal employee that is skilled, but would be able to find some way around a bad situation to utilise that person just as our association has done for this management team with the leave burn program.
Perhaps the time has come for the ALAEA exec To take over QE management ? Or at least start charging Joyce & his mates consulting fees.
Has anyone stopped by Bexley on the way home from O/T To drop a case of cold ones off for the reps that are unable to do O/T because of all they do ???
Just saying.

Nassensteins Monster

6th Nov 2014, 11:39

& you're right, O/T delivers a stark message to management eventually, but perhaps a workforce unwilling to work O/T can deliver a more prompt & clearer message ? A message that tells the management that the workforce is not engaged with them & not prepared to make a system that is flawed work.

Perhaps there's something in that for all of us! ;-)

crossdresser

8th Nov 2014, 00:05

Do you really think management reads anything into us doing not O/T or anything else for that matter? Whenever I bring any kind of issue up with them the answer is always given in what their minimum requirements are under the legislation. They couldn't care less about whether we are engaged or not,as long as planes go out and that they can't be held accountable for the ones that don't.
Please don't get me wrong, not working O/T is a useful tool we can use, but don't expect our current management to pick up on any subliminal message we're trying to send.

hangerpilot

9th Nov 2014, 09:10

QANTAS management have got no idea as to what they are doing! Just tell them what they want to hear and do the opposite.

Nassensteins Monster

13th Nov 2014, 04:56

Maybe they can read something into the following:

1. Very few former terminal LAMEs have expressed an interest in returning to the terminals. And why would they? People talk to their former workmates and the word is out. SDO especially is running too lean on day shifts and the boys are getting burned out as a result. Frazzled and frustrated, running from aircraft to aircraft trying to make it work, not getting meal breaks... The strain is causing some LAMEs to take it out on each other. There are a few heroes who are trying to make it work, but for what? Eventually they'll stop trying so hard because frankly it's unsustainable. Some expect it to ease up after the 767s are gone, but the capacity must be filled somehow, and that will occur with more movements and shorter turn times. The SAM LAMEs who volunteered for the terminals won't know what hit them and when they report back to their colleagues what it's like the volunteers will dry up to nothing.

2. Given my assumption that the egos involved won't admit they've cut too deep and undo what they've spent so much career capital on implementing - unless their head is on a chopping block, their options are extremely limited under the EA. Consultation and a vote will be required to get LAMEs back to the terminals, meaning it's all too hard. Further, it's also been deemed all too hard to request former terminal LAMEs with appropriate licenses from SAM on a day-to-day basis, because it's touch-and-go whether they can be spared. The terminals will not be able to implement leave burn at a meaningful level, so SAM LAMEs will need to carry the can for SYD precinct leave burn. Many SAM LAMEs are sitting on piles of leave, but then they're also sitting on piles of rejected leave applications. Something has to give.

3. CT has a mountain of manpower in SAM, plus he has an additional 47 LAMEs in the business no-one had foreseen. They need work and it is coming: the usual A380 manpower black hole, B738 transition checks, rumours of heavier work such as two phase/SMC/A-checks per night, engine changes, rumours of cabin reconfig work etc. He won't want to release B738 LAMEs to the terminals, nor will he want to release A330 LAMEs either, with ex-JQ A330s with 50,000+ hrs and some pretty interesting emerging defects on them coming back into the business.

4. The latest ALAEA notice (http://alaea.cmail1.com/t/ViewEmail/r/729EF46DFD44281D2540EF23F30FEDED/CFB0BDE29E34B18FB4B1B1F623478121) states that there may still be LAMEs who "had decided to stay but have changed their minds", and that there are "still a few vacancies and people wishing to leave in Per and Bne that could be backfilled by those from Syd or Mel." There are extremely limited opportunities for younger LAMEs in SYD so perhaps a move interstate may work for some.

5. SYD precinct management have been presented with the data from their own people that in the next 5 years 100 SYD LAMEs will be gone by natural attrition. :eek:

6. The co. has expressed it is limiting growth for JQ International and that once mainline provides a return on capital they'll reinvest in the business and start expanding again. If AJ and GE are to believed, that will occur soon. The long term strategy has always been to use the A380 for high density slot restricted hub-to-hub and the B787 on thinner long range point-to-point routes; think secondary US west coast, Japanese and other Asia-Pacific cities. The airline is in its current state partially because the B787 is so late. The A380 has not lived up to promise, as evidenced by QF trying to either weasel out of the last 2 or convert them to another type; whereas the B787-9 is finally operational and so far has under-promised and over-delivered. The older A330s ex-JQ have 50,000+ hrs on them and they're a 60,000 hr airframe, so unless given an Airbus-approved life extension (unlikely, as there's just no fat in them like in a Boeing), under current utilisation they will start dropping dead in about 2 years. Something has to replace them. There are a bunch of B787-9 options for 2016-2017 that require a commitment in the near future. It's the aircraft we can't afford NOT to have, because strategically, QFI need them in order to replace the A330s, remain profitable and to then finance the purchase of B777-9s post-2020. Therefore B787s are on the horizon for QF International. There's no guarantee that QF Engineering will win the contract to maintain them, but if we do, LAMEs will need to be trained on type, taking even more LAMEs out of the business for months at a time.

It's a great time to be alive: certainty, blue skies, and managers wedged by their own egos & ideology, ignorance of their own business & lack of strategic forethought. Methinks pretty soon the bodies will start floating past.

CoolB1Banana

13th Nov 2014, 07:38

There will be no consultation or vote required to send people back to the terminals. If you work in Sydney, you work where they send you. All they need to do is swallow their pride and give you 2 weeks notice.

hangerpilot

13th Nov 2014, 08:39

Consultation will be required... It's part of our workplace determination.

KrispyKreme

13th Nov 2014, 18:50

Incorrect Hangerpilot, no consultation needed to move staff between sections in there port of origin. Management did the points system to try and make it fair :mad:

On another note something that will need to be voted on is the arrival of aircraft by baggage personal or aircraft dispatcher (qantas ground services). Management want this in by mid next year, there was meetings on Wednesday with DMM'a and troops have been told Wednesday arvo.

Apparently Perth is using the above practise ?

CoolB1Banana

13th Nov 2014, 19:21

I think you will see some forced short term postings to the terminals very soon.

FYSTI

14th Nov 2014, 01:03

6. The co. has expressed it is limiting growth for JQ International and that once mainline provides a return on capital they'll reinvest in the business and start expanding again.

Nassensteins Monster, a minor, but important clarification about your post.

The "cost of capital" argument was simply a confected excuse to allow justification for whatever decision they had already made. It just need to sound plausible. It never passed the smell test. There was no sudden material change to the "International" business at the time this phrase was uttered. It was "Cherry Picking" a justification to suit a desired outcome. The alleged losses of "International" (a business segment that doesn't even exist) where in fact shown to be bogus in the August 2014 announcement. The losses where as a result of the large depreciation charges on aircraft that were significantly overvalued. This very question was asked of Alan Joyce in the Senate inquiry in March 2014.

Surprise surprise come August, the aircraft were written down to reflect market price, and the enormous burden of depreciation crushing the "International" business miraculously disappears and "International" returns to profitability in the future.

Time travel of capital (duration transformation) is one of the fundemental instruments of modern finance (examples, a loan is bringing future purchasing power to the present, a annuity is sending purchasing power to the future). Profits and losses can be shifted in time depending upon the need to do so. In this case losses where brought forward for industrial, political (seeking a debt guarentee) and possibly other reasons (Asian franchises losses being covered).

Why am I telling you this? To counter at every opportunity the mythology behind the "International" loss story of the last 4 years. If it continues to be repeated it, it becomes the truth.

The truth is only those with access to the full suite of company accounts actually know the true profitability of anything within QF. Consolidated accounts are the only published information and therefore provide very little internal information. The number of people who have access to the true picture is very very small. The QF accounts are opaque, and this allows scope for "trust me" bogus type statements, as there is no evidence (until admitted as per the August statement) to counter it. Now the evidence has been revealed, it is important to bury this myth, rather than repeat it.

It is important that everyone understands this process, and not to fall into the trap of allowing it to automatically become "a truth" that clouds judgments.

I covered this in a post just an hour after the August announcement Qantas Announcement: 28 AUG 14 post #58 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/546420-qantas-announcement-28-aug-14-a-3.html#post8627767)

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 14/03/2014 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F292f5b43-e430-4edb-bcd4-2bad09b57a04%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F292 f5b43-e430-4edb-bcd4-2bad09b57a04%2F0000%22)

Senator XENOPHON: Can you just explain to me the contrast between the two. You are saying that there is a loss but you are now saying that Qantas international is cash flow positive.

Mr Joyce : There is a difference, as you know, between the P&L and the cash flow position. I will let Gareth talk about that.

Mr Evans : I think the difference that you are talking about is exactly that—the difference between the P&L and the cash flow. Our international business has about $800-$900 million worth of depreciation charge to it every year—the depreciation of the aircraft fleet primarily, and the other infrastructure that the international business uses. That is a non-cash charge because it relates to the depreciation of the assets. The businesses, the routes, do in the main generate cash. One route that has not been generating cash in the recent past is Perth-Singapore as an example. As a result of that, that is a route that we are terminating because we cannot afford to have routes where we actually do not even cover the cash costs of our business. The issue in the longer term for the international business is that it does need to spend some significant amounts of capital in the future to reinvest in its fleet. Today, we have a good fleet with great product, and in fact that fleet is moving into a simplification phase and part of the transformation is that it will need to reinvest at some points in the future.

Mr Joyce : That is an important issue. You can generate cash, but if the cash is not sufficient enough to generate the renewal and the replacement of the fleet, then the businesses in turn will decline. That is the definition of terminal decline. If you cannot replace the assets eventually, then that business is not going to be able to renew, it is not going to be ongoing. The requirement for us to turn the business around so it covers the cost of the replacement of its aircraft is critical. That is how the business can renew itself and continue to operate and to grow. At the moment, when the business is not covering the depreciation of those assets, it is in a business that cannot afford to replace those assets into the future.

QANTAS GROUP FINANCIAL RESULTS ALAN JOYCE OPENING REMARKS SYDNEY, 28 AUGUST 2014 (http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20140828/pdf/42rt7z8bgd8ycj.pdf)

Fleet Write-down
The decision to create a separate holding structure and entity for Qantas International has triggered an accounting requirement to test the value of Qantas International assets on a stand-alone basis.

The international fleet was purchased when the value of the Australian dollar averaged 68 cents against the US dollar, and in the case of the B747s, 57 cents.

Today the Australian dollar is trading at 93 cents.
The value of these aircraft on our books has therefore been written down by $2.6 billion to their current market value.

As a result future Qantas International depreciation expenses will be lower by around $200 million per year.

Importantly, this is a non-cash charge – a book write-down to the carrying value of aircraft that Qantas has no intention to sell, and will retain in its fleet.

It will have no impact on the economics of the business or change cash flow forecasts.

the_company_spy

14th Nov 2014, 04:26

No consultation is required for movements within a port. CoolB is correct. If you work in SAM and they say "in two weeks you are moving to the SDT" and you refuse, that could be unprotected industrial action. If they wanted to transfer you to another city, then thats a whole different kettle of fish.

hangerpilot

14th Nov 2014, 06:05

I'm not sure if that's entirely correct! But if they force people back to the terminals.. I'm sure those guys won't be busting their guts to get a/c out on time! Lots of guys still have a bitter taste in their month! OTP will suffer... Management have to go first before any loyalty can be restored!

sys 4

14th Nov 2014, 07:56

I'm no management stooge,but if they decide to move you to an area that they need more man power in,you move.What's the problem ? didn't they just bring back 65 lame's that where forced out the door.Suck it up and get on with the job.

Redstone

14th Nov 2014, 11:04

From my fairly recent observations, the SIT and "busting a gut" are mutually exclusive, just sayin.

Nassensteins Monster

14th Nov 2014, 11:45

FYSTI, I think you're missing the Big Picture. My point is even by their own definition QFI is getting to the point where it justifies investing in the business. When they do, there may be flow-on consequences for manpower.

No consultation is required for movements within a port.
Really? Then how am I to interpret the following clause?

61. CONSULTATION ABOUT CHANGES TO ROSTERS OF HOURS OF WORK
61.1 Where an employer proposes to change an employee’s regular roster or ordinary
hours of work, the employer must consult with the employee or employees affected and their representatives, if any, about the proposed change.
61.2 The employer must:
61.2.1 provide to the employee or employees affected and their representatives, if
any, information about the proposed change (for example, information about
the nature of the change to the employee’s regular roster or ordinary hours of
work and when that change is proposed to commence);
61.2.2 invite the employee or employees affected and their representatives, if any, to
give their views about the impact of the proposed change (including any
impact in relation to their family or caring responsibilities); and
61.2.3 give consideration to any views about the impact of the proposed change that
are given by the employee or employees concerned and/or their
representatives.
61.3 The requirement to consult under this clause does not apply where an employee has
irregular, sporadic or unpredictable working hours.
61.4 These provisions are to be read in conjunction with other Agreement provisions
concerning the scheduling of work and notice requirements.
61.5 For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this clause 61 operates to reduce or restrict
the rights of employees under clauses 22, 24, 41, 42, 43 and 44A of this Agreement.

the_company_spy

14th Nov 2014, 21:07

Consultation is required to vary an extended hour shift over the normal 8hrs, however where an extended hour shift is already being worked (9hr 10hr 11hr etc) it is considered to be already agreed, for instance the one individual moving into a section is not consulted/votes because the 80 who work that roster have already voted on and accepted it. They can collectively however decide to revert to an 8hr shift for any or no reason at any time.

Nassensteins Monster

14th Nov 2014, 23:01

Thank you ampclamp. It confirms what I've heard.

However the last I heard, even returning LAMEs ad-hoc on a daily basis may be difficult, as the decision to release said LAMEs from SAM depends on the labour requirements in SAM. And as a certain acting ops manager told an SIT DMM in no uncertain terms, SAM will not be told by people at the terminals how to run its business, or who it cares to release to the terminals regardless of the license type and experience requested by the terminals.

Frankly, who could blame them?sys 4 apparently. He and others see no problem with the company putting people through 5 months of turmoil in a faux consultation process, making it up as it goes along, disregarding some of the valid input of those it professed to be consulting, then disregarding its own selection criteria, cutting to the marrow, telling people they're "not good enough" for the terminals, changing peoples rosters, the impact that has on their family lives, forcing them to remake all their plans around childcare, spouses work arrangements, leave etc etc, giving them the time to settle in to the new roster, acknowledging that maybe some of that input they disregarded had merit, and then moving people back to their old sections with one week's notice, forcing them to unmake all the plans etc they have gone to great effort to remake over the last couple of months, force them to work 3 months straight without the opportunity to take leave in order to allow others to take their leave, and expecting them to Suck it up and get on with the job. If that happens I guarantee you there will be a few calls to HR and rightly so. Better a volunteer than a conscript. Frankly given all the above, I wouldn't blame them either if they came back to the terminals and required a cattle prod to motivate them.

CoolB1Banana

15th Nov 2014, 02:45

I hope your expectations of what HR will do for you aren't too high...

Nassensteins Monster

15th Nov 2014, 03:32

CoolB1, agreed. I won't need HR to do anything for me personally, but try motivating someone to work in a location under the circumstances outlined, circumstances that they feel so strongly about that they would go to HR for some kind of redress, knowing in all likelihood the futility of it. If they don't get redress and they're forced to return, it'll be "star star star TSR", work to rule and delay delay delay. They will go out of their way to make the company pay. And the company won't be able to do a good goddamn about it. Like I said, better a volunteer than a conscript.

600ft-lb

15th Nov 2014, 23:55

Are there delays ?

Because that's all that matters. The rest is just noise.

hangerpilot

16th Nov 2014, 03:47

There will be when I'm forced back 👍👍

CoolB1Banana

20th Nov 2014, 20:31

OT in SAM last night?

Over staffed by 60 and leave burn yet to begin... amateurs.

ALAEA Fed Sec

20th Nov 2014, 21:14

Yes there is OT in SAM and other departments. This is all happening before leave burn has been applied. The people in charge of Engineering can't even count.

Cargo744

21st Nov 2014, 09:50

Is that similar to not knowing the difference between a left and right hand spanner Steve?

ALAEA Fed Sec

24th Nov 2014, 01:16

I suspect that some of the Engineering managers they have appointed wouldn't even know the difference between their left and right hands.

One of them in Cabin Interior did not know what aircraft regos were or what AOG stood for. She is now telling LAMEs how to do their jobs.....

Capt Quentin McHale

24th Nov 2014, 02:52

One of them in Cabin Interior did not know what aircraft regos were or what AOG stood for. She is now telling LAMEs how to do their jobs.....

God help Qantas and all who sail in her..... sad to watch what was once such a great airline in its death throes....

McHale.

Ngineer

29th Nov 2014, 07:47

Are there delays ?

Bucketloads. And not your normal run-of-the mill defects either. Some really bizarre ones starting to appear. You could probably start a new thread on bizarre defects you have seen lately, but that would not be a good idea (for anonymity and liability reasons).

Problem is that the reporting system for delays (and the delay code system) will not adequately reflect the true reason behind engineering delays, and many DMM's do not want to draw attention to the real issues either. And when the managers get together to discuss delays they will not admit fact that this latest mis-management in manpower and resources is causing serious issues (And also partly because they are so far removed from ops that they cannot see what is going on).

In short they have really stuffed this operation.

the_company_spy

29th Nov 2014, 11:10

And god help any supervisor who even hints at lack of manpower as a reason for aircraft at risk on the ops dashboard!

CoolB1Banana

17th Dec 2014, 03:20

So now the leave burn will start 1st Jan.

GJ specifically said in the feedback meeting that "leave burn started the day the guys came back"

People have taken leave in December thinking it would count towards their allocated leave to be burnt.

Another cluster f#ck!

Big M

17th Dec 2014, 05:54

GJ.

Why anyone would listen to this waste of space I don't know.
The minister for toilets and cleaning for years who gets shoved over to be a "manager" of an engineering section. Another clown with no idea - just like the rest. He must feel all important if Grunter can take on the same role as a 20 something AME. ( isn't that Dave p an ex trades assistant from domestic? ). Not being able to run a chook raffle is definitely a required trait for any of these surplus to requirements managers these days.

griffin one

17th Dec 2014, 07:05

SAM Roster Vote
Has anyone done the figures on the 380 roster shift penalties proposed for SAM compared to current roster?

CoolB1Banana

17th Dec 2014, 14:43

It obviously suits them to get us on the 380 roster but what's in it for us?

If they agree to drop the LEAVE BURN cluster f#ck they can have my vote!

33 Disengage

19th Dec 2014, 18:50

True to form, the Railway Casanova is at it again! The Texan is going to prove mild compared to the one who is positioning to take his spot.

1) The positioning move - engagement survey. (The one they had to extent about 5 times to give the ops managers enough time to browbeat engineers into responding).
2) Use result to forge ahead with plan already decided.
3) Wage freeze in, now reduce everyone wage by introducing roster changes.
(Forcing through some new rosters to start in January, voting to commence before Xmas, using the company stooges to help push them thru).
4) Unproductive use of manpower to justify poor management decisions implemented / demoralize workforce. (Most qualified tow crews in existence, working engineers in departments just sacked from due to lack of manpower, under resourcing A-checks, etc., etc.)

And this is the start of 4 years of peace???

Bootstrap1

20th Dec 2014, 04:09

It wouldn't matter if you got a 10% pay rise plus training on every new and existing aircraft you would still find something to whinge about. Get over yourself.

Gas Bags

20th Dec 2014, 04:46

"It wouldn't matter if you got a 10% pay rise plus training on every new and existing aircraft you would still find something to whinge about. Get over yourself."

Hear Hear....If its so bad leave and stop the whining.

Acute Instinct

21st Dec 2014, 10:52

indamiddle

22nd Dec 2014, 02:54

if you really want to screw with a manager next time they complain about anything suggest that perhaps they are not suited to the job and that maybe a career elsewhere less challenging might be an improvement. you don't have have to clarify who benefits the most.
the look on their face is priceless!

sys 4

23rd Dec 2014, 18:39

CoolB1Banana

23rd Dec 2014, 21:29

Only thing worse than a QF LAME... A washed-up bitter EX QF LAME.
Move along...

33 Disengage

25th Dec 2014, 01:34

Not managerial crap,you lot just need to get a grip on reality.The world is a very different place to the world you QF LAMES live in,yet this is the market your employer has to operate in but somehow you don't.
Let's evaluate your statement.

Engineering
- Syd Heavy - World's best turn times, quality product, nil outgoing holds.
- Tulla Heavy - World's best turn times, quality product, nil outgoing holds.
- Line Engineering - Best OTP, minimal holds.
- immense corporate/industry knowledge.
- when asked, have worked with management for betterment of company

Management
- close Syd and Tulla Heavy operations
- many no longer in industry due poor performance - "encouraged" by Qantas to "pursue opportunities outside of Qantas".
- fail to meet acceptable standards for a successful company; growth, profit, return on capital, dividends.
- losing court cases for harassment, failing to honour contracts, failing to consult as required.
- price fixing convictions/fines, a/c selection (A380, B787)

I think engineering is holding it's own in it's market, I don't see that management are.
Think how good engineering could be if they had good management leading!

Anulus Filler

25th Dec 2014, 03:16

33 Disengage.

Summed up perfectly. :ok:

opalops

25th Dec 2014, 17:11

33 Disengage

:D
Dead right

Kharon

25th Dec 2014, 19:00

Choc frog quality post 33; one of the only good things about trolls is they can inspire great responses, where fact and good sense makes them look ridiculous. Bravo..:ok:.

check1-2

26th Dec 2014, 23:49

take a cool banana from free issue dude.. relax.. :ok:

sys 4

28th Dec 2014, 06:35

Washed up,No.Bitter perhaps.I was one of those that was part of the worlds best practice in 245,and while we where all being shown the door in 06 all you company suck holes sat back and did nothing.What was it again,oh that's right.Its only those cave dwellers being shown the door us legends on the line and base will be right.Were legends,match too important to be shown the door.
Well suck it up princess's,you are all only a number,total expendable.Time for you legends to find out what the real world is about.

sky rocket

28th Dec 2014, 07:59

A classic example of a washed up bitter ex-QF Lame!

CoolB1Banana

28th Dec 2014, 14:17

Turns out nobody is being forced to find out what the real world is about. Offered a golden handshake every 6 months in fact.
Move on...

600ft-lb

29th Dec 2014, 02:45

sys4, you chose to be made redundant back in 06. If you wanted to stay in the industry you could have. Like many before your exit and many since, you could have relocated to where the work was. You chose not to and took the money.

You'd think 8 years after the fact you wouldn't feel the sense of glee by getting on a forum and throwing barbs at people that didn't throw themselves at the sword so you could preserve your job way back then.

In closing, take some responsibility for your own life and stop blaming others for where you've ended up.

KrispyKreme

5th Mar 2015, 03:54

So does Qantas reimburse LAMEs that did a type course of outside ? If not well i guess we are in a race to the bottom like the pilots paying for ratings. And a coupe of years from now we will be complaining that our last Tech training school is shutting down.

Have management implemented a training policy? If not are we going to see the old why was he/she recognized and i wasn't, even when they sat together in class on the same course.

oh and then there is the old time since last training that keeps getting talked about, so there is about to be some pissed guys/girls that are so call next on the training that are going to be jumped by people that have been trained recently.

Ngineer

5th Mar 2015, 07:13

I hope this is not the end of the QF training school. The type courses they ran there were top notch.

CoolB1Banana

6th Mar 2015, 03:15

They couldn't get enough licences out of the training school even if they were prepared to put people on course. There aren't enough instructors left.

There will be a significant number of 738 licences that get recognised with all the extra work including possibly the interior reconfigs.

There will be minimal new 330 licences considering they are the new "legacy" type.

God knows what's going on re 380. The EOI didn't even make sense. People don't even know what it is they're applying for

stuntcock

9th Mar 2015, 22:57

Looks like the lunatics are running the asylum. I took VR last year from the SIT . The job market in the outside world is a tough one , hang on to your jobs as long as you can. Any idea how long after VR you can be reconsidered for any position in the company ? 12 months ? don't like my chances , but nobody could have foreseen what happened around August to October last year . Anything can and does happen with QF .
Good luck to all those guys who got there jobs back from QE transition centre.

howyoulikethat

11th Mar 2015, 23:55

Very good point Stuntcock!
The amount of Contractors in our labour environment now holding all required Licences makes for a very competitive environment.
If you take the VR and you wish to stay in Aviation the opportunities are becoming limited.

Gas Bags

12th Mar 2015, 06:47

Stuntcock I hear you. And unfortunately the fact is having a resume with one job on it and that being Qantas can be a turnoff for future employers.

Southern handler

12th Mar 2015, 07:09

Hey stuntcock,

Pretty sure that the being able to be considered for a company job rules is currently 24 months. Used to be 12 months then I think it went down to six months (which seems darn short to me) and then went up to 24 months (very recently, seems they had a lot wanting back in...).

cocobananas

20th Mar 2015, 05:20

Senate defeats attempt to dumb down air safety inspections | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2015/03/19/senate-defeats-attempt-to-dumb-down-air-safety-inspections/)

GOOD TO SEE THE OTHER POST DRAWING ATTENTION TO THIS LUNACY
(SEE DISALLOWANCE MOTION).

THANK GOD FOR SENATOR NX AND THE LIKES OF THE ALAEA!!!!!

CoolB1Banana

20th Mar 2015, 20:11

Well done Nick X and the ALAEA!

The next step is to get those that hold an CASA A Licence legally represented by the ALEA.

cocobananas

21st Mar 2015, 00:52

How Senator Xenophon's action might prevent an air disaster | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2015/03/20/how-senator-nick-xenophons-action-might-prevent-a-future-air-disaster/)

At this stage ALAEA do not endorse any LAME signing for CAT A experience journals........this one is a political hot potato.......I certainly do not support the watering down of the authority of the B1/B2 licence and will certainly not be signing any journal, as unfair as that may seem, seeing as I do already certify for the work that some of these AMEs c/out.
That is life and I am honest with these guys on where I stand with their CAT A journals.......no signature from me.

howyoulikethat

21st Mar 2015, 23:18

While we are on the subject of watering down,why not get the good Senator to ask CASA how they basically have destroyed 3 trades(AVIONICS)to put in place B1 un-restricted?
Picked up after a whirlwind 6 week theory,3 week practical which used to take 4 year apprenticeship then years of experience!!
NOW THATS WATERING DOWN!

KrispyKreme

22nd Mar 2015, 03:39

CoolB1Banana

22nd Mar 2015, 10:41

100% Agree howyoulikethat on water down of the Avionics Trade and allowing B1 to Certify for Avionic Systems, it is very dangerous having little or no troubleshooting experience and signing off Avionic chapters, oh and the computer BITE test is never wrong!! And its not like the Avionics has got less on the new gen aircraft :ugh:

6 Weeks Theory and 3 week practical, What a joke!!

I think you'll find that one is a bit beyond a disallowance motion fellas.

Accept the new system or step aside dinosaurs.

The smart sparkies are retraining to become B1. There will be very few B2 LAME left in 10 years time.

Ngineer

23rd Mar 2015, 01:23

I agree Krispy with what you say.

Accept the new system or step aside dinosaurs.

Unfortunately it looks as if it will be around for some time.

The smart sparkies are retraining to become B1.

The smart ones did all their eng/af basics years ago. These B2's could be trained up to B1/B2 very easily, however we are going down the path of spoon feeding some B1 guys (who have never done any cross trade basics off their own back) into removing their restrictions and running on their qualifications and experience alone. The latest EOI is testiment to that. There is no balance of experience going forward.

There will be very few B2 LAME left in 10 years time.

Yep, and years of experience passed down through apprenticeship training will be lost for good. By that time I will be long sitting on the sidelines watching the calamity unfold. My concerns are for the next generation.

I am not having a shot at the B1 or B2 guys here, just stating the obvious. I cant help feeling however, that some guys have a lot of resentment against their fellow trade. This helps no one, or the cause of safety.

KrispyKreme

23rd Mar 2015, 01:28

Bootstrap1

23rd Mar 2015, 03:50

Times change and we need to change with it. I think that is a problem with QF of the last 20 years, reacting to change rather than driving it.

CoolB1Banana

23rd Mar 2015, 08:19

Coolb1,

i do agree the smart sparkies are actually getting a B1 and B2 License, They are not converting to a B1 only, that's just stupid. As you would know these LAME's will be more cost effective in the long run as you are doing 2 peoples jobs. I have even seen some B1 lames that have realized this and are not signing there books!!

I just believe we should keep the trades separate as they have been, we each know our trade well and it has been proven time and time again.

Obviously no one is going to give up their B2 licence to become a B1 but you may see them offered B1 type training in lieu of B2 on new types.

As for refusing to sign people's books. I call BS on that one. If someone has carried out a task from their OJT book and signed as the AME in the log or in Mx you are a very game man if you refuse to sign their OJT book.

You can "believe" the trades should be separate all you like. Fact is it's B1 and B2 nowa days grandpa. Has been for quite some time. Ever heard of the A380?

Ngineer

23rd Mar 2015, 21:52

That "grandpa" has probably forgotten more about his trade than you will ever learn.

CoolB1Banana

23rd Mar 2015, 21:55

Then he'll have no trouble learning another one.

KrispyKreme

23rd Mar 2015, 22:04

CoolB1,

Well you can call BS all you like on the OJT books and Lames not signing them, i do agree they are game man not signing there book after MX signature etc. I believe the same is happening with the Cat A books.

Thanks for allowing me to believe that the trades should be separate :D

I will let you in on a little secret CoolB1, i am not a grandpa and i hope i do know the A380 as i do hold a license on that type.

c100driver

25th Mar 2015, 22:47

Investigation 13-007
Boeing 737-838, ZK-ZQG, stabiliser trim mechanism damage, 7 June 2013
On 7 June 2013 a Boeing 737-838 operated by Jetconnect Limited was undergoing scheduled maintenance at Auckland International Airport. During an inspection of the forward electronics and equipment compartment area under the flight deck, metal filings were found next to the stabiliser trim cable drum. On closer inspection a rag was found trapped under the stabiliser trim cable windings on the forward cable drum.

The rag had made the cable windings bulge outwards, which caused the cables to contact the cable guides, creating the metal filings and damaging the guides. The rag had increased the cable tension of the stabiliser trim system, which resulted in damage to a number of cable pulleys through which it was rigged. The control cables had also started to wear through contact with the steel bolts that held the cable guide spacers in place.

The Transport Accident Investigation Commission (Commission) found that it was highly likely the rag originated from the Qantas Sydney maintenance hangar, and that the presence of the rag trapped in the cable drum windings compromised the integrity of the aeroplane's stabiliser trim system manual control.

This report also comments on a maintenance-related incident involving a Jetconnect aircraft that had undergone maintenance at the Qantas Melbourne maintenance hangar in September 2013. The Commission did not investigate that incident, but notes that, as with this incident, compliance with procedures during maintenance operations is important for aviation safety.

The key lesson learnt from the inquiry into this occurrence was that all personnel must take care not to leave anything behind inside an aircraft after completing maintenance or cleaning tasks, especially in areas or near systems critical to flight safety.

An interesting read. Engineers are human?