The New ALAEA (Merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by qfcainer
now we have substandard ready issues, albeit better then nothing, not quite as good as the one in sydney.
Had he been offered employment on a fair level, and allowed to set things up as he did in Sydney, I am positive we would have had a brilliant ready issues system.
On ya Brissy management! You had the opportunity to employ a very hard working and clever guy...but you screwed it. He was not the only one.
Toolcrib. Why not get some experienced people involved? I don't recall any of the H245 toolcrib staff being asked to assist. Hence, the mess we have.
Too many missed opportunities because management were too pig headed to ask for help.
I built the Ansett Safety monitoring system. Qantas is an accident waiting to happen based on the evidence provided by the posts of the QF engineers on this website. We are in a race to the bottom. Pray that European carriers start crashing before Qantas.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sunfish, our discussion revolves around support issues. Employees are fed up because we are doing our jobs to a high standard yet we are given sub standard support from management.
The problem here is this. Qantas wants us to start working like a cheap 3rd party MRO. Bare minimum of spares, bare minimum of tooling. We were once even told by the snake not to "Gold plate" the job. Most employees do their work to a high standard that is NOT synonymous with a 3rd party MRO. (ie, if it's broken, replace it. Don't stand back and think "will it make it to the next check"?) 3rd party MROs are good at presentation. Management think if it looks good, the quality must be good. Short sightedness.
Nobody wants to see Qantas lose its reputation for high quality maintenance and consequently, safety. The day the employees stop carrying out work to a high standard, we will see accidents. This is an unfortunate fact. This will have nothing to do with the level of support given by management. It will be all to do with employees attitudes.
Sunfish, your comment rings bells of sour grapes more than anything else.
The problem here is this. Qantas wants us to start working like a cheap 3rd party MRO. Bare minimum of spares, bare minimum of tooling. We were once even told by the snake not to "Gold plate" the job. Most employees do their work to a high standard that is NOT synonymous with a 3rd party MRO. (ie, if it's broken, replace it. Don't stand back and think "will it make it to the next check"?) 3rd party MROs are good at presentation. Management think if it looks good, the quality must be good. Short sightedness.
Nobody wants to see Qantas lose its reputation for high quality maintenance and consequently, safety. The day the employees stop carrying out work to a high standard, we will see accidents. This is an unfortunate fact. This will have nothing to do with the level of support given by management. It will be all to do with employees attitudes.
Sunfish, your comment rings bells of sour grapes more than anything else.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm loathe to admit it BHM but, Sunfish may have a point.
Scary thing for Qantas is this; the managers that systematically stuffed Ansett's engineering department are the same people now at the helm of Qantas engineering in many parts of the country. All still clinging to the failed ideology that wrecked Ansett's engineering capability.
As someone who has worked for both companies, it's a little like watching a replay of a train wreck and knowing there's nothing you can do or say that will stop the idiots at the helm.
Scary thing for Qantas is this; the managers that systematically stuffed Ansett's engineering department are the same people now at the helm of Qantas engineering in many parts of the country. All still clinging to the failed ideology that wrecked Ansett's engineering capability.
As someone who has worked for both companies, it's a little like watching a replay of a train wreck and knowing there's nothing you can do or say that will stop the idiots at the helm.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by chockchucker
the managers that systematically stuffed Ansett's engineering department are the same people now at the helm of Qantas engineering in many parts of the country.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: sydney
Age: 53
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that's true but having your whole fleet of 767 grounded due to lack a maintenance(remember the upper link fittings being craked and not being inspected),that didn't instill a lot of confidence in the flying public at a time when Ansett needed all the support it could get from the public,perhaps this is a an indication of Virgin Blue becoming the new national carrier in a few years time,because history has a funny thing in repeating itself,itself,itslef
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: R1P
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's Bonus Time
"qantas management would never sacrifice quality of work for a cost saving "
I think we should all realise Qantas management under Dixon's "bonus driven" management style will do anything it can to achieve cost savings which can then be paraded infront of the board and shareholders by GD and his clowns. Management don't want experienced qualified people to get involved as that would hinder the move to a cheaper Asian 3rd party MRO and cut into their bonus. It's all about greed and one little man's huge ego trip.
Quality/Support/Positive employee attitude/Experience/Training/Team work/Initiative/ do not produce a "Management Bonus".
A cheap 3rd Party MRO ..... Bingo , It's Bonus Time !
I think we should all realise Qantas management under Dixon's "bonus driven" management style will do anything it can to achieve cost savings which can then be paraded infront of the board and shareholders by GD and his clowns. Management don't want experienced qualified people to get involved as that would hinder the move to a cheaper Asian 3rd party MRO and cut into their bonus. It's all about greed and one little man's huge ego trip.
Quality/Support/Positive employee attitude/Experience/Training/Team work/Initiative/ do not produce a "Management Bonus".
A cheap 3rd Party MRO ..... Bingo , It's Bonus Time !
BMI, be thankful that no Ansett aircraft crashed.
Reading between the lines of the ATSB's report on Ansett, it is perfectly obvious that Ansett's AOC was pulled because the airline simply did not know what the status of its entire fleet of aircraft was because the maintenance planning system had failed. (or at least thats my interpretation).
Way way back in my day there was a maintenance planning group of very capable and experienced people, mostly LAME's, who knew the various aircraft types inside and out and who not only watched over their particular aircraft type, but liased with engine and airframe manufacturers as well. These guys worked out the maintenance strategy for each aircraft, modifications, AD's, upgrades etc. and built all this stuff into the overall maintenance plan.
This is/was in direct contrast to the American "buy it and fly it" mentality which is that you do exactly the minimum Boeing tells you to do. No more, no less.
Naturally these guys were an obvious target for cost cutting, especially if the manufacturer wants to sell you the "buy it and fly it" model - which suits them because if there are no maintenace specialists, there is no one to argue with about costs etc.
By my limited calculations on what it would have taken for Boeing to come up with the AD about the pylons, I reckon the maintenance planners and type specialists had been gone for about five years before Mr. Twoomey's remarks on the ABC morning program denying my on air assertion that this wasn't just a 'little" problem. events proved me right. In other words, the engineering function had been lobotomised - the brains removed.
While I have little love for Qantas, I would hate to wake up in five years time to discover that thanks to cost cutting and perhaps some fraudulent behaviour in a foreign MRO, that Qantas has no idea if its aircraft are safe.
Reading between the lines of the ATSB's report on Ansett, it is perfectly obvious that Ansett's AOC was pulled because the airline simply did not know what the status of its entire fleet of aircraft was because the maintenance planning system had failed. (or at least thats my interpretation).
Way way back in my day there was a maintenance planning group of very capable and experienced people, mostly LAME's, who knew the various aircraft types inside and out and who not only watched over their particular aircraft type, but liased with engine and airframe manufacturers as well. These guys worked out the maintenance strategy for each aircraft, modifications, AD's, upgrades etc. and built all this stuff into the overall maintenance plan.
This is/was in direct contrast to the American "buy it and fly it" mentality which is that you do exactly the minimum Boeing tells you to do. No more, no less.
Naturally these guys were an obvious target for cost cutting, especially if the manufacturer wants to sell you the "buy it and fly it" model - which suits them because if there are no maintenace specialists, there is no one to argue with about costs etc.
By my limited calculations on what it would have taken for Boeing to come up with the AD about the pylons, I reckon the maintenance planners and type specialists had been gone for about five years before Mr. Twoomey's remarks on the ABC morning program denying my on air assertion that this wasn't just a 'little" problem. events proved me right. In other words, the engineering function had been lobotomised - the brains removed.
While I have little love for Qantas, I would hate to wake up in five years time to discover that thanks to cost cutting and perhaps some fraudulent behaviour in a foreign MRO, that Qantas has no idea if its aircraft are safe.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote..Reading between the lines of the ATSB's report on Ansett, it is perfectly obvious that Ansett's AOC was pulled because the airline simply did not know what the status of its entire fleet of aircraft was because the maintenance planning system had failed.
"Planning" ??
Be carefull here !!
"Planning" ??
Be carefull here !!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And who's ultimately responsible for that Fruitloop?
Who was is that stripped the guts out of the AN technical department that led to the oversight(s) on the 767 AD's? The same incompetent nimrods now trying to work their magic at Qantas.
What is past, is prologue.
Who was is that stripped the guts out of the AN technical department that led to the oversight(s) on the 767 AD's? The same incompetent nimrods now trying to work their magic at Qantas.
What is past, is prologue.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by qfcainer
bhmvictim pull your head in. didn't you listen to david cox at the last roadshow? the mro's in asia all perform to the same high standard of what we do and they are not dodgy and qantas management would never sacrifice quality of work for a cost saving at an asian MRO. we are mediocre in the grand scheme of things. we have nothing on these massive chinese MRO's. just ask david.
Difference between the work getting done inhouse or overseas...
We (the diligent engineers belonging to qantas) have no financial incentive to skip over required work and get a check over and done with as quickly as possible, BUT , they (overseas contracted mro's ) have every reason to reduce the actual manpower expended and fudge the figures because they make more money out of it.
And what's more is they get a good quality A/c to work on. They operators overseas cant believe that the aircraft they get are as old as they are (courtesy of us diligent engineers).
They are used to brand new aircraft and do their inspections to the same standard and the older planes they work on are frieghters.Those that know an ageing fleet know where to look to pick up the problems and that is what qf is throwing away.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: oz
Age: 53
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judging the response to a simple statement it appears that the new barrackers will be super sensative to any criticism of the new Executive.
They obviously will be beyond reproach for the honeymoon period of tenure that will last for how long?
If a new group of executives should win office with such an overwhelming voter support you'd think that the new guys would at least have a message to the loyalists.
The election is well and truly over and resoundly won but the new incumbents professing to be great communicators have not published a word.
I'd have thought the new professionals would have at the very least a pre-prepared message of confidence to the members on the Association site.
Nothing.. Even politicans when they gain office have something to state as they take the office.
This is a new load that the newly elected Exectutives must bear and it is not from the outside.
Welcome to scrutiny and enjoy.
By the way I am not a former member of the exectutive but an investor with a certain amount of cynicism that expects the people that have taken the Bexley office for the Members First.
They obviously will be beyond reproach for the honeymoon period of tenure that will last for how long?
If a new group of executives should win office with such an overwhelming voter support you'd think that the new guys would at least have a message to the loyalists.
The election is well and truly over and resoundly won but the new incumbents professing to be great communicators have not published a word.
I'd have thought the new professionals would have at the very least a pre-prepared message of confidence to the members on the Association site.
Nothing.. Even politicans when they gain office have something to state as they take the office.
This is a new load that the newly elected Exectutives must bear and it is not from the outside.
Welcome to scrutiny and enjoy.
By the way I am not a former member of the exectutive but an investor with a certain amount of cynicism that expects the people that have taken the Bexley office for the Members First.
