Qantas to establish A380 maintenance facility at LAX

[azure70]

Interested to hear thoughts on this idea.
I was under the impression some airlines were trying to offload A380's and the maintenance market may be shrinking.

Qantas boss Alan Joyce opens hi-tech A380 service ?shed? in Los Angeles to make airline millions (http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/travel/qantas-boss-alan-joyce-opens-hitech-a380-service-shed-in-los-angeles-to-make-airline-millions/news-story/f27eaf8d4cce9196be7b7fa7f1dc091d)

[Supermouse3]

there's still 200+ in service, can't see them making money off it though, surely labor costs in the US would be higher than Singapore.

[The Green Goblin]

There's got to be a favourable dollar in it for QF. Now Trump is waving fistfuls of cash to entice business back onshore.

[V-Jet]

Good luck rather than good management, but the US is now effectively a Tax Haven. I am sure this hasn't escaped their notice - accountancy is one thing they do seem to be good at.

[C441]

accountancy is one thing they do seem to be good at.

….yes they are excellent at the creative kind !! :rolleyes: :D

[The Green Goblin]

So LAX based crew? Somewhere to park a few 787s??

[VH DSJ]

Good move for Qantas, I say. Of the 13 airlines that operate the A380 worldwide, 8 of them operate it to LAX.

They are AF, OZ, BA, CZ, EK, KE, LH, and QF.

[hotnhigh]

Mexican builders are obviously substantially cheaper. But the don has that sorted.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-to-close-tullamarine-airport-base-axe-500-engineers/news-story/cd5303d2a31cb41dbb25ae3faf231002

The parties also disagree about the cost of maintaining the aircraft locally. Qantas estimates it would cost at least $100 million to set up an A380 hangar in Australia, but the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association has obtained a $27m quote for a hangar and docking facilities.

[Maxmotor]

So LAX based crew? Somewhere to park a few 787s??
Planned 'A' checks.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

When Qantas grounded their fleet one of our claims was for this hangar to be built in Australia. Qantas claimed that they couldn’t afford the $100m to build it despite our quote for $27m to get it ready. Actually the Foxes who own Avalon airport would have built the hangar themselves and just rented it to Qf. This idea that they will make money from leasing the LAX hangar to make money is incorrect. Qantas have moved from their previous LAX hangar which they used every single day. They will not have any available slots to sell to other operators.

The real reason for this nice new shiny shed being built up North is labour costs and standards. I know this may sound weird but they actually want people working on planes who haven’t got any understanding of what they are looking at. Our LAMEs are airworthiness inspectors, much like a roadworthy inspector who issues you a green slip to sell your car. As the car owner, you want a hassle free inspector who will hand over the greenslip without telling you to replace the tyres and windscreen. That mentality has now embedded itself into Aviation management. They don’t want people there as airworthiness inspectors who can identify damaged or worn parts that need replacing. Management just want that airworthiness signature to go in so they can continue to make money. Of course this is a false economy because the problems just lay dormant and come out later when you least expect it.

This hangar has been built for 787 overnight checks called A checks. Now, every plane in the Qantas fleet has it’s A checks undertaken in Australia. Our blokes are competent, experienced and find things wrong before it is too late. This is not a response claiming that we are smarter than others, I am posting it as a factual review of the experience of a comparable workforce in Australia compared to Los Angeles. LAX has about 90 Engineers now and I’d compare it to maybe Sydney Domestic where there are similar numbers. Now I’d like to demonstrate the experience gap between the two.

SDT run with 4 DMMs (Foreman who are LAMEs), and 12 Senior LAMEs. There are 54 LAMEs and 18 unlicenced Engineers or AMEs. The LAMEs all average about 30 years each in the industry, nearly all at Qantas. The AMEs average at least 10 years each. There are 70 LAMEs and 18 AMEs or a ratio of 3.9 LAMEs to each AME. The total experience of this workforce is about 2,280 years in aviation.

LAX run with 4 Station Engineers (same and a Senior LAME), 18 LAMEs and 72 AMEs. I only know a few of the LAMEs but will assume they also have 30 years in the industry each. It was recently reported to me that the experience of the AMEs is roughly as follows. 24 of them have less than 3 months with Qantas and are mostly kids out of school who have to pass three exams about aircraft and then in the US, they are AMEs. Another 30 or so have between 1 and 2 years with Qantas. I will assume the rest, 10 years working on aircraft. There are 22 LAMEs and 72 AMEs or a ratio of .3 LAMEs to each AME. The total experience of this workforce is about 880 years or 1/3 the experience of a workforce of the same number in Australia.

In reality it works like this. An Australian AME with 10 years’ experience has nearly 4 LAMEs about them to make sure they are doing the job properly. An LAX AME could be straight out of school with less than 3 months experience on planes and the one LAME supervising him also has to supervise 2 other AMEs of minimal experience at the same time. A couple of weeks ago this hotch potch group completed a documented part A check of 400 hours work they claim to have done with only about 250 hours of available labour. The only possible explanation for this is that they rushed work and/or didn’t do it properly. Some of the fundamental errors coming out of LAX are astounding. Things like wires being crossed over on instruments and tooling being left around moving parts. The blokes in LAX were called in last year and told that the next one of them to make a mistake will lose their job. Living with threats like this only encourages these guys to hide their own errors or lose their income.

LAX for Qantas maintenance is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Ixixly]

ALAEA Fed Sec, I thought the little leprechaun had advised his highly experienced engineers that his shiny new jets don't need much maintenance anymore?

Was this not the reason for removing the Heavy Maintenance Facility in Avalon a few years ago? And suddenly now they need one again...and the staff associated... beggars belief doesn't it?!

[cattletruck]

May be related to Qantas wanting to hold hands with AA.

Qantas has another stab at American Airlines alliance | afr.com (http://www.afr.com/business/tourism/qantas-has-another-stab-at-american-airlines-alliance-20170129-gu0tnb)

By selling its soul.

The Leprechaun is only concerned about show than substance, its the kind of animal he is.

His vision is for the QF panels that drop off on take off will be interchangeable with AA and vice-versa.

[27/09]

ALAEA Fed Sec

I always find your posts to be balanced and well presented and think it's a pity there's not more like you about the industry.

I'd like to comment on a couple of your points if I may.

Our LAMEs are airworthiness inspectors, much like a roadworthy inspector who issues you a green slip to sell your car. As the car owner, you want a hassle free inspector who will hand over the greenslip without telling you to replace the tyres and windscreen. That mentality has now embedded itself into Aviation management. They don’t want people there as airworthiness inspectors who can identify damaged or worn parts that need replacing.

I do wonder that QF engineers have become very "Gold Plated" in what they consider is worn and not worn? I don't have experience with heavy aircraft maintenance but over the years have had plenty of experience with light aircraft maintenance. There can be night and day difference between what some shops consider needs replacement or what work an aircraft needs to make it airworthy. Usually the reality is somewhere in between.

SDT run with 4 DMMs (Foreman who are LAMEs), and 12 Senior LAMEs. There are 54 LAMEs and 18 unlicenced Engineers or AMEs. The LAMEs all average about 30 years each in the industry, nearly all at Qantas. The AMEs average at least 10 years each. There are 70 LAMEs and 18 AMEs or a ratio of 3.9 LAMEs to each AME. The total experience of this workforce is about 2,280 years in aviation.

The ratio of LAMEs to AMEs seems out of whack to me. If the AME's are worth their salt they shouldn't need 3.9 LAMEs each to watch over them.

I don't agree with offshoring work like this, it's a pity you cannot get the bean counters to understand the folly of their ways.

I see this as the thin end of the wedge. You need to find a way to make it palatable for QF to do the work in OZ and at the same time maintain a good safety standard.

[hotnhigh]

Can someone check my numbers? I was having a look at the relative numbers from the qantas data books, available at the qantas investors website.
Comparing 07/08 to 15/16 it makes entertaining reading when you consider the arguments for offshoring of everything from pot plants to engineering functions.

07/08 total revenues $M 15 627
15/16 $M 16 200

07/08 total qantas passengers (m) 29.4
15/16 total qantas passengers (m) 28.2

07/08 total jetstar passengers (m) 9.2
15/16 total jetstar passengers (m) 23.3

07/08 profits $M 1 362
15/16 profits $M 1 532

Number of rights for executive incentive plans

08/04 -03/08 6 121 033
10/13 - 09/14 58 232 000 :D

CEO Pays
Dixon 08 $ 9526 411
Joyce 16 $ 12 960 000

The man earning $35 000+ per day has to hit the targets for this years incentive plans.

[Wunwing]

27/09
I have worked as a heavy jet LAME, a Flight Engineer and a light aircraft LAME over a 40 year period including flying into and through the USA.

Firstly there is a huge difference between light and heavy aircraft maintenance assuming that we are talking about heavy jets verses single engine Cessnas.

One of the major differences is that jets run up huge amounts of hours compared to light aircraft. Thus it can be ok to defer a minor issue on a Cessna to the next 100 hourly but not on a long haul jet. Remember unlike your local flying school bug smasher who mainly does circuits, a failure on a long haul may ground you on the other side of the world with 500 pax and nowhere to go.

The other issue that the Fed Sec refers to is skill levels in the US. I have been out of that scene for some time but with some rare outstanding exceptions my opinion is that the overall A&P (equiv. to a LAME)is not good.
A typical arrival would end up in the US with a conversation like this.
FE "We have XX defect." A&P "What do you want me to replace?"
In the rest of the world the same question would be met with a statement of what the LAME intended to do. From questioning the A&P this wasn't a show of respect for the FE, it was a very worrying lack of knowledge. As I said there were outstanding exceptions but they were rare.


My feeling was that the situation that I saw was a direct result of their training which was college based not apprentice based.

Wunwing

[27/09]

Wunwing, I understand that heavy jet maintenance is very different to light aircraft maintenance and the considerable knock on effects of an aircraft being stranded at a remote port.

I was trying to illustrate that if there is variations between GA maintenance providers then it's highly likely the same applies to heavy jet maintenance providers.

I agree regarding the skill levels you talk about. The ratio of 3.9 LAMEs for every AME is probably about right for the LAX setup, but is well out of whack for long serving skilled AMEs in Oz.

However the bean counters don't know the difference between the standards of an LAME in Oz to one in the US. They both have the same name so surely they have the same training/expertise.

[Wunwing]

27/09

In my experience there is, but once you leave the high end ones its all downhill. Since the LAME has to sign out the work of those AMEs I think the Australian ratio is correct. I cant see how beyond that a LAME can supervise, inspect and do the paperwork to a reasonable standard to discharge his legally mandated safety role.

I once appeared before a Parliamentary enquiry and was asked by an MP why I disagreed with the way my employers maintenance was going. I replied that in the past when I called in a defect to main base we were met by a senior LAME with a manual and an apprentice with tools and a spare part and the defect was fixed. We now had moved to cheaper overseas tradesmen on work visas who spent the whole turnaround achieving nothing due to their poor knowledge and the aircraft was dispatched with the defect open.

The companies line was that the visa guys were cheaper but my position was that surely 30 minutes of an expensive LAME is cheaper than 2 hours of 3 cheaper staff and an open defect.

The company CEO who was on after me was not happy with my position but to me it was his position that was illogical. At the time the MPs took my side of the argument which didn't impress Mr CEO at all.

All this was a while ago now. MPs seem no longer interested in "jobsngrowth" except as a mantra whenever anyone pokes a microphone in front of them, but from what I'm told by my many friends who are still around things haven't got any better.

Wunwing

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

LAME/AME ratios in Australia vary. Domestic terminals tend to have more LAMEs because it is usually one person only sent to a defect and it makes sense to sign the defect off themselves. The example I used was Domestic here. Without checking the exact numbers, I think the ratios in various other departments would be about -

Qantas Sydney International Terminal - 2.5 Lames per AME
Qantas Sydney Hangars - 1.5 LAMEs per AME
Qantas Heavy Maintenance Brisbane - 1 LAME per AME

An AME in Australia has a minimum 4 year apprenticeship behind them. This US ratio of 1 LAME per 3 AMEs is dangerous, particularly considering that most of them have less than 4 years in the job and in Australia would be considered apprentices.

[27/09]

my position was that surely 30 minutes of an expensive LAME is cheaper than 2 hours of 3 cheaper staff and an open defect

Couldn't agree more.

But I still struggle with 3.9 LAMEs per AME.

Where else in the world do LAME's or their equivalents out number tradesmen by nearly 4 to 1?

Is it CASA rules or EBA conditions?

I know it's not 3.9 to 1 this side of the ditch and I'm not aware of any safety/quality issues. I'm pretty sure tradesmen outnumber LAMEs.

I recall a few years back there was spirited discussion on how many staff were needed for a push back especially with the new equipment being deployed. I don't remember the numbers but I think the new equipment enabled push back with just one person instead of the six or so that was currently required.

The reaction at the time made me think the opposition to the new methods was purely based on job protection. The one man push back has worked very well over here.

I cannot feel the 3.9 to 1 ratio is also job protection. Don't get me wrong I don't like seeing highly skilled jobs disappearing, but there comes a time when it becomes indefensible to maintain numbers. It becomes all or nothing and right now I fear you guys are heading for nothing.

If the need for the ratio is CASA based then the rules need to be changed, if it's EBA based then there needs to be changes there.

All of nothing is still nothing.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

It's much more productive at a Domestic Terminal to have a high LAME/AME ratio. AMEs are basically useless there. Better to send 1 LAME to fix a defect than 1 AME who then also needs a LAME to be there to supervise and certify them. The operation is cheaper with more LAMEs.

[QuarterInchSocket]

A line ame's perspective-

Confirmed. We are useless in the line environment. The CAT A may change this, I don't know. Not a fan of the scabby wheat-bix box license so haven't considered its scope lately.

[unobtanium]

It's much more productive at a Domestic Terminal to have a high LAME/AME ratio. AMEs are basically useless there. Better to send 1 LAME to fix a defect than 1 AME who then also needs a LAME to be there to supervise and certify them. The operation is cheaper with more LAMEs.

useless AME's? really? :D

[QuarterInchSocket]

Don't take it personally. But you're kinda kidding yourself if you consider an unlicensed AME as critical as a LAME. Certainly, we have our uses, but ultimately, the ramp is best handled by LAME's. This fact is proven.

An unlicensed blue shirt cannot run upstairs to change a light bulb, or slap an MEL on, or cycle a cb etc. He/She must call for a LAME and everyone must wait.

The CAT A will change this.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

The Cat A will ensure that the company never gives you a B1 or B2 course. In Europe they are looking at scrapping them.

[Band a Lot]

Any chance we can get some specs and a few details of the $27M hangar? Seems awful cheap for a shed so large and tall, concrete floor alone would be in the millions. My opinion a finished hangar of required size would certainly be closer to the $100M than the $27M.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

http://i64.tinypic.com/25kljwl.png

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

http://i65.tinypic.com/w2fuc3.png

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

http://i65.tinypic.com/28nvya.png

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I hope these details are sufficient. I think I heard the other day that they said they spent $50M building their shed at LAX.

[Band a Lot]

Post 2 - construction will be under by Superior Build under a different contract + office design and fit out excluded.

Forex alone on the $10 m back in 2012 is + $3.2 m.

Even after inflation adjustments, this is far from an operational hangar with no concrete apron access or massive power supply.

Fit outs are major costs, so I still think a ready to use hangar is closer to $100M in 2017.

[plasticmerc]

I've seen your arguments for more Lames and less AME'S.
I am just wondering if you guys are living in the past?

I have worked as a LAME on line in OZ and many other countries and I have never seen a ratio of 4 to 1 Licensed to unlicensed anywhere else!
In fact the old CAR 100 which I don't know if it even exists any more used to state 1 LAME to 5 AME's, not the other way around as you seem to have it.

Without AME'S the line wouldn't run efficiently! And would be very expensive operation which I think you are finding out now yourselves as work is being sent off shore.

Why send 2 B1's to do a wheel change?

Do all QF aircraft come in with a snag every transit? You must have a very unreliable bunch of aircraft.

The way you are talking I am wondering how your aircraft actually ever fly.

QF domestic is primarily a 737 operation or has it changed recently?
I work for an airline where we operate 60 737 NG'S 24/7 never stop unless they need an A check, engine or APU change or some other maintenance to be carried out.
also please note all our out stations are unmanned.
We also have the lowest amount of defects per airframe on the 737 in the world, so we must be doing something right.

We roughly do 200 transits in a 24 hr period give or take a few dozen.

On Day shift we have on a great day the following staff:

8 B1's
5 B2's
4 A cats
9 mech's/ AME'S.

numbers rarely get to these numbers but that's our optimum level for day shift.

Night shift

10 B1's
6 B2's
25 Mech's
4 A cats.

Once again these are our optimum numbers and are rarely ever met.

We use our A cats for dailies, wheel and brake changes and minor defects and allow them to do simple task MEL applications. They also do ETOPS departures.

Without the A cats we would struggle!

Without Mech's/AMES'S we would require LAMES/LAE or certifiers to all the mundane labour intensive jobs, what a waste of resources and money!

Think of the great expense just having LAMES on line.

A cats are here to stay regardless of what we/you think of them.

We have spent the last 3 years developing a large number of A cats.
We use this as a stepping stone to becoming a B1/B2, and also to ease them into the stress of having no one to turn to once they are a certifier.

In fact the last 18 months we have employed 12 A cats and only 2 B1's.

The comment was made by mr secretary Europe is trying to get rid of A cats, that couldn't be further from the truth. Most people doing their training are only doing their A cat modules.

If EASA was trying to get rid of the A cat then why would they allow it to continue?
For the rules to change in EASA all 27 member states must agree to the change do you realise how hard that would be to get them all to agree?
Do you realise how much and how many companies rely on these A Cats?

LAME'S should only be used for defect rectification and not wasted on the little things.

Get with reality and accept change, maybe then you can be competitive and allow for a once great airline to return to some of the glory days.

Sorry if my comments anger some of you but it's a harsh reality, one we all have to get used to.

[QuarterInchSocket]

Dont diagree with CAT A comment.

[morno]

Plasticmerc, thanks for that post. I'm not an engineer, but even I thought those ratios Qantas run are disproportional.

Like you said, maybe they should get with the times and then they'd have less work going overseas!

It's 2017 guys, not 1970.

[Band a Lot]

As per LAME vs AME, it must also be note there are a few AME's out there that are far better than certain LAME's but for one reason or other are not licenced.

In house training and approval lets more "marginal" LAME's into the system.

[QuarterInchSocket]

I'm always fascinated by international person's views on company maintenance, external to the company and within.

All too happy to hang sh*t on our practices, but basically happy to take company money and enjoy its hard fought for terms and conditions. Tosser's!

No other airline has our reputation; if we accept world practices, which our largely European executives seem to think is the way, the truth and the light, then we accept world accident and incident rates, standards etc. we will see a crash in the jet era the more cuts we make if we are accepting of those standards.

We may have incidents to this day due to in-house mx, sure, I don't think they are as bad as they could be thanks to 96 years worth of continuous operational experience.

All that is about to be and has been trashed; our image is to be this - Qantas - the same as any other airline - accidents and all!

[Band a Lot]

Qinch,

Years back Qantas "brought out" Australian Airlines, all the book work said it should have been the other way around - A merger to survive with the most wounded elected the winner. I don't remember the year this happened but slowly staying with the same wounded "winner" all will be lost its just dragging out the death +20 years now. Anyone in a rush to buy more mums and dads Qantas shares?

Qantas has never lost a hull reputation?

[Nassensteins Monster]

As far as CASA is concerned:
AC-66-5 v1.2
15.7 Certification of Australian aircraft outside of Australian Territory.
In accordance with regulation 42ZN, the Certificate of Registration holder of the aircraft is responsible for ensuring that all maintenance performed on the aircraft outside of Australian Territory is certified in accordance with the system for certification of the maintenance organisation performing the maintenance or; alternatively, in accordance with Schedule 6 of the CAR’s by:
• the pilot-in-command, for maintenance they have been authorised to perform;
• the holder of a valid appropriate Australian aircraft engineer licence;
• the holder of a valid appropriate Australian maintenance or welding authority;
• the holder of a valid appropriate aircraft maintenance licence issued by the appropriate authority in the Contracting State in which the maintenance is being performed; or
• an employee appropriately authorised by an organisation to perform maintenance on the aircraft, engine or system type as approved by the appropriate authority in the Contracting State in which the maintenance is being performed; and that the maintenance has been performed in accordance with the Certificate of Registration holder's System of Maintenance.
15.8 The Certificate of Registration holder or the pilot-in-command is responsible for ensuring that certification for the completion of maintenance has been correctly made in the appropriate log book, maintenance release or alternative document prior to flight.The C of R holder is Australian, employing Australian or local LAMEs under an Australian System of Maintenance, so the CASR's apply. Under the System of Maintenance and the CASRs the B1 or B2 LAME is required to supervise the work of AMEs.

And the definition of "supervision" is given in CASR 1998 Vol 5 as:
30 Meaning of supervising
A person (the supervisor) is supervising the carrying out of maintenance done by another person if the supervisor:
(a) is physically present at the place that the maintenance is being carried out; and
(b) is observing the maintenance being carried out to the extent necessary to enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is being carried out properly; and
(c) is available to give advice to, and answer questions about the maintenance from, the person carrying it out.The Part 66 AMC/GM provides additional guidance on the meaning of supervision. It makes for an interesting read. In particular:
Actual physical observation of the maintenance by the supervisor is required “to the extent necessary to enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is being carried out properly”. This means that the level of observation, and the resulting opportunity for the supervisor to intervene, is variable and can take into account the current competence, knowledge, skill sets and maturity of the aircraft maintainer being supervised.
An apprentice/new AME will necessarily work under direct/close supervision and the supervisor would be expected to attentively watch the work being performed. The supervisor would be expected to make sure the apprentice is aware of and is conducting themselves such that they are safe from hazards, undertaking the maintenance correctly, using the correct tools, following the appropriate instructions for continued airworthiness.As Fed Sec has described, many of these AMEs are green, very green. With the LAME:AME ratio in LAX, can someone please tell me how the LAME can in good conscience and in accordance with his statutory obligation, "supervise" as defined above and certify for the work of such a large workforce of AMEs of a skill and experience level that he/she knows is woefully inadequate compared to Australian AMEs?

Now in LAX the C of R holder employs inexperienced AMEs, knowingly allows a LAME:AME ratio such that not all work can be adequately supervised, and bears no responsibility for the quality of the maintenance performed, only the quality of the certification.

The LAMEs in LAX walk a particularly fine line - as anyone who has worked under the LA regime knows, and I think they know in their heart of hearts it is a matter of not if but when the lack of adequate supervision comes back to bite him/her on the ar$e. Anyone who's done a bit of contract work in Asia can tell you it's the same in some facilities there too. But just because everyone else is turning a blind eye to air safety doesn't mean we should.

We have air safety and maintenance regulations for a reason. Over the course of decades, they have been written in the blood of the victims of countless air accidents. We as LAMEs can choose to pay lip service to them like some in our management do, or we can choose to obey them.

For the record, the LAME:AME ratio in QF company-wide is 55:45. The reason given for not training up AMEs to be LAMEs is that they don't want to exceed the ratio. That's what the company wants, and that's what they've got. It's a ratio I'm somewhat comfortable with, as it allows the company the flexibility to put AMEs where the manpower, the level of supervision, the system of maintenance and the company procedures manual allows, and it provides me a level of assistance from AMEs I require to get my job done, while meeting my obligation to my employer and to the law to adequately supervise the AME.

We will only get the level of safety we demonstrate we want. So please, for the sake of your LAME colleagues upline in the unenviable position of being unable to adequately supervise and unable to raise their concerns out of fear for their jobs: if you find poor quality work, report it.

[Band a Lot]

I know orgs that have been approved by CASA to us SKYPE as direct supervision, also there is a massive difference to an appy and an AME. I am a LAME of 30 years and at times I am a AME for employment reasons.

[Nassensteins Monster]

Silverado, excellent point. And what might be the average years of service of those non-certifying LAMEs working off-type? Certainly alot more than those AMEs in LAX.

[Band a Lot]

Think as far as employment (not CASA) you are a AME if the company you work for only operates aircraft types you are not licenced on.

An A380 LAME will still be paid as a LAME even if the A380 can not land at his base, same as any above type listed.

[theozguru]

Get ready to part the cheeks and accept the pineapple, leafy end first.

[busdriver007]

Is this not against the spirit of the Qantas Sale Act(not that the current incumbents and/or the opposition care!). This is Qantas building the Hangar not Jetstar! Still covered by the Sales Act I believe. Jobs and Growth! Yeh right!

[AEROMEDIC]

Whats the ratio when you look at each aircraft type?.

Management would say " The cheapest one..."

Every LAME is only an AME when not working on type.

Yes, and a LAME in this situation applies his/her LAME skills when carrying out AME duties. A LAME doesn't switch these off when acting in an AME role.