Qf LAME EBA Negotiations Begin
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Pity City
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've got Company
Another 9000 Qantas staff are now officially disengaged as TWU members (Refuellers, Catering, Baggage handlers, etc) head towards PIA.
Now lets see, what is the common cause for 30,000 of Qantas' staff to be indispute? Could it possibly be (mis)management!
Now lets see, what is the common cause for 30,000 of Qantas' staff to be indispute? Could it possibly be (mis)management!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards to CN's letter, the money he's throwing around to fix up the sess pit they call the jet base etc, seem's to have been approved fairly quickly. At the end of the day it's all about money, I think the reno's to our facilities around Australia would outdo our 3% plus a few bonus offerings. Not that I don't appreciate the improvements. But, sorry Chris heard it all before!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to the painting at the jet base, I suspect it's to do with compliance to the impending EASA aligned reg's. The existing facilities fall a long way short of what is expected ( Required! ) under the new system.
Although it could be because, as happens in Real Estate, a quick paint job before you sell!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Something else to consider is the lack of overtime at the Jet Base at the moment. Just when it seemed there was a shortage of staff and the workload was begining to back up, it's all gone away, even the part timers are not getting much of a look in.
Maybe it's to do with the recent extention of the flying times between 'A Checks'. Clever in one way but when you consider the Boeing fleet are now fast approaching 20 years old (some are already over 20 years old), is it actualy a good move?
I'm not so sure the punters would be impressed............or even the crews...
Although it could be because, as happens in Real Estate, a quick paint job before you sell!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Something else to consider is the lack of overtime at the Jet Base at the moment. Just when it seemed there was a shortage of staff and the workload was begining to back up, it's all gone away, even the part timers are not getting much of a look in.
Maybe it's to do with the recent extention of the flying times between 'A Checks'. Clever in one way but when you consider the Boeing fleet are now fast approaching 20 years old (some are already over 20 years old), is it actualy a good move?
I'm not so sure the punters would be impressed............or even the crews...
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Pity City
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom
The ALAEA isn't an institution that comes and seeks you out crying into your beer at the local derro. 
If you aren't getting enough support from the ALAEA kick the local rep up the a$$. If you don't have a rep, get off your backside and do something!
Don't blame Qantas because it has active reps (and LAMEs for that matter).
If you aren't getting enough support from the ALAEA kick the local rep up the a$$. If you don't have a rep, get off your backside and do something! Don't blame Qantas because it has active reps (and LAMEs for that matter).
Attend a meeting!!
Jet a1,your suggestion is brilliant-CN should attend a meeting himself & then report back to us all(management & employees) with the same letter so that we all know what each other is being told & what his thoughts are.
He wants us to believe he is a fair guy & we can give him that opportunity & in return we will also be fair to him.
Just as a 2nd point-if an offer is imminent,let him be a bit more specific & put a time frame on it.He tells us he wants to make progress and find a solution without disruption-WELL,SO DO WE.
If he is prepared to write that an offer is imminent,he must have an in depth knowledge of how close it is-share it with us & if it is reasonable & fair-PROBLEM SOLVED.
He wants us to believe he is a fair guy & we can give him that opportunity & in return we will also be fair to him.
Just as a 2nd point-if an offer is imminent,let him be a bit more specific & put a time frame on it.He tells us he wants to make progress and find a solution without disruption-WELL,SO DO WE.
If he is prepared to write that an offer is imminent,he must have an in depth knowledge of how close it is-share it with us & if it is reasonable & fair-PROBLEM SOLVED.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest notice - comprehensive and alot of food for thought.
Over the last week we have been contacted by a number of members who are either unable to view the YouTube updates or are unclear of our collective objectives as we work towards a new Qantas LAME Agreement. The result of this EA will flow directly to Forstaff employed LAMEs through the parity clause therefore they have been included in this notice for information purposes.
The ALAEA committee submitted claims with Qantas at the first EA meetings in 2010. The list was comprehensive and based on member feedback at the time. As negotiations have progressed, discussions have focussed on two areas of our claims, wages and job security. As of today, no offer has been made by Qantas for the negotiating team to consider. Communication sent by Qantas management has indicated that an offer is imminent, however we view this with some suspicion.
Members would be aware that a PIA ballot will be underway within days, and it may be the case that Qantas drops an offer on the table that appears tempting on the surface but is missing the detail and/or job security protections we are seeking. It is of utmost importance that members support a PIA campaign regardless of any preliminary offers made by the company to settle. It could be that they offer a nice wage incentive to sign up without the job security clauses and, in our view, doubling LAME wages would be pointless if you soon don’t have a job.
I now intend to go into some detail regarding the wages and job security portions of our claims but remind members that there are other areas of work such as the return of salary sacrifice computers and some staff travel issues that are also being discussed.
Job Security
Without doubt this is our number one priority. Since our last success there has been much work undertaken by Qantas, both visible and behind the scenes, to implement an aggressive industrial agenda designed to erode employee influence and security. The ALAEA will not take an acquiescent approach to Qantas and its “Engineering vision” which has, in the past, led to the closure of the Sydney Heavy Maintenance facility and Engine and Component overhaul shops. To understand where Qantas wants its business to be in 5-10 years cannot be established by reading employee engagement notices issued just prior to employees considering PIA. We have verified our concerns based on the message being sent to the business world and real feedback we are receiving both directly from management and other parties that deal with them. They include:
Some comments by Chris Nassenstein November 2010 to Aviation Week –
Nassenstein: We have almost none now. It was before my time, but a labour dispute caused the airline to really review the cost/benefit of doing third-party work, and the carrier came to the conclusion that it was actually more expensive than it thought. I am not sure that we'll stick with that decision, there are definite benefits with doing third-party work in line maintenance, but we'll have to convince the marketplace that we can offer a stable labour environment. We are not looking for any at the moment, though.
Nassenstein: I think we always need to be open to that. In the long term, as aircraft leave the fleet and as new aircraft come in, they will require less maintenance. Attaining critical mass, particularly with heavy maintenance, is going to be more and more of a challenge. In order to get a fleet size to justify doing heavy maintenance, you need to look at JVs as a way of cooperating.
I would say our long-term trend for widebody aircraft is probably more toward outsourcing heavy maintenance.
Nassenstein: We're evaluating GoldCare. We've had meetings with Boeing on that quite recently, so we're going through that process at the moment.
Nassenstein: In the long term, I would say it will probably mean a smaller but more specialized and higher-trained group of engineers. That will be a difficult process, but we have to be a bit realistic. Number one, we don't have the monopoly on quality, and number two, the modern fleet going forward is going to require less maintenance.
A lot has been said by some Qantas managers about the attempts made to source third party work however behind the scenes members report that the Reps from other operators such as Thai and Atlas have advised them that they have either accepted contract prices from Qantas only to have Qantas withdraw their contract or that they are having no success even getting a quote in the first place. We confronted Gavin Harris about this at an EA meeting and he remained adamant that they were doing all they could to secure third party work. He was later contradicted by another manager who confirmed that Qantas were turning customers away. The key protections we are seeking for job security are described below along with the Qantas responses.
Line Maintenance
In the current agreement we have a clause to retain our existing job functions. We are seeking that clause be enhanced by describing the functions the clause refers to. In particular we want listed matters related to aircraft handling and the carrying out of pre-flight safety checks. When presented with this claim Qantas explained that they wanted to “keep the options open” and went on to explain the benefits of exploring opportunities such as a LAME on demand system they are developing. In our view LAME on demand sounds like a system to make LAMEs redundant so the airline can be converted to a low cost model.
We have also sought to protect Avionic LAME work on IFE systems by locking in training, manpower and certification ability on both the Panasonic and Rockwell systems. This is being discussed as Qantas seeks to further outsource these functions to third parties.
Cat A licences are now allowable under CASA Regulations. The ALAEA is concerned that mass introduction of these part licences will remove the requirement to have proper fully licenced LAMEs working their existing roles. Our claim is for no Cat A licences to be utilised by the airline during the life of the Agreement except for Avionic LAMEs to do their existing pre-flight checks and subsequent certification.
Heavy Maintenance
Firstly I would like members to consider the moves both past and future by Qantas regarding Joint Ventures. In all cases, a Joint Venture has led to work previously carried out in house being handed to other companies for the sole purpose of doing it cheaper. The “Joint Venture” involves the other party supplying cheaper labour and Qantas supplying work. In doing so Qantas loses direct control of both the quality of work and availability of the parts or aircraft being worked by the third party. We are unaware of any recent joint venture that has led to the other parties supplying work to Qantas to take advantage of the engineering excellence the workforce has developed.
With the Nassenstein model of more outsourced work, we say that it is crucial for our future to retain in-house ability to carry out heavy checks on new aircraft as they arrive. Upon us now are the A380 C checks and so long as management continue to erode existing facilities at the current rate, we will never have a chance of winning a bid for this work. Securing it is vital for those Qantas LAMEs employed in heavy facilities, particularly those at Avalon who face a declining 747 workload as the aircraft acquire parking spots in a Californian desert. Our claim is for a hangar, training and staff ready and available to carry out these checks.
With the prevalence of contract arrangements being increasingly used by Australian companies including the Qantas group, we are also demanding protection to prevent our jobs from being undercut by individuals or labour hire groups offering to do the work for less money. It would be farcical to think we could negotiate our wage rates, lock them into a binding legal contract (our EA) only to see Qantas cut another arrangement with another group to sidestep our Agreement. The claim is that any contract arrangement entered into by Qantas must offer the same or better wages and conditions as negotiated in the EA we are currently discussing. This clause is a must to protect the job security of employees to be covered by the Agreement.
Wages
The ALAEA has proposed substantive changes to the current graded structure. We have, since its inception, struggled with quotas, restrictions, low starting salaries and the constant reluctance of the airline to train because each course is measured in an ongoing financial sense. With the Nassenstein
vision of a smaller but higher qualified group of Engineers, we assume that model may work for them if training is continually fed to those already capped out. In our view that is unacceptable.
What we have sought in a new model is –
• 2 points per year of service
• No payment for future training
• 3 new levels
• No quotas or restrictions
• A380 to come back within the system
• 3% pa rise to wages and allowances
Being paid two points per year is an expensive claim. This, however, is almost entirely offset by the non-payment of training and based on reasonable new licence acquisitions; our figures put the total cost of this portion of our claim at 3.11% pa.
There are two key transitional issues that our Executive is currently discussing. We (the committee) are satisfied that all outstanding unusable service points could not be used in the new system to automatically jump several levels should it come in. We understand that some members feel that they have earned these points and they should be retained but the benefits of accelerated progression and lifting of quotas would far outweigh the desire of members to hang on to unusable points that mean nothing in the current system. The result if it is accepted by the company would be equal progression from where members sit today at a rate of a level every second year. The outcome therefore would be equitable to all and would not represent a union who is fighting to advance one portion of the membership over another.
The other translation issue involves the handling of past customer course training. This matter is complex with some members in certain bases being paid, others not and the prospect of A320 and 777 aircraft returning to the handling list. No decisions have been made by our committee regarding this matter and it will be discussed at length should the need arise into the future.
The other two wage claims relate to increases in Senior LAME payments in line with increased responsibilities and the payment of wages in an aggregate wage format. The aggregate wage (or annualised salary) was a previous commitment given by the company in 1998 and never honoured. In our view, any calculations of our claim that include the cost of an aggregate wage should not be taken into account, rather the company should see this as a large saving they have made already by not introducing it when it was due.
Getting an outcome this time around will not be simple. We expect Qantas to fight tooth and nail to defend its right to dismantle the Qantas Engineering business whilst still publically saying that they would never compromise safety. The managers behind this, in most cases, have been with the business for less time than our average member and do not intend to hang around to see the carnage they will leave behind. Most of them have probably already applied for jobs at the railways.
Be assured the ALAEA will not exercise the right of Protected Industrial Action unless it is absolutely necessary. If we do so it will be done for a good cause and only after negotiation has been given every opportunity of success. Our claims are a work in progress and can only succeed with your support. Without approval in the upcoming ballot, we won’t even stand a chance of successfully negotiating. Feel free to send me an email should you have any further questions.
STEVE PURVINAS
Federal Secretary
For all those who want Nassy at EA meetings - make no mistake, he is an architect of our present and futureless system.
Over the last week we have been contacted by a number of members who are either unable to view the YouTube updates or are unclear of our collective objectives as we work towards a new Qantas LAME Agreement. The result of this EA will flow directly to Forstaff employed LAMEs through the parity clause therefore they have been included in this notice for information purposes.
The ALAEA committee submitted claims with Qantas at the first EA meetings in 2010. The list was comprehensive and based on member feedback at the time. As negotiations have progressed, discussions have focussed on two areas of our claims, wages and job security. As of today, no offer has been made by Qantas for the negotiating team to consider. Communication sent by Qantas management has indicated that an offer is imminent, however we view this with some suspicion.
Members would be aware that a PIA ballot will be underway within days, and it may be the case that Qantas drops an offer on the table that appears tempting on the surface but is missing the detail and/or job security protections we are seeking. It is of utmost importance that members support a PIA campaign regardless of any preliminary offers made by the company to settle. It could be that they offer a nice wage incentive to sign up without the job security clauses and, in our view, doubling LAME wages would be pointless if you soon don’t have a job.
I now intend to go into some detail regarding the wages and job security portions of our claims but remind members that there are other areas of work such as the return of salary sacrifice computers and some staff travel issues that are also being discussed.
Job Security
Without doubt this is our number one priority. Since our last success there has been much work undertaken by Qantas, both visible and behind the scenes, to implement an aggressive industrial agenda designed to erode employee influence and security. The ALAEA will not take an acquiescent approach to Qantas and its “Engineering vision” which has, in the past, led to the closure of the Sydney Heavy Maintenance facility and Engine and Component overhaul shops. To understand where Qantas wants its business to be in 5-10 years cannot be established by reading employee engagement notices issued just prior to employees considering PIA. We have verified our concerns based on the message being sent to the business world and real feedback we are receiving both directly from management and other parties that deal with them. They include:
Some comments by Chris Nassenstein November 2010 to Aviation Week –
Nassenstein: We have almost none now. It was before my time, but a labour dispute caused the airline to really review the cost/benefit of doing third-party work, and the carrier came to the conclusion that it was actually more expensive than it thought. I am not sure that we'll stick with that decision, there are definite benefits with doing third-party work in line maintenance, but we'll have to convince the marketplace that we can offer a stable labour environment. We are not looking for any at the moment, though.
Nassenstein: I think we always need to be open to that. In the long term, as aircraft leave the fleet and as new aircraft come in, they will require less maintenance. Attaining critical mass, particularly with heavy maintenance, is going to be more and more of a challenge. In order to get a fleet size to justify doing heavy maintenance, you need to look at JVs as a way of cooperating.
I would say our long-term trend for widebody aircraft is probably more toward outsourcing heavy maintenance.
Nassenstein: We're evaluating GoldCare. We've had meetings with Boeing on that quite recently, so we're going through that process at the moment.
Nassenstein: In the long term, I would say it will probably mean a smaller but more specialized and higher-trained group of engineers. That will be a difficult process, but we have to be a bit realistic. Number one, we don't have the monopoly on quality, and number two, the modern fleet going forward is going to require less maintenance.
A lot has been said by some Qantas managers about the attempts made to source third party work however behind the scenes members report that the Reps from other operators such as Thai and Atlas have advised them that they have either accepted contract prices from Qantas only to have Qantas withdraw their contract or that they are having no success even getting a quote in the first place. We confronted Gavin Harris about this at an EA meeting and he remained adamant that they were doing all they could to secure third party work. He was later contradicted by another manager who confirmed that Qantas were turning customers away. The key protections we are seeking for job security are described below along with the Qantas responses.
Line Maintenance
In the current agreement we have a clause to retain our existing job functions. We are seeking that clause be enhanced by describing the functions the clause refers to. In particular we want listed matters related to aircraft handling and the carrying out of pre-flight safety checks. When presented with this claim Qantas explained that they wanted to “keep the options open” and went on to explain the benefits of exploring opportunities such as a LAME on demand system they are developing. In our view LAME on demand sounds like a system to make LAMEs redundant so the airline can be converted to a low cost model.
We have also sought to protect Avionic LAME work on IFE systems by locking in training, manpower and certification ability on both the Panasonic and Rockwell systems. This is being discussed as Qantas seeks to further outsource these functions to third parties.
Cat A licences are now allowable under CASA Regulations. The ALAEA is concerned that mass introduction of these part licences will remove the requirement to have proper fully licenced LAMEs working their existing roles. Our claim is for no Cat A licences to be utilised by the airline during the life of the Agreement except for Avionic LAMEs to do their existing pre-flight checks and subsequent certification.
Heavy Maintenance
Firstly I would like members to consider the moves both past and future by Qantas regarding Joint Ventures. In all cases, a Joint Venture has led to work previously carried out in house being handed to other companies for the sole purpose of doing it cheaper. The “Joint Venture” involves the other party supplying cheaper labour and Qantas supplying work. In doing so Qantas loses direct control of both the quality of work and availability of the parts or aircraft being worked by the third party. We are unaware of any recent joint venture that has led to the other parties supplying work to Qantas to take advantage of the engineering excellence the workforce has developed.
With the Nassenstein model of more outsourced work, we say that it is crucial for our future to retain in-house ability to carry out heavy checks on new aircraft as they arrive. Upon us now are the A380 C checks and so long as management continue to erode existing facilities at the current rate, we will never have a chance of winning a bid for this work. Securing it is vital for those Qantas LAMEs employed in heavy facilities, particularly those at Avalon who face a declining 747 workload as the aircraft acquire parking spots in a Californian desert. Our claim is for a hangar, training and staff ready and available to carry out these checks.
With the prevalence of contract arrangements being increasingly used by Australian companies including the Qantas group, we are also demanding protection to prevent our jobs from being undercut by individuals or labour hire groups offering to do the work for less money. It would be farcical to think we could negotiate our wage rates, lock them into a binding legal contract (our EA) only to see Qantas cut another arrangement with another group to sidestep our Agreement. The claim is that any contract arrangement entered into by Qantas must offer the same or better wages and conditions as negotiated in the EA we are currently discussing. This clause is a must to protect the job security of employees to be covered by the Agreement.
Wages
The ALAEA has proposed substantive changes to the current graded structure. We have, since its inception, struggled with quotas, restrictions, low starting salaries and the constant reluctance of the airline to train because each course is measured in an ongoing financial sense. With the Nassenstein
vision of a smaller but higher qualified group of Engineers, we assume that model may work for them if training is continually fed to those already capped out. In our view that is unacceptable.
What we have sought in a new model is –
• 2 points per year of service
• No payment for future training
• 3 new levels
• No quotas or restrictions
• A380 to come back within the system
• 3% pa rise to wages and allowances
Being paid two points per year is an expensive claim. This, however, is almost entirely offset by the non-payment of training and based on reasonable new licence acquisitions; our figures put the total cost of this portion of our claim at 3.11% pa.
There are two key transitional issues that our Executive is currently discussing. We (the committee) are satisfied that all outstanding unusable service points could not be used in the new system to automatically jump several levels should it come in. We understand that some members feel that they have earned these points and they should be retained but the benefits of accelerated progression and lifting of quotas would far outweigh the desire of members to hang on to unusable points that mean nothing in the current system. The result if it is accepted by the company would be equal progression from where members sit today at a rate of a level every second year. The outcome therefore would be equitable to all and would not represent a union who is fighting to advance one portion of the membership over another.
The other translation issue involves the handling of past customer course training. This matter is complex with some members in certain bases being paid, others not and the prospect of A320 and 777 aircraft returning to the handling list. No decisions have been made by our committee regarding this matter and it will be discussed at length should the need arise into the future.
The other two wage claims relate to increases in Senior LAME payments in line with increased responsibilities and the payment of wages in an aggregate wage format. The aggregate wage (or annualised salary) was a previous commitment given by the company in 1998 and never honoured. In our view, any calculations of our claim that include the cost of an aggregate wage should not be taken into account, rather the company should see this as a large saving they have made already by not introducing it when it was due.
Getting an outcome this time around will not be simple. We expect Qantas to fight tooth and nail to defend its right to dismantle the Qantas Engineering business whilst still publically saying that they would never compromise safety. The managers behind this, in most cases, have been with the business for less time than our average member and do not intend to hang around to see the carnage they will leave behind. Most of them have probably already applied for jobs at the railways.
Be assured the ALAEA will not exercise the right of Protected Industrial Action unless it is absolutely necessary. If we do so it will be done for a good cause and only after negotiation has been given every opportunity of success. Our claims are a work in progress and can only succeed with your support. Without approval in the upcoming ballot, we won’t even stand a chance of successfully negotiating. Feel free to send me an email should you have any further questions.
STEVE PURVINAS
Federal Secretary
For all those who want Nassy at EA meetings - make no mistake, he is an architect of our present and futureless system.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Number one, we don't have the monopoly on quality
Employee's of this airline who are experienced and qualified to make such observations, and Australians alike, were once proud of QF's high standards. It's about time we had a bit of loyalty in the ranks.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zkeng on the 2nd Oct 2010:
Engine Wizard on the 2nd Oct 2010:
He may come across as a "nice guy" but it may pay to heed these two previous posts in your immediate voting future.
The fact that CN has not attended a single meeting is telling. Nothing like being able to distance yourself from what you are controlling and then leaving yourself free to travel the network kissing babies and having the troops refer to you as a nice guy who comes across as a straight shooter.
I would suggest he is well down the road he has been hired to travel, and it is a road he knows well.
GB
A Word of Warning
Do not trust C.N. Never ever ever.
Ask the AirNZ guys about the mess he made there. Plenty of very good Engr's left because of him. Since he left for QF, some of the screw-ups have been reversed. Unfortunately, some of the structural changes cannot be reversed.
He has been hired to break you, and he'll do it smiling.
I'll say it again, DO NOT TRUST HIM. Keep everything he puts in print, write down everything he says, you'll need it.
Oh, and he hates confrontation from large groups
Do not trust C.N. Never ever ever.
Ask the AirNZ guys about the mess he made there. Plenty of very good Engr's left because of him. Since he left for QF, some of the screw-ups have been reversed. Unfortunately, some of the structural changes cannot be reversed.
He has been hired to break you, and he'll do it smiling.
I'll say it again, DO NOT TRUST HIM. Keep everything he puts in print, write down everything he says, you'll need it.
Oh, and he hates confrontation from large groups
Engine Wizard on the 2nd Oct 2010:
Air NZ all over again?
Before trusting Chris "Slash-and-Burn" Nassenstein, ask the opinions of all the Air NZ staff he screwed over - before he was given a huge bonus and then getting hired by Qantas. The man has a well-documented history of causing damage. As zkengr has posted, many Kiwis are watching this unfold with great concern. Deja
vu. Hang tough, guys.
Before trusting Chris "Slash-and-Burn" Nassenstein, ask the opinions of all the Air NZ staff he screwed over - before he was given a huge bonus and then getting hired by Qantas. The man has a well-documented history of causing damage. As zkengr has posted, many Kiwis are watching this unfold with great concern. Deja
vu. Hang tough, guys.
The fact that CN has not attended a single meeting is telling. Nothing like being able to distance yourself from what you are controlling and then leaving yourself free to travel the network kissing babies and having the troops refer to you as a nice guy who comes across as a straight shooter.
I would suggest he is well down the road he has been hired to travel, and it is a road he knows well.
GB
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Vladivostok
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reminder GB, I am one who has seen this nice guy approach and I did think maybe things will change. 
This executive has shown me that they are very serious about what they do unlike others that have gone before them. I work in an area when an ex executive member high profile quit the union when he lost so much for lifelong beliefs.
In 2008 we went into battle and I was scared I have a young family and job security was high on my list I do not have the gonads or ability to up and change my job. My / Our union showed everyone how it was done, we got a result that none ever had, I walked around like I was on a cloud chest puffed out I was so proud of our solidarity, our strength of purpose I have not forgot that feeling and I have not forgot that strength of purpose.
Bring it on CN and QF Management there are many more ways to skin a cat than you'll ever know.
SP, PC, WV, WB, MW and our rep BC, the rest of the executive and EBA negotiation committee you showed us how to play the game as a team and win as a team keep up the good work I don't always agree with you 100% but I support you 100% as I know you will fight for us all the way.
PS to all the detracters and company puppet trolls infecting this forum in the last 5 years the asn has leapt forward representing all its members you just have to read the eTorque to see that.
This executive has shown me that they are very serious about what they do unlike others that have gone before them. I work in an area when an ex executive member high profile quit the union when he lost so much for lifelong beliefs.
In 2008 we went into battle and I was scared I have a young family and job security was high on my list I do not have the gonads or ability to up and change my job. My / Our union showed everyone how it was done, we got a result that none ever had, I walked around like I was on a cloud chest puffed out I was so proud of our solidarity, our strength of purpose I have not forgot that feeling and I have not forgot that strength of purpose.
Bring it on CN and QF Management there are many more ways to skin a cat than you'll ever know.
SP, PC, WV, WB, MW and our rep BC, the rest of the executive and EBA negotiation committee you showed us how to play the game as a team and win as a team keep up the good work I don't always agree with you 100% but I support you 100% as I know you will fight for us all the way.
PS to all the detracters and company puppet trolls infecting this forum in the last 5 years the asn has leapt forward representing all its members you just have to read the eTorque to see that.
Dear Chris,
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Yes it took too long and it will not satisfy everyone (never will) but it is a good start.
At least we have a talking point.3/3/3, open up grades temporarily but no job security clauses.I presume that I read that correctly?
Will likely only help the top paid people not those with shorter service or lower paid folks.
What is temporary? Won't help me anyway not being held back.
The job security thing will be a sticking point, maintaining current duties etc.
If they wont talk about job security I want honesty and openess in what they have planned ie when they are going to shaft line people?
"Maint on demand". Gold Care what of that?
Until that is sorted and in the open it means jack as when they change the preflt rules we'll lose a lot of people pretty smartly.Wont matter what grade if unemployed.
At least we have a talking point.3/3/3, open up grades temporarily but no job security clauses.I presume that I read that correctly?
Will likely only help the top paid people not those with shorter service or lower paid folks.
What is temporary? Won't help me anyway not being held back.
The job security thing will be a sticking point, maintaining current duties etc.
If they wont talk about job security I want honesty and openess in what they have planned ie when they are going to shaft line people?
"Maint on demand". Gold Care what of that?
Until that is sorted and in the open it means jack as when they change the preflt rules we'll lose a lot of people pretty smartly.Wont matter what grade if unemployed.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: homeless
Age: 43
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CN made a strong start and given the rhetoric would probably have made a good boss. However it now seems he is taking the engineers by the hand and trying to lead them up the garden path for a good old fashioned rodgering.
This is not just about fair renumeration, its about the future of aviation and jobs in Australia.Is it true 40-50 jobs are up for the chop in component maintenance Syd and Mel? Sure seems like GD is alive and kicking and still pulling the strings or maybe its Clifford! I am not too happy about going into PIA but it seems there is little choice with QF just playing corporate games so I will be voting yes!
This is not just about fair renumeration, its about the future of aviation and jobs in Australia.Is it true 40-50 jobs are up for the chop in component maintenance Syd and Mel? Sure seems like GD is alive and kicking and still pulling the strings or maybe its Clifford! I am not too happy about going into PIA but it seems there is little choice with QF just playing corporate games so I will be voting yes!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CN's offer
3 + 3 + 3 just ok. Still puts us behind cost of living over the next 2 yrs.
More important to get job security clauses in. If CN can't give us this then should come clean about QF future plans. Most of us have families and need management to come clean and to be honest for once so we can all make informed choices. No security no deal....
More important to get job security clauses in. If CN can't give us this then should come clean about QF future plans. Most of us have families and need management to come clean and to be honest for once so we can all make informed choices. No security no deal....
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CN you are a joke!
3 + 3 + 3 is an insult!
Add an extra grade for EVERYONE (including raising the starting grade) and you might be getting close.
WTF have you been doing for the last 6 months?
Maintain The Rage !!!
3 + 3 + 3 is an insult!
Add an extra grade for EVERYONE (including raising the starting grade) and you might be getting close.
WTF have you been doing for the last 6 months?
Maintain The Rage !!!