Qf LAME EBA Negotiations Begin
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure it's a white flag and politcally it goes against unionism, but we are against a company, a government regulator and globalisation of reduced safety investment by airlines.
The Olive Branch
I also believe it is for the company managers to come to the table with such a proposal, not the Association.
Understand there are some of us who do not wish to get into another 2007, but it is too early at this time to contemplate something like you say and I would not consider it to be a EBA item. Seek support from fellow LAMEs but do not surround yourself with negativity. Negativity is a downward spiral.
Right now, as a collective, we have supported our Association in their negotiations. We need to be patient and let the team do their work. It is important, especially for those of us who have reservations regarding the planned actions, to show our good faith towards our team and be supportive.
A deal will be brokered in good time. It may take longer than most of us would like, that's life. It is easier to get a good deal when the company managers want to do a deal. It is making the managers hungry for the deal making process we have struggled with to date. Time will tell and keep your eyes open for buggery details.
LAME2
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bega
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Olive Branch
Only LAMES wanting to leave, leave
The company will save potentially millions
The new engineering model is concieved without incestuous risk
The travelling public is not disrupted
The Qantas share price rebounds for share holders
Negatives
Safety's priority takes a corporate downgrade
The safety risk to the travelling public just got higher (Only the PM's aircraft will get a visual after each transit by an engineer)
Corporation defeats the worker
The aircraft engineering industry in Australia takes another rocket in the ar$e
Revenue from Australian travellers pays the income of foreign workers
PS. We are still an outside chance with FWA giving balance to industrial disputes. We wouldn't have a chance if Tony Abbott was in charge with his WorkChioces policy mark II.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for consideration and based on my assumptions and knowledge.
A LAMEless tarmac would not allow 300 to go, I think it would be far less, maybe 100? You can't just halve the terminal workforce with this model as evidenced at Virgin who still have sizeable dayshift numbers for their flights. The bigger problem is the shift of the workload from day to night.
Agreeing to this model would not garauntee job security. They would only be looking at the next project. Remember when the worforce costs x dollars a year, management are always pressured to reduce that cost further. I have just attended an Americas MRO conference and it is interesting to listen to them speak, and what a blast it was for us 9 American and 1 Australian union official mingling with 7000 airline managers and hangers on. The Engineering boss of US airways stated that his brief from the board was - your Engineering budget for the next 12 months must not be more than the previous 12 months. I was sitting there wondering how they could even cater for a CPI wage rise and the coverage for a larger fleet.
A LAMEless tarmac would not allow 300 to go, I think it would be far less, maybe 100? You can't just halve the terminal workforce with this model as evidenced at Virgin who still have sizeable dayshift numbers for their flights. The bigger problem is the shift of the workload from day to night.
Agreeing to this model would not garauntee job security. They would only be looking at the next project. Remember when the worforce costs x dollars a year, management are always pressured to reduce that cost further. I have just attended an Americas MRO conference and it is interesting to listen to them speak, and what a blast it was for us 9 American and 1 Australian union official mingling with 7000 airline managers and hangers on. The Engineering boss of US airways stated that his brief from the board was - your Engineering budget for the next 12 months must not be more than the previous 12 months. I was sitting there wondering how they could even cater for a CPI wage rise and the coverage for a larger fleet.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
LAME2 you correct of course.They may offer redundancies anytime they wish.
The fact they have not made any VR offers (despite the obvious over staffing in one area I can see) says they either have other plans for those people or are totally inept.
I actually know they acknowledge the over staffing and problematical work practices (they set up and allow) so they must have other plans or simply have given up.
I know a few guys who would walk if given the chance.Good workers very experienced and productive but just had a gut full of the nonsense.
QF also know that having LAMEs at the turnaround does offer an advantage for delay reduction.And we all know the business customer hates delays. The place thrives on delay codes, meetings and the blame game over who'll cop those lost minutes.
If they are serious about delay minimisation they will keep LAMEs on tarmac. There is considerable value in doing so.Value versus costs.
It will be used as a threat but losing LAMEs off the turnaround particularly in the major ports will degrade delay figures markedly.QF cannot afford to give VB free kicks.Network, frequency, on time performance and frequent flyer are kings in business market.
They need to guard that vigilantly.
If they were sensible they'd grandfather current practices offer 3% and some sweets and commit to have meaningful ongoing discussions with regard to manning levels and duties in the future.
With the right framework I am sure the ALAEA would consider some changes.
Evolution not revolution.But someone must be the bulwark against mediocrity in aircraft maintenance.
I dont speak for the union so it is just an opinion only.
The fact they have not made any VR offers (despite the obvious over staffing in one area I can see) says they either have other plans for those people or are totally inept.
I actually know they acknowledge the over staffing and problematical work practices (they set up and allow) so they must have other plans or simply have given up.
I know a few guys who would walk if given the chance.Good workers very experienced and productive but just had a gut full of the nonsense.
QF also know that having LAMEs at the turnaround does offer an advantage for delay reduction.And we all know the business customer hates delays. The place thrives on delay codes, meetings and the blame game over who'll cop those lost minutes.
If they are serious about delay minimisation they will keep LAMEs on tarmac. There is considerable value in doing so.Value versus costs.
It will be used as a threat but losing LAMEs off the turnaround particularly in the major ports will degrade delay figures markedly.QF cannot afford to give VB free kicks.Network, frequency, on time performance and frequent flyer are kings in business market.
They need to guard that vigilantly.
If they were sensible they'd grandfather current practices offer 3% and some sweets and commit to have meaningful ongoing discussions with regard to manning levels and duties in the future.
With the right framework I am sure the ALAEA would consider some changes.
Evolution not revolution.But someone must be the bulwark against mediocrity in aircraft maintenance.
I dont speak for the union so it is just an opinion only.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fed Sec
We've heard alot about our claims and the relevant "costings" etc. so far but what do they want (other than no job security clauses or wage rise >3%)?
CN has made mention of a model with fewer, more qualified engineers in the past and the "LAME on demand" idea is no secret either. Are they trying to work this into the EA?
There are quite a few blokes around that would jump at VR and the rest of us want job security, training and a decent wage. Is the "olive branch" something being discussed?
We've heard alot about our claims and the relevant "costings" etc. so far but what do they want (other than no job security clauses or wage rise >3%)?
CN has made mention of a model with fewer, more qualified engineers in the past and the "LAME on demand" idea is no secret either. Are they trying to work this into the EA?
There are quite a few blokes around that would jump at VR and the rest of us want job security, training and a decent wage. Is the "olive branch" something being discussed?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Olive branch
If Qantas wants to be just another LCC like the others, then what niche do they have to capture the market??? A/ Nothing!!
A few years back QF employed a surveyor to analyse what attracted customers to an airline. Apparently the answer was "on time performance". Safety was way down on the list. (I know this because they invested thousands on "change management programs", and the ppl running them tried to drum this into our head).
Since then we have seen outsourcing of maintenance (as management now see us as a waste of money), the many quality lapses as a result (and a great majority the public would not be aware of), managers walking around tagging us as below "world's best practice" whilst stating that safety is now a given, and co-incidently a loss of market share of Australian travellers.
If we had any management that new what they were doing, they wouldn't be wasting money on these so called analysts that are giving them all the wrong answers.
As standards keep slipping we will soon be on par with every other Joe Blow flying tins cans out of an airport.
QF also know that having LAMEs at the turnaround does offer an advantage for delay reduction
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
lame2
It is a point of difference and it does add value and they know it.But wont use it lest they give us another point of public leverage in the future.
I am certain they will look very hard at the above (cost v value in LAME on demand) and weigh the options.
They will play hard and use the threat against us but in the end having a LAME on the spot saves a ship load of grief and therefore avoidable delays.
Yes it adds costs to the price of a turnaround but how much does it , and, in what way does an avoidable delay cost? Some of those costs are not measurable immediately or are tangible.
I am certain they will look very hard at the above (cost v value in LAME on demand) and weigh the options.
They will play hard and use the threat against us but in the end having a LAME on the spot saves a ship load of grief and therefore avoidable delays.
Yes it adds costs to the price of a turnaround but how much does it , and, in what way does an avoidable delay cost? Some of those costs are not measurable immediately or are tangible.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unfortunate reality with the LAME'less tarmac is that the proof is in the pudding. Over time the pilots stop writing defects up in the tech log throughout the days operation as they know that an engineer is not at hand. (This of course goes without saying that I am referring to anything other than defects that will have an affect on safety of flight).
Bottom line is that the number of items that get written up throughout the day will decrease dramatically over time once the LAME'less tarmac comes into being. Take a snap shot today of the number of tech logs written up during the day at QF and another snapshot 3 years from the introduction of the LAME'less tarmac and I will be vindicated in what I say.
The other unfortunate reality is that the whole world operates a LAME'less tarmac and with the current QF management you would have to say it is inevitable.
I agree with Steve P that the overall numbers of LAME's will not actually be affected to the extent that most would think, but different work practices will cater for the change.
The point of this post is that the LAME'less tarmac is a massive bargaining tool to be used to make a real increase to the pay rates at QF.
The LAME'less tarmac will come to you sooner or later but what you need to do is trade it for a SUBSTANTIAL pay increase when it ultimately becomes the norm.
I will say it again, the pay rates at QF are p!ss poor overall, and the bullsh!t that management have been peddling over the last few years of hard times to keep pay increases below CPI whilst they continue to turn profits with the word Billion attached to them is a complete joke.
QF will pay a second officer 10's of thousands of dollars more than some certifying LAME's with many years of service with the company and that to me is a slap in the face to all of us who have done the study, logging of practical time over many many years, and in more and more cases spent many tens of thousands of dollars training ourselves. Every time you certify an aircraft out with a CRS you are taking the same responsibility for the hundreds of human beings on board in the same way that the captain of the aircraft is when performing their duties.
LAME's are their own worst enemies when it comes to pay rates........We are worth a hell of a lot more than we get paid currently, and I for one dont understand anybody who could be happy with a pay system that will take somewhere around 30 years to get to the measly sum of approximately $140,000 per annum, and that is only if they start as a 21 year old and stay with the same company their whole working life.
You guys are as trapped as the pilots with their seniority system that locks them into the mindset that they cannot leave the company for fear of losing their position on the list, which in turn leaves you at the company's mercy.
Bottom line is that the number of items that get written up throughout the day will decrease dramatically over time once the LAME'less tarmac comes into being. Take a snap shot today of the number of tech logs written up during the day at QF and another snapshot 3 years from the introduction of the LAME'less tarmac and I will be vindicated in what I say.
The other unfortunate reality is that the whole world operates a LAME'less tarmac and with the current QF management you would have to say it is inevitable.
I agree with Steve P that the overall numbers of LAME's will not actually be affected to the extent that most would think, but different work practices will cater for the change.
The point of this post is that the LAME'less tarmac is a massive bargaining tool to be used to make a real increase to the pay rates at QF.
The LAME'less tarmac will come to you sooner or later but what you need to do is trade it for a SUBSTANTIAL pay increase when it ultimately becomes the norm.
I will say it again, the pay rates at QF are p!ss poor overall, and the bullsh!t that management have been peddling over the last few years of hard times to keep pay increases below CPI whilst they continue to turn profits with the word Billion attached to them is a complete joke.
QF will pay a second officer 10's of thousands of dollars more than some certifying LAME's with many years of service with the company and that to me is a slap in the face to all of us who have done the study, logging of practical time over many many years, and in more and more cases spent many tens of thousands of dollars training ourselves. Every time you certify an aircraft out with a CRS you are taking the same responsibility for the hundreds of human beings on board in the same way that the captain of the aircraft is when performing their duties.
LAME's are their own worst enemies when it comes to pay rates........We are worth a hell of a lot more than we get paid currently, and I for one dont understand anybody who could be happy with a pay system that will take somewhere around 30 years to get to the measly sum of approximately $140,000 per annum, and that is only if they start as a 21 year old and stay with the same company their whole working life.
You guys are as trapped as the pilots with their seniority system that locks them into the mindset that they cannot leave the company for fear of losing their position on the list, which in turn leaves you at the company's mercy.
Last edited by Gas Bags; 22nd Apr 2011 at 08:41.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it that QF is keen to trash their own LAMEs, but the LCC cousin J* pays their LAMEs more for a single licence than QF does.
If they want to Jetstarise Qantas then make them pay equivalent wages.
If they want to Jetstarise Qantas then make them pay equivalent wages.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: here and there
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how can this management be trusted when they imply a constant threat
to our current way of life. even the last lot of fools had the nouse to be
more upfront with their bastardry.
most here seem to be sending the same msg, tell us what these changes
are precisely, and we may even entertain working together on them.
can't see the buttmonkeys being affected all that much anyhow, but the
domestic bros should surely get a worry on, as the no lame ramp is
already set in the ppm for the 738 and 330 operations within Australia.
that should be an interesting scenario, as the most heat the dom bros
have yet felt is in their fancy new gourmet kitchens.
to our current way of life. even the last lot of fools had the nouse to be
more upfront with their bastardry.
most here seem to be sending the same msg, tell us what these changes
are precisely, and we may even entertain working together on them.
can't see the buttmonkeys being affected all that much anyhow, but the
domestic bros should surely get a worry on, as the no lame ramp is
already set in the ppm for the 738 and 330 operations within Australia.
that should be an interesting scenario, as the most heat the dom bros
have yet felt is in their fancy new gourmet kitchens.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: here and there
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point another superlame,
jetstar lames get paid a lot more for single and multiple licenses
jetstar lames have an annualised salary
jetstar lames get an annual bonus tied to the Qantas executives bonus
jetstar lames don't have to put up with any where near the B.S. at QF
jetstar lames don't have hundreds of assclown managers making their job harder.
need i go on?
jetstar lames get paid a lot more for single and multiple licenses
jetstar lames have an annualised salary
jetstar lames get an annual bonus tied to the Qantas executives bonus
jetstar lames don't have to put up with any where near the B.S. at QF
jetstar lames don't have hundreds of assclown managers making their job harder.
need i go on?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by buttmonkey1
......as the most heat the dom bros have yet felt is in their fancy new gourmet kitchens....
Cones shoulder to shoulder to Black-handers, Internationals with Domestics, ignoring the LAME's motto..."Divided we stand and divided we fall".
Again we need to present a united front to the company.
No SYD Vs MEL, No DTB Vs ITB, No Red Team Vs Blue Team, just one body, united and 100% backing the Association.
Does anyone really believe that Management have a workable "contingency plan" in the event we take PIA ?
Their only (realistic) option is to resort to a "Lock-out", and I don't think anyone, on either side of the fence, would consider that a realistic possibility.
Their world fell apart when one base at a time took four-hour holidays and no-one did overtime.
That is, a very small percentage of LAMEs, for a very small percentage of the time, took 33% of one day off.
Purely from a serviceable-domestic-aircraft POV, there are 2 - 3 "A" or "Phase" checks on the 737 Fleet each night.
OK, Give the A/C, what, 2 - 3 day over-run, after that you'll be losing YOUR SERVICEABLE aircraft at the rate of 2 - 3 / day.
It's a given that there'll be the same number of aircraft daily that would be fixable with LAME-power but not with out-of-experience management LAMEs, and the same number of aircraft AGAIN that even with the best LAMEs in the world would be a tow-to-the-hangar proposition, add in a miscellaneous issue or two and after a couple of days they'll be parking around 10 aircraft a day on the fence.
They're not going to lock us out !!
SP....We're behind you !!
ST
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that should be an interesting scenario, as the most heat the dom bros have yet felt is in their fancy new gourmet kitchens
domestic bros should surely get a worry on, as the no lame ramp is already set in the ppm for the 738 and 330 operations within Australia
We are all in this together.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bega
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be consistent.
Every other segment has a multiple levels of management why should engineering be different.
Plus it gives them someone to sack in time tough economic times.
Every other segment has a multiple levels of management why should engineering be different.
Plus it gives them someone to sack in time tough economic times.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone tell me why we need Ops Managers????? 
When does it start guys , i am on standby to help out , quids are good .