Qantas A380 - LAME positions.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure there is no desperation to get an A380 lic, it will come as did the 744, 767 and now 330. A split now is just a management wet dream, it won't happen again.
Together we stand, divided we wouldn't consider!
Together we stand, divided we wouldn't consider!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
short cct I wish it were true but I know one or 2 who will imho ignore the directive if the carrot is dangled.
anyway its off to the commission where if they have any ticker they'll be forced to follow the agreed policy just the same as we would have to.
anyway its off to the commission where if they have any ticker they'll be forced to follow the agreed policy just the same as we would have to.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a surprise to have management go back on their word.
If the new rumours are true the Base Ops Managers are not going let any more than 8 leave base maint.
Followed by the next rumour that base employees might be marked below what they deserve to artificially deflate their scores so that they dont lose the cream to team 380. I find this one a bit hard to swallow but hey, this is ACS and anything is possible.
So what happens if this whole flawed process does drag out, it is going to cause issues with the successful candidates who need to go to Brisbane for conversion training, but if they have already chosen who they want this wont be an issue.
If the new rumours are true the Base Ops Managers are not going let any more than 8 leave base maint.
Followed by the next rumour that base employees might be marked below what they deserve to artificially deflate their scores so that they dont lose the cream to team 380. I find this one a bit hard to swallow but hey, this is ACS and anything is possible.
So what happens if this whole flawed process does drag out, it is going to cause issues with the successful candidates who need to go to Brisbane for conversion training, but if they have already chosen who they want this wont be an issue.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonny V
As I alluded to before, the A380 criteria process was MEL centric . I tried to find out information about the selection process not one SYD based ALAEA rep or Exec had anything to say until after a formal meeting was held in SYD, well after the fact. When I asked why, I was greeted with screwed faces and mutterings. The reason to keep the A380 selection process quiet may have been to keep the scuttlebutt to a minimum but IMHO the characters I spoke to seemed peeved that they would have to answer to the members in SYD and were not involved in the criteria process.
the rim
Myself and many more would agree with you Rim but this is where we may need to tread carefully.
Currently there is no "real" (PPR) performance based review or rating of personnel in engineering therefore QF management have no bone fide way of rating people other than the old school method.(rumour matey club feed back etc)
If we (the union) demand the A380 selection criteria without any interview or current skill base requirements in the selection process.
The company may demand in the IRC (Fair Work Aust) that a management managed/controlled PPR system be installed to allow a "rated" selection process in the future.
A PPR system is probably something that should be instituted and in times of peace would be beneficial to all parties IF administered well. A big IF
BUT
in times like the unpleasantness of 2008 with M and his Hench men at the helm imagine your review points if you did not tow the company (M) line of thinking or worse still you could be PPR ed out the door perfectly legally if part of company policy.
Next question is does the ALAEA let the selection process slip to protect all the members rights against a new PPR process or fight for the current selection process and give the company the ammunition make changes that could affect all in the future.
I don't submit this as a conspiracy hatched out by management but it would be how I would take on the association on this matter. If I can think of this having a beer and mag with mates on a Friday night I am sure the people whom are paid to think up this stuff already have.
Off topic and a bit out side the square.
My 2 cents
If it wasn't for some twit in IR we'd be picking the right men for the job not having to consult the union at all. As for the Melbourne mafia setting the criteria who knows but I would have thought your whole stupid executive would've put in their penny’s worth being the top notchers they are
29th July 2009 13:44
29th July 2009 13:44
the rim
lets face it you should get selected by what you do at work and how you perform...ie if you are the biggest bludger and don’t know anything why should get training before someone who gets in there and does the work ....
Currently there is no "real" (PPR) performance based review or rating of personnel in engineering therefore QF management have no bone fide way of rating people other than the old school method.(rumour matey club feed back etc)
If we (the union) demand the A380 selection criteria without any interview or current skill base requirements in the selection process.
The company may demand in the IRC (Fair Work Aust) that a management managed/controlled PPR system be installed to allow a "rated" selection process in the future.
A PPR system is probably something that should be instituted and in times of peace would be beneficial to all parties IF administered well. A big IF
BUT
in times like the unpleasantness of 2008 with M and his Hench men at the helm imagine your review points if you did not tow the company (M) line of thinking or worse still you could be PPR ed out the door perfectly legally if part of company policy.
Next question is does the ALAEA let the selection process slip to protect all the members rights against a new PPR process or fight for the current selection process and give the company the ammunition make changes that could affect all in the future.
I don't submit this as a conspiracy hatched out by management but it would be how I would take on the association on this matter. If I can think of this having a beer and mag with mates on a Friday night I am sure the people whom are paid to think up this stuff already have.
Off topic and a bit out side the square.
My 2 cents
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest problem in our area is that the only people who know who performs well and should be on-trained are SOME supervisors (those who give a dam), and the LAME's who work with them. management and People morons (or what ever they call themselves this week) have absolutely no idea what goes on day to day.
The under desk bangers, who vanish from the work site to suck up anyone, join any committee to suck harder, are the usual suspects to be advanced while the true workers are hard at the task of fixing aircraft and covering for the head bangers.
Enough is enough. We must fix the problem now. It starts with A380 selection..... Take them to FWA.
The under desk bangers, who vanish from the work site to suck up anyone, join any committee to suck harder, are the usual suspects to be advanced while the true workers are hard at the task of fixing aircraft and covering for the head bangers.
Enough is enough. We must fix the problem now. It starts with A380 selection..... Take them to FWA.
Last edited by Short_Circuit; 9th Aug 2009 at 01:40.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short Circuit, you've nailed exactly what happens in my airline too.
We don't get the 380 or 787 for a couple of years yet but already theres some manouvering going on from the usual suspects.
What they don't understand, as pointed out above, is that these aircraft will soon age and become the norm just like the 777 has and the novelty will soon wear off.
I feel for you
We don't get the 380 or 787 for a couple of years yet but already theres some manouvering going on from the usual suspects.
What they don't understand, as pointed out above, is that these aircraft will soon age and become the norm just like the 777 has and the novelty will soon wear off.
I feel for you
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so around we go again. what worries me is know i have a leading hand who also has applied for the A380 that now will be rating myself and two other on his crew. fair and equitable i ask ? holding my breath.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so around we go again. what worries me is know i have a leading hand who also has applied for the A380 that now will be rating myself and two other on his crew. fair and equitable i ask ? holding my breath.
I don't think it is over yet, a few cards up the sleeve to be played
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orstraylia
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How unusual
As I alluded to before, the A380 criteria process was MEL centric
Sorry but had to point that out for you that particullary in engineering there is constant QF SYD centric policy and procedure rammed down the rest of the networks throats that isn't necessarily for the better and in the past a lot of ALAEA policy was very SYD centric.
Taking cover now!
BTW the rest of the post I agree with.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the issue? Is the CSC an improvement on the suck to rise policy.
Is it a better policy than currently in place? I think so.
Is it fairer? I think so.
The concerns of the so called useless people "unsuitable" for training being selected due time since last course factor? Well this only happens if they apply, and their natural tendencies of avoiding responsibility would reduce their interest and likely hood anyway especially for such difficult training. If they do what's the difference to now?
I certainly don't see a larger proportion of deadwood in the mix. Probably less.
So for the "Life's About Me" Lame's, struggling on a full compliment of recent training, get a grip,your biggest concern is now is how to spend the payments you are already receiving whilst others wait for training and deserve a shot. Bummer you have to share eh!
I would anticipate any course selection criteria of this nature for current types and in normal situations in the future would be by crew/section groupings which would obviate some of the bizarre concerns raised over this special in more ways than one A380 situation
Forward with fairness, share the love.
Is it a better policy than currently in place? I think so.
Is it fairer? I think so.
The concerns of the so called useless people "unsuitable" for training being selected due time since last course factor? Well this only happens if they apply, and their natural tendencies of avoiding responsibility would reduce their interest and likely hood anyway especially for such difficult training. If they do what's the difference to now?
I certainly don't see a larger proportion of deadwood in the mix. Probably less.
So for the "Life's About Me" Lame's, struggling on a full compliment of recent training, get a grip,your biggest concern is now is how to spend the payments you are already receiving whilst others wait for training and deserve a shot. Bummer you have to share eh!
I would anticipate any course selection criteria of this nature for current types and in normal situations in the future would be by crew/section groupings which would obviate some of the bizarre concerns raised over this special in more ways than one A380 situation
Forward with fairness, share the love.
Last edited by rudderless1; 12th Aug 2009 at 06:36. Reason: Middle eastern spelling issues!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well rudderless1 i do agree with your post,but we have all forgotten about the graded wage structure now the lower grade lame's who are not getting any training are advancing every four years without training they are now reaping the benefits of a system that most poo pooed when it was introduced and lets face it most people dont get training every four years
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to recollect and comment-
I for one "poo pooed" the system at the time and still do.
The graded structure failed on its key point of recognising "experience" in the industry, which was intended to be essentially time as a LAME (even though still a lacking and crude method but far superior than everyone starting in 1997) was sold for 2% payrise and with a 50% vote!
Rim you forget also the two grades the great new system cost "new LAME's" so whilst these newbies may now be finally equalising due to cappings but the volumes of cash lost in the period short paid will still take some time to recover.
This structure also discourages people to leave and mature their skills or live elsewhere and come back. Quit restrictive and discriminatory really.
How many years should an old LAME be paid a premium before the young catches his benefit. Ie when do they peak? This is where the issue is more about d1ck size than anything else. Is it that bad being capped at level 12 or 13 with options for training. If it was about levels and cash Team A380, or various senior levels bypass the cappings!
The graded wage structure is a loyalty system, not much else really. That's what was voted for in 1997. The pitfalls were seen then and the LAME's that voted for it and creamed at the start at the cost to the new are now copping it in the end. (sorry for the freudian slip)! Fairs fair.
I don't think it benefits the company nor the skill base but they wanted it. GWS deters talent from applying and deadwood from leaving.
Sorry for the thread drift.
CSC is one step toward improving the system fairness, a new pay structure that recognises experience and encourages training and stimulates the idle would be another.
I for one "poo pooed" the system at the time and still do.
The graded structure failed on its key point of recognising "experience" in the industry, which was intended to be essentially time as a LAME (even though still a lacking and crude method but far superior than everyone starting in 1997) was sold for 2% payrise and with a 50% vote!
Rim you forget also the two grades the great new system cost "new LAME's" so whilst these newbies may now be finally equalising due to cappings but the volumes of cash lost in the period short paid will still take some time to recover.
This structure also discourages people to leave and mature their skills or live elsewhere and come back. Quit restrictive and discriminatory really.
How many years should an old LAME be paid a premium before the young catches his benefit. Ie when do they peak? This is where the issue is more about d1ck size than anything else. Is it that bad being capped at level 12 or 13 with options for training.
If it was about levels and cash Team A380, or various senior levels bypass the cappings!The graded wage structure is a loyalty system, not much else really. That's what was voted for in 1997. The pitfalls were seen then and the LAME's that voted for it and creamed at the start at the cost to the new are now copping it in the end. (sorry for the freudian slip)! Fairs fair.
I don't think it benefits the company nor the skill base but they wanted it. GWS deters talent from applying and deadwood from leaving.
Sorry for the thread drift.
CSC is one step toward improving the system fairness, a new pay structure that recognises experience and encourages training and stimulates the idle would be another.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well the scores are in. Let the games begin, basically if you have sat on your hands for the past eight years then congratulations, You have made the seventy five people who will now be drawn from a hat for the twenty or so positions. let us now ponder will the same criteria be used for future vr/cr, will it be used when sio overstaffed move to base/sdo, will it be used as a performance appraisal tool.will it know be used for all future training ? ie, sio A330/737new/gen which is about to start.
well done to the succesful candidates.
well done to the succesful candidates.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This new system is absolute crap as most people seem to agree. If they use this system for all future training then most of us will be at a loss. I am glad the old matey system is going but this new ALAEA (melbourne centric) system is not fair end equitable.
Just because you have not had training for 8 years means you get a 25 point head start. It doesn't matter that the person is not the most driven or motivated, it doesnt matter if that person uses sick leave for annual leave, it doesnt matter if that person has been a cluster ph*%k for the past 10 years. Just as long as they havent been trained they get a head start.
And then we have the problem of inconsistent scoring. If it is true that the SIT seniors are using the union preferred scoring system of 4 and 5s then this is not a true representation of the individual being scored which is just crap.
The only way around this is for all the unsuccessful applicants to submit a grievance and hopefully this will send a message to the powers that be.
I know that this system is endorsed by the ALAEA but they need to take a good look at what they asked for as most of the members af far from happy with it.
Just because you have not had training for 8 years means you get a 25 point head start. It doesn't matter that the person is not the most driven or motivated, it doesnt matter if that person uses sick leave for annual leave, it doesnt matter if that person has been a cluster ph*%k for the past 10 years. Just as long as they havent been trained they get a head start.
And then we have the problem of inconsistent scoring. If it is true that the SIT seniors are using the union preferred scoring system of 4 and 5s then this is not a true representation of the individual being scored which is just crap.
The only way around this is for all the unsuccessful applicants to submit a grievance and hopefully this will send a message to the powers that be.
I know that this system is endorsed by the ALAEA but they need to take a good look at what they asked for as most of the members af far from happy with it.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a worker from mel I can tell you that this so called mel centric course selection criteria was not well liked or well received process! And as another superlame mentioned it was an alaea agreed/conceived process .It penalises anyone one who is keen and wants to get ahead by buying a type course,and looks after someone who sits on their hands not putting any input in with the magic 25 points!
And for the union to push the 4/5 scoring on the rest of the questions for everyone,leaves no room for anyone obtain a competitive score.So are they really that blind to think that all LAME'S are the same??
Also why is it all a big deal now that syd is involved? noone was concerned when mel was being put through this process?
And for the union to push the 4/5 scoring on the rest of the questions for everyone,leaves no room for anyone obtain a competitive score.So are they really that blind to think that all LAME'S are the same??
Also why is it all a big deal now that syd is involved? noone was concerned when mel was being put through this process?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
read my previous post about boofheads getting training before people who have the drive and know how ....aka the graded wage is good for the boofheads...this system by the alaea is flawed ...do not take bolt ons into account as they are not anywhere near a full payment and as for the person doing an outside course well the old school alaea[mel] frowned upon anyone doing external training as it negated QF's ability to maintain the upkeep of lame numbers....yes i know that the GWS is not so good for the line guys but for heavy guys only working on one or two types it dilivers a pay increase over a number of years and they would have not got that in the old system
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of curiosity - would you guys prefer a system were the company just picks who they want/has interviews to decide who gets trained?
Do LAMEs think that the ones who have not been trained for a long period of time should have an advantage or is it better that they have to lobby for a course along with those who have had ample training?
Have any of you ever missed out on a course in the past because you weren't in "the club"?
ALAEA Exec is meeting tomorrow and Wednesday, all these matters will be discussed so please provide feedback over tonight and tomorrow.
Do LAMEs think that the ones who have not been trained for a long period of time should have an advantage or is it better that they have to lobby for a course along with those who have had ample training?
Have any of you ever missed out on a course in the past because you weren't in "the club"?
ALAEA Exec is meeting tomorrow and Wednesday, all these matters will be discussed so please provide feedback over tonight and tomorrow.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have missed out on a course because my father wasnt the Duty Engineer or because I didn't go boating or golfing with the Leading Hand or foreman, so yes I agree that we needed a better system but I don't think this new one is the one.
Too often in this company you get nowhere from showing initiative and once again this is the case. The whole scoring system is open to abuse and misinterpretation so at the end of the day it seems that is is going to come down to time since last course.
This I believe disadvantages those members who have never done a company course. Yes I know that they are better off than those whose courses have not been recognised ,but why not have an extra concession for those who put in their own time effort and funds to further their careers.
This new system also doesn't recognise those individuals who have put in the time and effort to study and attain their cross trade basics. A lot of guys have down the extra work hoping it will give them a leg up to team 380.
The initial selection criteria for team 380 was an MA or cross trade basics as minimum to even get a foot in the door. Although it is widely known that the manager of the day could bypass this step and select the faces he wanted, so in seeing that the way forward is cross trade basics some driven individuals have gotten some or all of these thinking it will would surely help come EOI time.
But this is not the case, the goalposts have been moved again and no-one has been told.
So at the end of the day yes there is a new system in place to overcome a lot of the historical course selection problems, but will it work and will the outcomes be any different from the status quo?
I doubt it and going by the talk at the jetbase most other people feel the same.
Fed Sec I hope this is adequate feedback.
Too often in this company you get nowhere from showing initiative and once again this is the case. The whole scoring system is open to abuse and misinterpretation so at the end of the day it seems that is is going to come down to time since last course.
This I believe disadvantages those members who have never done a company course. Yes I know that they are better off than those whose courses have not been recognised ,but why not have an extra concession for those who put in their own time effort and funds to further their careers.
This new system also doesn't recognise those individuals who have put in the time and effort to study and attain their cross trade basics. A lot of guys have down the extra work hoping it will give them a leg up to team 380.
The initial selection criteria for team 380 was an MA or cross trade basics as minimum to even get a foot in the door. Although it is widely known that the manager of the day could bypass this step and select the faces he wanted, so in seeing that the way forward is cross trade basics some driven individuals have gotten some or all of these thinking it will would surely help come EOI time.
But this is not the case, the goalposts have been moved again and no-one has been told.
So at the end of the day yes there is a new system in place to overcome a lot of the historical course selection problems, but will it work and will the outcomes be any different from the status quo?
I doubt it and going by the talk at the jetbase most other people feel the same.
Fed Sec I hope this is adequate feedback.
Last edited by another superlame; 17th Aug 2009 at 11:55. Reason: grammatical