The Fight is On, Gloves are off
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Fight is On, Gloves are off
In an unusually quick response to management's demand that the LAMEs stop doing walk around preflight safety checks, the ALAEA (Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association) has fired off a letter to all bases telling it's members to completely and utterly IGNORE management's demands for a LAMELESS tarmac and continue to protect the safety of ALL those who fly.
The gloves are off and the gauntlet down, I wonder what cheapshot the company will fire off next, maybe another false accusation or a stand down for doing his/her job.
Having lived both lives as fixer and flyer I know the respect and responsibility of both professions and thus I find this the absolute beginning of the end for Australia's incredible safety record will they only learn when there's a GREAT SMOKING HOLE in the ground.
Give'em Hell lads and never give up
The gloves are off and the gauntlet down, I wonder what cheapshot the company will fire off next, maybe another false accusation or a stand down for doing his/her job.
Having lived both lives as fixer and flyer I know the respect and responsibility of both professions and thus I find this the absolute beginning of the end for Australia's incredible safety record will they only learn when there's a GREAT SMOKING HOLE in the ground.
Give'em Hell lads and never give up
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ALAEA to stick up for it's members? You must be joking. The Melbourne members initial reaction to the notice was met with comments such as "about time" but it wasn't long before we smelt a rat in the pipes and it stinks of Oldmeadow.
Reading the EBA notice it seems to all come together when the second page talks about the LAME-less tarmac issue being included into the EBA log of claims. Why would the ALAEA wish to include the LAME-less tarmac issue which can be argued primarily on the grounds of safety into an EBA log? You would lose the safety argument then and leave yourselves open for comments about wages demands for reduced safety. Well done ALAEA you really know how to f**k things up.
What concerns us Melbourne troublemakers is what could now happen if we follow the direction of the ALAEA. Prior to the issue being linked to the EBA, we could continue to do our job and if stood down would have this done on full pay. Now the employer has every right to lock as many of us out without pay as they like. It could be the bloke who disobeys management orders. It could be the entire lot of us or maybe just the ALAEA Executive chief opponents. They just happen to be the ones getting stood down for the overtime bans.
The members don't trust you Bexley and will not follow. You wouldn't support Industrial action at the last EBA when 79% voted in favour so why should you want it now?
Reading the EBA notice it seems to all come together when the second page talks about the LAME-less tarmac issue being included into the EBA log of claims. Why would the ALAEA wish to include the LAME-less tarmac issue which can be argued primarily on the grounds of safety into an EBA log? You would lose the safety argument then and leave yourselves open for comments about wages demands for reduced safety. Well done ALAEA you really know how to f**k things up.
What concerns us Melbourne troublemakers is what could now happen if we follow the direction of the ALAEA. Prior to the issue being linked to the EBA, we could continue to do our job and if stood down would have this done on full pay. Now the employer has every right to lock as many of us out without pay as they like. It could be the bloke who disobeys management orders. It could be the entire lot of us or maybe just the ALAEA Executive chief opponents. They just happen to be the ones getting stood down for the overtime bans.
The members don't trust you Bexley and will not follow. You wouldn't support Industrial action at the last EBA when 79% voted in favour so why should you want it now?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oz -Sometimes
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for Engineers doing walk arounds; well anyone can walk around an airplane looking at the sky. Junior FO’s have spotted more stuff. We were all able to walk around a Turbo-prop OK, so I think well manage without that service now.
Preflight Safety checks—like leaving oil caps off. Humm CFM56 without oil after T/O! Gee thanx!
Preflight Safety checks—like leaving oil caps off. Humm CFM56 without oil after T/O! Gee thanx!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Out there somewhere
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't yet seen a F/o check an oil cap and doubt whether he would know what end of the engine it's fitted.
Some of the dumb questions second officers. come and ask the engineer make you wonder where they come from.
And if it's a windup <50 you are trying to get don't start something you will regret. We humor second officers with their youthful requests because everyone needs to start some where, But if you wish to make it a battle between Engineers and Pilots, then I think your motives are misguided. Perhaps you are from management and only attempting to redirect this discussion away from the more important issues.
And if an oil cap has been left off, you should be grateful that there was an engineer there to blame, one day you may be topping up your own oils.
Some of the dumb questions second officers. come and ask the engineer make you wonder where they come from.
And if it's a windup <50 you are trying to get don't start something you will regret. We humor second officers with their youthful requests because everyone needs to start some where, But if you wish to make it a battle between Engineers and Pilots, then I think your motives are misguided. Perhaps you are from management and only attempting to redirect this discussion away from the more important issues.
And if an oil cap has been left off, you should be grateful that there was an engineer there to blame, one day you may be topping up your own oils.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: House
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Tiger,
Focus on the issue. It is either safe or it is not.
Is it less safe than two pairs of eyes doing the walk around?
Absolutely.
Is it UNSAFE?
Not according to Boeing, Airbus, CASA, FAA, JAA, Virgin and Jetstar. With Corporate liability as it is today do you seriously think that the Board of Qantas would leave themselves open to being joint and severally liable in the event of an accident?
I hope not. Retirement does not save you from a civil lawsuit either.
Is it the work of Oldmeadow?
Definitely.
When are the shareholders of Qantas, who have had their shares languish for years, going to demand that Qantas not use an outside contractor for their industrial relations? The ridiculous situation is that if relations with the workforce are good then Oldmeadow doesn't get paid. In my opinion he manufactures disputes and sponsors an antagonistic approach to the workforce to create work for his company.
I for one would love to see the ATO do a master servant audit on this despicable turncoat.
The sooner Packer uses his JP Morgan nominees holding to launch a takeover of Qantas the better. Bin the retreating cowards and take on the world.
Then again he may just sell off the businesses which have been nicely segmented by Geoff and Co. and pocket the profits.
New World Order ladies and gentlemen, get used to it.
Focus on the issue. It is either safe or it is not.
Is it less safe than two pairs of eyes doing the walk around?
Absolutely.
Is it UNSAFE?
Not according to Boeing, Airbus, CASA, FAA, JAA, Virgin and Jetstar. With Corporate liability as it is today do you seriously think that the Board of Qantas would leave themselves open to being joint and severally liable in the event of an accident?
I hope not. Retirement does not save you from a civil lawsuit either.
Is it the work of Oldmeadow?
Definitely.
When are the shareholders of Qantas, who have had their shares languish for years, going to demand that Qantas not use an outside contractor for their industrial relations? The ridiculous situation is that if relations with the workforce are good then Oldmeadow doesn't get paid. In my opinion he manufactures disputes and sponsors an antagonistic approach to the workforce to create work for his company.
I for one would love to see the ATO do a master servant audit on this despicable turncoat.
The sooner Packer uses his JP Morgan nominees holding to launch a takeover of Qantas the better. Bin the retreating cowards and take on the world.
Then again he may just sell off the businesses which have been nicely segmented by Geoff and Co. and pocket the profits.
New World Order ladies and gentlemen, get used to it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'As for Engineers doing walk arounds; well anyone can walk around an airplane looking at the sky. Junior FO’s have spotted more stuff. We were all able to walk around a Turbo-prop OK, so I think well manage without that service now.
For Christ sakes be fair dinkum, pilots fly aircraft and LAMEs find faults and fix aircraft end of story, this partnership has worked perfectly in the jet age in this country, to preach you know better than someone who does what you do part time, full time is bloody ridiculous
Open your eyes the whip is out for all of us, in this I'm reminded of a WWII story
" First they came for the jews I did not speak up for I was not a jew,
then they came for the coloureds I did not speak up for I was not coloured,
then they came for the catholics I did not speak up for I was not a catholic,
then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me."
Be careful what you wish for your life may depend on it one day
For Christ sakes be fair dinkum, pilots fly aircraft and LAMEs find faults and fix aircraft end of story, this partnership has worked perfectly in the jet age in this country, to preach you know better than someone who does what you do part time, full time is bloody ridiculous
Open your eyes the whip is out for all of us, in this I'm reminded of a WWII story
" First they came for the jews I did not speak up for I was not a jew,
then they came for the coloureds I did not speak up for I was not coloured,
then they came for the catholics I did not speak up for I was not a catholic,
then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me."
Be careful what you wish for your life may depend on it one day
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the dumb questions second officers. come and ask the engineer make you wonder where they come from.
You should be glad that these Second Officers have the common sense to come up and ask questions, even knowing that the questions may be "dumb".
It shows that they have the right attitude and that they want to do their job the right way - and learn in the process no less.
Gee, I wonder whether you asked any dumb questions when you were an apprentice or learning Socks????
I sure did and had somebody else that was in the same shoes years earlier explain it in a friendly fashion !!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OZ.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again. 
It MUST be safer to have 2 independent checks on/for anything, that is why for important systems like flight controls, there must be 2 totally independent inspections by Engineers.
YES, it is cheaper to only have 1, but safer with 2.
Now this applies no matter who does it.
It MUST be safer to have 2 Pilots do independent checks, rather than 1 Pilot.
However why change a system that has worked well for decades, where you have 1 check done by a Professional Pilot, and another independent inspection by a Professional LAME?
The ONLY honest answer can be, to save money.
It MUST be safer to have 2 independent checks on/for anything, that is why for important systems like flight controls, there must be 2 totally independent inspections by Engineers.
YES, it is cheaper to only have 1, but safer with 2.
Now this applies no matter who does it.
It MUST be safer to have 2 Pilots do independent checks, rather than 1 Pilot.
However why change a system that has worked well for decades, where you have 1 check done by a Professional Pilot, and another independent inspection by a Professional LAME?
The ONLY honest answer can be, to save money.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever play KERPLUNK? The kids game that scores you more points for removing the most number of sticks supporting the marbles.... Ill just see if I can remove ooone more stick........
bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzz
bbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzz
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh! But to be fair, the rules aren't the same as Kerplunk. The object of the game here is to constantly remove, relocate, reshape, do away with, rearrange and replace as many sticks as possible while retaining a stable support for a constantly changing pile of marbles. The sticks used to be very strong but lately have been showing signs of wear and tear.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
It used to be called Fiddle Sticks, when I was a kid - and it does seem there are too many people, with too little aviation knowledge, fiddling with things solely for the sake of saving a few cents here or there (pull another stick out here and there), mindless of the SAFETY repercussions...until, in the end
KERPLUNK
Of course, it's only the LAST stick that is pulled, that will be identified as the cause.
KERPLUNK
Of course, it's only the LAST stick that is pulled, that will be identified as the cause.