Qf LAME EBA Negotiations Begin
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fedsec
They could offer you 5 grades each and it would make no difference if you have no job security. Don't be sucked in.
My opinion on that is well known, and it cannot be achieved by QF restricting wages and conditions. Equally to prevent QF from having outsourcing as an option is not right either.
Think of it this way - how would all LAMEs like it if they had to buy Australian made cars? There are plenty of imports driving to and from site each day so it's not like QF if the only one facing international competition.
Ever bought a book off Amazon instead of your local bookshop? Software? DVDs? Clothes? Bought from EBAY? If so then your position is hypocritical, you want the benefits of competition without facing it yourself.
These are all forms of competition that many people use each and every day and it's wreaking havoc across the Australian retail scene. Only those smart enough to adapt and offer better value, perhaps through convenience, perhaps by local knowledge or whatever, will continue into the future.
For QF Engineering I see the solution as actually working together, and that takes both sides to come to the party. Scheduled turnarounds in less time allowing seats to be sold or perhaps even less aircraft to be utilised to cover route requirements (i.e. less "spare capacity" in the network to allow for planned aircraft downtime) is a major cost saving. Problem is the way both parties are fighting at the moment the argument is all about direct costs associated with labour. The indirect costs I mentioned are potentially far higher, couple that with every other indirect cost you can think of and the number gets big very quickly.
You'll probably want to tell me QF management don't want to negotiate in that way, and you may well be right. But if you're smart, and I know you are, then you and your team are going to have to not only lead QF to water but get them to drink. YOU and your guys need to show them the real and actual benefits of doign work here with hard numbers, not just the argument of "we're safe, we're the best, planes will crash" etc etc etc.
None of the people in QF management are stupid despite what many here like to think. They may not see the world the same way as you, they may not agree with what you are saying, but ultimately if they can do their job and improve profitability then they will. How you start that I'm not sure, I've always been on the side where I've been trying to get people to undertake programs to make the workplace more effective, I've always listened to my people and considered their opinions even if I eventually disagree with them and don't go down that path.
How you get that relationship back with QF I'm not certain, but I suggest that sticking to what you are currently defining as job security is unlikely to get you what you really want.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulus
how would all LAMEs like it if they had to buy Australian made cars?
Ever bought a book off Amazon instead of your local bookshop?
That's the one thing you probably won't ever get (job security)
Scheduled turnarounds in less time
Next!!!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
That's the one thing you probably won't ever get
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by silverado
Please explain, what it is, you think our job security claim is?
All Qantas & Forstaff Members - Notice 016 - RE: Qantas LAME EA Claims
and let's take Ben Sandilands' piece
Qantas, job security and a real discussion | Plane Talking
All of which is pretty reasonable if everyone plays in the spirit of things, the problem comes down to restricting the ability of managers to manage if things are not going well.
Let's take a hypothetical - job security comes in to the extent that all 787 work must be performed by QF directly employed LAMEs.
Can you see the difficulties that MAY produce?
What if QF Eng are not making anywhere near international benchmarks?
Plenty of other adverse outcomes could be envisaged, this security clause *IS* a gun that can easily be held against management's head and should NOT be accepted by sane management.
And that's part of the problem. Contracts, including EBA's and other forms of labour contract, do not deliver anything. Relationships do. Epople do. The contract only really comes in to play when things are going bad. Which means when negotiating everyone MUST consider the worst case because what is written is what they will be bound by.
In a well functioning company it should never get to that. Managers should manage and handle their staff issues with fairness and respect themselves, not by passing it to HR. Sometimes that means tough answers must be given, so be it as long as it is done fairly.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by short circuit
Next!!!
How about furniture and petrol and everything else?
Even the brand of milk you buy - is that ultimately Australian owned?
Where do your tools come from?
And if you honestly maintain that everything you do is absolutely Australian then you are in the absolute minority.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by short circuit
Done that, proved 767 A ck turnaround can be regularly achieved in 16 hrs or less at SYD Base.
Protectionism by contract is no substitute for protectionism by superior performance, simple as that.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ngineer
Looks like it will be a very protracted and eventful PIA then. It will be a good experience for those manager's that were not around for the last one.
On both sides.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Romulus, some of your points may be logical in a fair and perfect world, which leads me to believe that you do not work in our dept or even the same company.
Take a good walk in another man's shoe's and maybe you may understand where he is coming from. Sometimes productivity and hard work means nothing to those that you are providing it to. Instead you give an inch and they just take a mile.
Take a good walk in another man's shoe's and maybe you may understand where he is coming from. Sometimes productivity and hard work means nothing to those that you are providing it to. Instead you give an inch and they just take a mile.
Romulus makes some very good points, you cannot argue with the need for competition.
We also know that the world is not a level playing field and some countries and companies are prepared to tilt the field in their favor.
However, this is where leadership and judgment need to be applied and I believe the central proposition of both pilots and engineers is that this is not only lacking in Qantas, but that the truth is willfully and deliberately suppressed.
To put it another way; Qantas management has decided, come hell or high water, that Australian engineers and pilots are a threat to them - the management. That threat must be eliminated. The chosen method is the accusation that they are too expensive, in other words, their unit productivity is lower than comparable overseas operators.
Now this is not an unusual situation in business. I've been on both sides of that argument myself. A weak management will attempt to remove any threats to its authority from natural leaders within the workforce - people with hands on experience who show them up as inadequate.
To put it another way; If you want to become redundant, wait until a new Manager unfamiliar with the business arrives and makes an obviously silly observation and proposal about the operation: walk up to him and say "Now listen Sonny" followed by a detailed and correct technical statement correcting him.
The evidence I have for this is anecdotal but telling.
The most critical and damning evidence is the practice by the Board of labelling Qantas mainline as a LEGACY AIRLINE. If you know anything about human communications and behaviour, you will immediately know that this is an instruction to every single layer of Qantas management to run down the business (ie: Harvest and do not invest) and treat its employees as a wasting asset (no training, no new hires, no promotion, no innovation, no concern for retention rates or skill profiles).
THAT MINDSET IS VISIBLE IN EVERY SINGLE QANTAS COMMUNICATION, VERBAL OR NOT.
And of course since this is the Board view we will act as if it is true.....
Rumor somewhere on one of these threads is that the difference in overhaul costs between a foreign MRO and Qantas engineering was barely 2.5%. We even know that this is probably only on the base price and that the "extra " work discovered in the check, that Qantas staff would automatically correct at no additional cost will be charged at swinging rates by the MRO.
Then of course we have the A380 maintenance and the Rolls Royce Maintenance......
Would someone like to argue that the good folk at Lufthansa Teknik in Hamburg are going to cost less than Qantas engineers and have lower overheads? Didn't think so.
Did Qantas try and have a State Government spring them for an A380 hangar and staging? Perhaps at Avalon or Brisbane?
Yes, I know the provisioning costs would be higher, but how don't you think that Lufthansa aren't going to charge you an arm and a leg?
Remember TAA and Ansett both ran B727, Do you think that some bean counter didn't also think about a combined maintenance facility? Couldn't work because the maintenance and investment strategies were totally different. Ansett gold plated its aircraft (before Eddington) and kept them right up there in mod status, TAA didn't. Guess which set of flaps TAA borrowed? I speak from experience.
As for Rolls Royce, Qantas is already reaping the bitter fruits of that decision. Wait till you have B747 scattered all over the route back from Dallas - Fort Worth awaiting engine changes.
Then of course there was the incomprehensible decision to do away with contract work, not only losing contribution margin, but leaving other airlines high and dry.
Staples? Hundreds of defects on "overhauled, as new" aircraft? Midnight certifications?
No, Australian Engineers and Pilots are overpaid, lazy and unproductive. The Board has decided they are. Management will act as if it is true. You can't argue with them, their mind is made up, besides using overseas MRO's provides a perfect excuse for numerous overseas trips, who wants to have to go to Tullamarine or Avalon? The Interconti in Hamburg is so much more fun, boating on the Alster, the Reeperbahn...
You can't win with this lot, you won't even get a chance to prove yourselves. You are a threat to their authority.
We also know that the world is not a level playing field and some countries and companies are prepared to tilt the field in their favor.
However, this is where leadership and judgment need to be applied and I believe the central proposition of both pilots and engineers is that this is not only lacking in Qantas, but that the truth is willfully and deliberately suppressed.
To put it another way; Qantas management has decided, come hell or high water, that Australian engineers and pilots are a threat to them - the management. That threat must be eliminated. The chosen method is the accusation that they are too expensive, in other words, their unit productivity is lower than comparable overseas operators.
Now this is not an unusual situation in business. I've been on both sides of that argument myself. A weak management will attempt to remove any threats to its authority from natural leaders within the workforce - people with hands on experience who show them up as inadequate.
To put it another way; If you want to become redundant, wait until a new Manager unfamiliar with the business arrives and makes an obviously silly observation and proposal about the operation: walk up to him and say "Now listen Sonny" followed by a detailed and correct technical statement correcting him.
The evidence I have for this is anecdotal but telling.
The most critical and damning evidence is the practice by the Board of labelling Qantas mainline as a LEGACY AIRLINE. If you know anything about human communications and behaviour, you will immediately know that this is an instruction to every single layer of Qantas management to run down the business (ie: Harvest and do not invest) and treat its employees as a wasting asset (no training, no new hires, no promotion, no innovation, no concern for retention rates or skill profiles).
THAT MINDSET IS VISIBLE IN EVERY SINGLE QANTAS COMMUNICATION, VERBAL OR NOT.
And of course since this is the Board view we will act as if it is true.....
Rumor somewhere on one of these threads is that the difference in overhaul costs between a foreign MRO and Qantas engineering was barely 2.5%. We even know that this is probably only on the base price and that the "extra " work discovered in the check, that Qantas staff would automatically correct at no additional cost will be charged at swinging rates by the MRO.
Then of course we have the A380 maintenance and the Rolls Royce Maintenance......
Would someone like to argue that the good folk at Lufthansa Teknik in Hamburg are going to cost less than Qantas engineers and have lower overheads? Didn't think so.
Did Qantas try and have a State Government spring them for an A380 hangar and staging? Perhaps at Avalon or Brisbane?
Yes, I know the provisioning costs would be higher, but how don't you think that Lufthansa aren't going to charge you an arm and a leg?
Remember TAA and Ansett both ran B727, Do you think that some bean counter didn't also think about a combined maintenance facility? Couldn't work because the maintenance and investment strategies were totally different. Ansett gold plated its aircraft (before Eddington) and kept them right up there in mod status, TAA didn't. Guess which set of flaps TAA borrowed? I speak from experience.
As for Rolls Royce, Qantas is already reaping the bitter fruits of that decision. Wait till you have B747 scattered all over the route back from Dallas - Fort Worth awaiting engine changes.
Then of course there was the incomprehensible decision to do away with contract work, not only losing contribution margin, but leaving other airlines high and dry.
Staples? Hundreds of defects on "overhauled, as new" aircraft? Midnight certifications?
No, Australian Engineers and Pilots are overpaid, lazy and unproductive. The Board has decided they are. Management will act as if it is true. You can't argue with them, their mind is made up, besides using overseas MRO's provides a perfect excuse for numerous overseas trips, who wants to have to go to Tullamarine or Avalon? The Interconti in Hamburg is so much more fun, boating on the Alster, the Reeperbahn...
You can't win with this lot, you won't even get a chance to prove yourselves. You are a threat to their authority.
Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Jun 2011 at 07:24.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulus,
Being just a LAME im probably not as smart as you but I would like you to explain the merit and financial gain to the Qantas group by outsourcing the Jetstar A330's to JH .This fuction was being carried out by QF mainline with excellent turn times and manpower levels.The new arrangments see the cost to maintain these birds go outside the group.I believe its a perfect example of waste to the shareholder.Its also interesting to note that JH dont have the capability to carryout all the necessary checks.Engine washes are just one example.Also JH have a acute shortage of licence coverage and tooling to handle the A/C.
Being just a LAME im probably not as smart as you but I would like you to explain the merit and financial gain to the Qantas group by outsourcing the Jetstar A330's to JH .This fuction was being carried out by QF mainline with excellent turn times and manpower levels.The new arrangments see the cost to maintain these birds go outside the group.I believe its a perfect example of waste to the shareholder.Its also interesting to note that JH dont have the capability to carryout all the necessary checks.Engine washes are just one example.Also JH have a acute shortage of licence coverage and tooling to handle the A/C.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Romulus. They run the show.If they showed an ounce of balls and honesty they would approach us for ideas and open up genuine talks with the guys on how to get a compromise . Their tactics are and always have been confrontational. That is a very difficult place to hold negotiations. It takes a leader to sort this out. Qantas has none in its executive ranks, not one. All bosses all clones no leaders.
Joyce blew it when he called us kamikazes and was less than completely honest about our claims.
Joyce blew it when he called us kamikazes and was less than completely honest about our claims.
Last edited by ampclamp; 5th Jun 2011 at 10:16.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Blackbushe
Age: 74
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
romulus and sunfish are not clever there are part of the problem. You would do well to go back in history and revisit how some of the great companies of today became great.
Amazing as it seems they took care of their workforce by offering housing, health benefits, canteens and and and. It was a win-win situation. Productivity went through the roof, workers were healthier and could work harder, profits soared. That was the 18-early 1900's.
What have we got now. Apparently intelligent individuals like sunfish and romulus rant on about being globally competitive. These fools would have you believe that you need to come down to the lowest common denominator of wages and social support in order for the mothership to survive. What they don't tell you about is the range of studies highlighting this ultimately leads to a company going bankrupt both financially and socially unless they radically change track.
Globalisation is nothing more than spin in order to fill fewer pockets with more money. When I buy an Australian product, also contained in the price is an element of cost to go towards the social and health structure etc. we have become accustomed to in Australia. This obviously adds a bit to the price.
Where is that additional cost in a Chinese product for example. Are we happy with the social and health structure in China? Succumbing to Globalisation will ultimately bring our social structure down to the lowest common denominator. The romulus's and sunfishes of this world are nothing more than leeches who will go with the flow for their own ends.
True men will stand up and fight globalisation. True visionists will refer back to the 1800's and contemplate how they can improve life for all in the 21st century. The true visionists of this world invested heavily in both the industrial and social infrastructure.
Attempting to undermine the industrial and social infrastructure will end in disaster.
Scoundrels will force the workforce into a fight to the bitter end and yes it is better to fight than to succumb to globalisation in its present format.
Amazing as it seems they took care of their workforce by offering housing, health benefits, canteens and and and. It was a win-win situation. Productivity went through the roof, workers were healthier and could work harder, profits soared. That was the 18-early 1900's.
What have we got now. Apparently intelligent individuals like sunfish and romulus rant on about being globally competitive. These fools would have you believe that you need to come down to the lowest common denominator of wages and social support in order for the mothership to survive. What they don't tell you about is the range of studies highlighting this ultimately leads to a company going bankrupt both financially and socially unless they radically change track.
Globalisation is nothing more than spin in order to fill fewer pockets with more money. When I buy an Australian product, also contained in the price is an element of cost to go towards the social and health structure etc. we have become accustomed to in Australia. This obviously adds a bit to the price.
Where is that additional cost in a Chinese product for example. Are we happy with the social and health structure in China? Succumbing to Globalisation will ultimately bring our social structure down to the lowest common denominator. The romulus's and sunfishes of this world are nothing more than leeches who will go with the flow for their own ends.
True men will stand up and fight globalisation. True visionists will refer back to the 1800's and contemplate how they can improve life for all in the 21st century. The true visionists of this world invested heavily in both the industrial and social infrastructure.
Attempting to undermine the industrial and social infrastructure will end in disaster.
Scoundrels will force the workforce into a fight to the bitter end and yes it is better to fight than to succumb to globalisation in its present format.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydernee
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, maaaate,
OK, I've had a few beers, but, you nailed it, bloke. 
The reasoning behind shutting Sydney Heavy has long been called into question....and the assclown responsible is now leading the negotiations on the the company side, along with 'I used to be an incompetent training coordinator, now I are a manager'...
If we came to them tomorrow with a set of gold-plated numbers about A380 Heavy Maintenance, they'd take them away for analysis, all the while continuing their off-shoring agenda...
What about an Airbus Centre of Excellence at Brisbane? I'm sure Anna Bligh would chip in a few mill to build a hangar in return for a few hundred jobs....They won't even consider it...
Here's a tip: Google 'Leigh Clifford anti union'...
The reasoning behind shutting Sydney Heavy has long been called into question....and the assclown responsible is now leading the negotiations on the the company side, along with 'I used to be an incompetent training coordinator, now I are a manager'...
If we came to them tomorrow with a set of gold-plated numbers about A380 Heavy Maintenance, they'd take them away for analysis, all the while continuing their off-shoring agenda...
What about an Airbus Centre of Excellence at Brisbane? I'm sure Anna Bligh would chip in a few mill to build a hangar in return for a few hundred jobs....They won't even consider it...
Here's a tip: Google 'Leigh Clifford anti union'...
Last edited by Dunnocks; 5th Jun 2011 at 11:29.
Romulus
At the risk of interjecting on a LAME thread.... (forgive me)
Your points are all very logical until one faces management who;
- acknowledge that its pilots are some of the most experienced in the world,
- already use 'world's best practice' (ie the most 2nd Officers) for the longhaul flying done,
- acknowledge that, were it not for the skills of the crews involved (eg A330 QF72, 747 QF30 & A380 QF32), QF may have had far worse outcomes,
- will acknowledge that its pilots aren't the most expensive compared to similar airlines,
- agree on numerous efficiencies the pilots have identified,
- make marketing pitches, spoken by movie stars, like "there's no one I'd rather have up front than a Qantas pilot"...
AND YET... despite past-practice in QF, and 'job security' clauses in present Jetconnect, Lufthansa and many other successful & reputable airlines...
- absolutely REFUSE to allay QF pilot & engineer concerns that it intends to set-up even more off-shoring,
- denigrates its own employees in public forums (kamikazes? "what planet are they on?"),
- intentionally & grossly misrepresents facts to media outlets (26%, QF mainline is still recruiting, QF pilots average $350k/year, no QF pilots have been made redundant in 40 years but omitting that plenty took BIG voluntary work/pay cuts specifically to avoid QF-threatened retrenchments etc)
- seem to be doing more brand damage by their negative statements than any employees could, and
- allocates mainline-derived profits to varied other ventures and then infers that mainline is the problem!
Employees are exasperated! There is NO trust in anything management says. There is NO sense of management integrity. Managers have lost the mantle of 'leadership' and are apparently resorting to principles more akin to kindergarten discipline in the absence of any real credibility. It IS NOT working at the coal-face; it's resented ever more with each new attempt to discredit the people with the most to lose; the long-term employees!
Romulus, how would you deal with that climate?
Your points are all very logical until one faces management who;
- acknowledge that its pilots are some of the most experienced in the world,
- already use 'world's best practice' (ie the most 2nd Officers) for the longhaul flying done,
- acknowledge that, were it not for the skills of the crews involved (eg A330 QF72, 747 QF30 & A380 QF32), QF may have had far worse outcomes,
- will acknowledge that its pilots aren't the most expensive compared to similar airlines,
- agree on numerous efficiencies the pilots have identified,
- make marketing pitches, spoken by movie stars, like "there's no one I'd rather have up front than a Qantas pilot"...
AND YET... despite past-practice in QF, and 'job security' clauses in present Jetconnect, Lufthansa and many other successful & reputable airlines...
- absolutely REFUSE to allay QF pilot & engineer concerns that it intends to set-up even more off-shoring,
- denigrates its own employees in public forums (kamikazes? "what planet are they on?"),
- intentionally & grossly misrepresents facts to media outlets (26%, QF mainline is still recruiting, QF pilots average $350k/year, no QF pilots have been made redundant in 40 years but omitting that plenty took BIG voluntary work/pay cuts specifically to avoid QF-threatened retrenchments etc)
- seem to be doing more brand damage by their negative statements than any employees could, and
- allocates mainline-derived profits to varied other ventures and then infers that mainline is the problem!
Employees are exasperated! There is NO trust in anything management says. There is NO sense of management integrity. Managers have lost the mantle of 'leadership' and are apparently resorting to principles more akin to kindergarten discipline in the absence of any real credibility. It IS NOT working at the coal-face; it's resented ever more with each new attempt to discredit the people with the most to lose; the long-term employees!
Romulus, how would you deal with that climate?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Bonnydoon
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find Jetstar are very happy with the JH A330 checks.
My guess is that it's been outsourced so when the mothership worker bees spit the dummy the low cost saviour doesn't completely shut down too..
Keep digging lads!
My guess is that it's been outsourced so when the mothership worker bees spit the dummy the low cost saviour doesn't completely shut down too..
Keep digging lads!