Qf 6 air turn back
Join Date: May 2008
Location: australia
Age: 71
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GD knew that third world countries should get out of running airlines with the latest aircraft and their cutting edge technology.
Scuttle but has it that the No1 engine on QF6 was overhauled in Shanghai's number 25 Rolex factory
Scuttle but has it that the No1 engine on QF6 was overhauled in Shanghai's number 25 Rolex factory
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't Avalon Engineering stage one in outsourcing QFs maintenance? An industrial tool designed to break up the unions?
Avalon is low cost maintenance compared to Sydney's original Heavy Maintenance where QFs fine engineering record was established.....
Why isnt this put to the media whenever Joyce spurts out it was maintained in Australia.
If the media ever did any research, they will look at the history of QF and how in its "hey-day" Rolls Royce used to come to Qantas because of its excellence in maintaining QFs RR engines.
Not anymore- now its just AJ trying to pass the buck.
Avalon is low cost maintenance compared to Sydney's original Heavy Maintenance where QFs fine engineering record was established.....
Why isnt this put to the media whenever Joyce spurts out it was maintained in Australia.
If the media ever did any research, they will look at the history of QF and how in its "hey-day" Rolls Royce used to come to Qantas because of its excellence in maintaining QFs RR engines.
Not anymore- now its just AJ trying to pass the buck.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been much debate on whether the use of third party MROs has contributed to QF's spate of technical errors.
I wouldn't say that overseas MRO providers are inferior to QF engineers. SIA uses SIAEC and has no problems with engines blowing up mid air or things like that.
It is indeed ironic, that QF helped train SIA's first batch of engineers in the late 1960s. SIA sent its 742s to Sydney for maintenance till the mid 1980s, when SIA moved into the new Changi Airport and had ample space to construct its own hangars.
Having had friends and family work in SIA from the late 1960s till today, they tell me that it was frustrating not having control over their mx in the 1970s, as such SIA very quickly tried to establish its own mx capabilities inhouse.
Maintenance is not only about A Checks, B Checks and C Checks. It is also about the R&D into efficiencies and cutting edge technologies that come with it.
SIAEC has formed many JVs with Rolls Royce, GE, Pratt and component makers
SIA Engineering Company Supporting Network - SIA Engineering Company
This enables SIAEC to work with different engine and component manufacturers in R&D, and implement new technologies and trials into SIA Group aircraft before they come into the market.
The Singapore government also worked very closely with SIA Group and aircraft part manufacturers to ensure that Singapore managed to grow its MRO hub.
From Rolls Royce Singapore website:
Rolls-Royce: Singapore
The SIN govt also gives massive tax breaks and support to MRO companies and their suppliers to set up base in SIN, and works with the local polytechnics and technical institutions to ensure that there is a ready supply of labour to work in the MRO companies. (And Singapore has the most expensive labour costs in Asia outside Japan, though it's probably cheaper than Australia at this point in time because of the strong A$, but just 2 years ago the A$ was worth less than the S$). But in a short stint I did at an SIAEC company, they did benchmark their labour costs to the USA and the USA and SIN labour costs for MRO ops wasn't that far off.... And the S$ has since appreciated 25% against the US$, so I won't be surprised if SIN labour costs are higher than USA at this stage
As a result, SIA and SIAEC have all their MRO suppliers and component part makers within 5km of Changi Airport. The engine test facilities for RR, PW and GE engines are 5-10 mins drive from SIA's HQ. SIAEC hangers are next to the SIA HQ. If SIA has a problem with their aircraft, all their suppliers and test facilities are down the road. This did not happen by accident. It happened through the long-sighted vision of some SIA people 30 years ago, who were tired of having to send a 747 to Qantas everytime it needed to be overhauled or inspected. (And look what is happening today.....)
For 30 years, SIA and Singapore have slowly and patiently developed their MRO capabilities, and worked hard to keep all their key suppliers and test facilities in Singapore. This has enabled the SIA Group to have full control over their maintenance, have all the records inhouse, and most importantly, the SIA Group of airlines can participate in R&D work with their suppliers.
What QF has done though, is the exact opposite. They sacked skilled engineers, and send their aircraft all over the place. One 744 to SIAEC, one 737 to ST Aero, one 744 to HAECO, one A380 to LH Technik. No continuity, everything is just one-off. The skills in managing the MROs are not there, since most of the skilled staff have been sacked.
I may not know much about how aircraft mx works, but I am assuming it's just like any other industry. If you start sacking your skilled workers, and outsourcing your core functions to 10 different suppliers on an ad-hoc basis, it will just end in disaster, no matter how good your suppliers are. The corporate memory is gone.
It would be unfair to blame HAECO or SIAEC or LH Technik or Rolls Royce for what's happening to QF. QF has mishandled their management of the whole engineering process. It has nothing to do with race, nationality or where their suppliers are from. The buck stops with QF, and just because they outsource the function, does not mean they can outsource the responsibility. LH, SQ and CX planes are not exploding mid-air - and all 3 airlines have strict control over their own maintenance procedures. They have control over most of the supply chain, have JVs with their MRO suppliers, and are in a position to work with their vendors to introduce new technology and efficiencies. They don't send their planes to 10 MROs all over the world.
If QF wanted to outsource their maintenance, they should have done so in a structured manner, not in the slip-shod manner in which they have done so over the years. They should stick to one supplier and have a core group within the company to manage their vendor. Instead they sacked everyone to the point that nobody even knows how to manage their vendors, it would seem.
I wouldn't say that overseas MRO providers are inferior to QF engineers. SIA uses SIAEC and has no problems with engines blowing up mid air or things like that.
It is indeed ironic, that QF helped train SIA's first batch of engineers in the late 1960s. SIA sent its 742s to Sydney for maintenance till the mid 1980s, when SIA moved into the new Changi Airport and had ample space to construct its own hangars.
Having had friends and family work in SIA from the late 1960s till today, they tell me that it was frustrating not having control over their mx in the 1970s, as such SIA very quickly tried to establish its own mx capabilities inhouse.
Maintenance is not only about A Checks, B Checks and C Checks. It is also about the R&D into efficiencies and cutting edge technologies that come with it.
SIAEC has formed many JVs with Rolls Royce, GE, Pratt and component makers
SIA Engineering Company Supporting Network - SIA Engineering Company
This enables SIAEC to work with different engine and component manufacturers in R&D, and implement new technologies and trials into SIA Group aircraft before they come into the market.
The Singapore government also worked very closely with SIA Group and aircraft part manufacturers to ensure that Singapore managed to grow its MRO hub.
From Rolls Royce Singapore website:
Rolls-Royce: Singapore
Singapore Airlines (SIA) is a major Rolls-Royce customer on a global scale. In late 1995, SIA placed the largest order in the company’s history for the supply of Trent 800 engines for its fleet of Airbus A340-500s, A380 and further Boeing 777 aircraft.
We have also joined forces with SIA Engineering Company (SIAEC) to create two Joint Ventures; SAESL and IECO in the aero-engine Repair & Overhaul and component repair sectors respectively. The SAESL facility has delivered more than 500 engines since it started operations in October 2001. SAESL now employs over 550 personnel, with over 85 per cent employed from Singapore..
Rolls-Royce uses Singaporean suppliers and manufacturers in our business. An example of this is our sub-contraction of aero-engine component manufacture to Singapore Technologies. This adds to our activity in support of Singapore Airlines, Silk Air and Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise for the Trent and V2500 range of aircraft engines.
In January 2006, Rolls-Royce opened a regional procurement headquarters has Singapore to handle the management of suppliers in South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, India and Singapore, following considerable growth in our operations around the region.
An Advanced Technology Centre has been created in Singapore, following an agreement with Singapore's Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and its research institutes. Its work will cover a broad portfolio of technologies, but initial projects will focus on work already under way within the institutes - including high-performance computing for aerodynamic design, materials science, and modelling for fuel cells. Read more...
We have also joined forces with SIA Engineering Company (SIAEC) to create two Joint Ventures; SAESL and IECO in the aero-engine Repair & Overhaul and component repair sectors respectively. The SAESL facility has delivered more than 500 engines since it started operations in October 2001. SAESL now employs over 550 personnel, with over 85 per cent employed from Singapore..
Rolls-Royce uses Singaporean suppliers and manufacturers in our business. An example of this is our sub-contraction of aero-engine component manufacture to Singapore Technologies. This adds to our activity in support of Singapore Airlines, Silk Air and Singapore Aircraft Leasing Enterprise for the Trent and V2500 range of aircraft engines.
In January 2006, Rolls-Royce opened a regional procurement headquarters has Singapore to handle the management of suppliers in South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, India and Singapore, following considerable growth in our operations around the region.
An Advanced Technology Centre has been created in Singapore, following an agreement with Singapore's Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and its research institutes. Its work will cover a broad portfolio of technologies, but initial projects will focus on work already under way within the institutes - including high-performance computing for aerodynamic design, materials science, and modelling for fuel cells. Read more...
As a result, SIA and SIAEC have all their MRO suppliers and component part makers within 5km of Changi Airport. The engine test facilities for RR, PW and GE engines are 5-10 mins drive from SIA's HQ. SIAEC hangers are next to the SIA HQ. If SIA has a problem with their aircraft, all their suppliers and test facilities are down the road. This did not happen by accident. It happened through the long-sighted vision of some SIA people 30 years ago, who were tired of having to send a 747 to Qantas everytime it needed to be overhauled or inspected. (And look what is happening today.....)
For 30 years, SIA and Singapore have slowly and patiently developed their MRO capabilities, and worked hard to keep all their key suppliers and test facilities in Singapore. This has enabled the SIA Group to have full control over their maintenance, have all the records inhouse, and most importantly, the SIA Group of airlines can participate in R&D work with their suppliers.
What QF has done though, is the exact opposite. They sacked skilled engineers, and send their aircraft all over the place. One 744 to SIAEC, one 737 to ST Aero, one 744 to HAECO, one A380 to LH Technik. No continuity, everything is just one-off. The skills in managing the MROs are not there, since most of the skilled staff have been sacked.
I may not know much about how aircraft mx works, but I am assuming it's just like any other industry. If you start sacking your skilled workers, and outsourcing your core functions to 10 different suppliers on an ad-hoc basis, it will just end in disaster, no matter how good your suppliers are. The corporate memory is gone.
It would be unfair to blame HAECO or SIAEC or LH Technik or Rolls Royce for what's happening to QF. QF has mishandled their management of the whole engineering process. It has nothing to do with race, nationality or where their suppliers are from. The buck stops with QF, and just because they outsource the function, does not mean they can outsource the responsibility. LH, SQ and CX planes are not exploding mid-air - and all 3 airlines have strict control over their own maintenance procedures. They have control over most of the supply chain, have JVs with their MRO suppliers, and are in a position to work with their vendors to introduce new technology and efficiencies. They don't send their planes to 10 MROs all over the world.
If QF wanted to outsource their maintenance, they should have done so in a structured manner, not in the slip-shod manner in which they have done so over the years. They should stick to one supplier and have a core group within the company to manage their vendor. Instead they sacked everyone to the point that nobody even knows how to manage their vendors, it would seem.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
DrPepz
Outstanding post.
the Singapore experience requires a long term goal , vision and discipline.
Any execs out there have a love of aviation and realise its importance to this countries defence, skills and technological base?
Any pollies out there willing to do something ?
In Australia we have the attention span of a mosquito looking no further than the next election or half yearly report.
the Singapore experience requires a long term goal , vision and discipline.
Any execs out there have a love of aviation and realise its importance to this countries defence, skills and technological base?
Any pollies out there willing to do something ?
In Australia we have the attention span of a mosquito looking no further than the next election or half yearly report.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gods Country
Age: 65
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DrPepz
Thats a very cool post DrPepz. Effectively its the next best thing to inhouse
maintenance where the same people are always looking after your equipment to
your specs all the time! Simple stuff really. They probably don't put chamfered
washers of Engine attach bolts around the wrong way either!
I have always thought the one offs that QF constantly do at a MRO must cost a
fortune in the positioning of spares/docs/tooling/audits ( which arn't worth anything anyway) not to mention the positioning of the A/C.
maintenance where the same people are always looking after your equipment to
your specs all the time! Simple stuff really. They probably don't put chamfered
washers of Engine attach bolts around the wrong way either!
I have always thought the one offs that QF constantly do at a MRO must cost a
fortune in the positioning of spares/docs/tooling/audits ( which arn't worth anything anyway) not to mention the positioning of the A/C.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ampclamp,
One of the benefits of a one party state is if you have a benevolent dictator (unfortunately 99% of them aren't) they can look beyond bipartisan bickering and work towards some common good. They are not looking at the next election 2 years down the road.
I'm not saying that our one party system is a model for the world (in many instances it probably isn't) but this has enabled the SIN govt to work with all stakeholders, SIA, SIAEC, RR, GE, Pratt etc to develop the MRO hub. In fact in the last budget statement, there was a specific section dedicated to growing the MRO business in Singapore, and tax breaks for MRO businesses.
SIA has QF to thank for training its first batch of engineers in 1968. I doubt that QF thought in 1968 that they were taking the first steps in helping to create the biggest MRO hub in Asia.
As a little island with only its people, we have always had to find ways to establish our relevance in the world. Unlike Australia, we do not have massive natural resources to sustain our lifestyle and standard of living.
I have studied and lived in Australia before, and still take a keen interest in what happens there. It does appear to me that the powers that be and the RBA are willing to sacrifice every other aspect of the Australian economy for the mining industry. More and more young people are willing to dump skilled apprentice jobs in the city to do menial work in the mines for loads more money.
It didn't matter that retail sales were falling, home building was falling, credit growth was falling..... the entire RBA statement last week was on the mining boom and Australia's greatest terms of trade in 40 years and the media is full of editorials on how this mining boom will never end and why resources from non mining industries should be channeled into mining industries.
Any nation's greatest resource is its people, and Australia should look beyond its minerals and look at developing other parts of its economy as well. Mining booms eventually do end, and when the A$ falls back to its historical levels, QF would have completely lost their ability to manage their maintenance, outsourcing the process would cost 20-30% more due to currency fluctuations, and their vendors would be taking them for a ride without them realising it!
One of the benefits of a one party state is if you have a benevolent dictator (unfortunately 99% of them aren't) they can look beyond bipartisan bickering and work towards some common good. They are not looking at the next election 2 years down the road.
I'm not saying that our one party system is a model for the world (in many instances it probably isn't) but this has enabled the SIN govt to work with all stakeholders, SIA, SIAEC, RR, GE, Pratt etc to develop the MRO hub. In fact in the last budget statement, there was a specific section dedicated to growing the MRO business in Singapore, and tax breaks for MRO businesses.
SIA has QF to thank for training its first batch of engineers in 1968. I doubt that QF thought in 1968 that they were taking the first steps in helping to create the biggest MRO hub in Asia.
As a little island with only its people, we have always had to find ways to establish our relevance in the world. Unlike Australia, we do not have massive natural resources to sustain our lifestyle and standard of living.
I have studied and lived in Australia before, and still take a keen interest in what happens there. It does appear to me that the powers that be and the RBA are willing to sacrifice every other aspect of the Australian economy for the mining industry. More and more young people are willing to dump skilled apprentice jobs in the city to do menial work in the mines for loads more money.
It didn't matter that retail sales were falling, home building was falling, credit growth was falling..... the entire RBA statement last week was on the mining boom and Australia's greatest terms of trade in 40 years and the media is full of editorials on how this mining boom will never end and why resources from non mining industries should be channeled into mining industries.
Any nation's greatest resource is its people, and Australia should look beyond its minerals and look at developing other parts of its economy as well. Mining booms eventually do end, and when the A$ falls back to its historical levels, QF would have completely lost their ability to manage their maintenance, outsourcing the process would cost 20-30% more due to currency fluctuations, and their vendors would be taking them for a ride without them realising it!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: A free wi_fi near you
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me start by saying I do not work for QF but have previously worked on their aircraft.
I am disgusted by the fact that people on this forum always sh*t on overseas maintenance companies that carry out work on QF aircraft,
There is more than QF in the skies in OZ does that make the other companies any less safer?
VB maintained by kiwis and JHAS(737) and Singaporeans (777),
To say the aircraft are maintained by engineers overseas and are less safe if a total misconception, are aircraft maintained in Germany more dangerous than those in OZ? what about Malaysia, or even Singapore or NZ?
People are expressing their own feelings personal emotions on a open forum with little facts or very little information.
Since when has the Aussie engineer been better than others around the globe?
We as engineers are there for one purpose to keep the planes flying SAFELY and within all regulations.
ALL eng shops work off the same CMM, it's either in or its out no quesions about it.
How can someone imply that another shop isn't as good as a local one????
All spec's are from the relevant engine manufacturer.
Jetstar's engines aren't maintained o/hauled locally i know of at least 3 occasions they have let go in flight no one is jumping up and down about them!
I am disgusted by the fact that people on this forum always sh*t on overseas maintenance companies that carry out work on QF aircraft,
There is more than QF in the skies in OZ does that make the other companies any less safer?
VB maintained by kiwis and JHAS(737) and Singaporeans (777),
To say the aircraft are maintained by engineers overseas and are less safe if a total misconception, are aircraft maintained in Germany more dangerous than those in OZ? what about Malaysia, or even Singapore or NZ?
People are expressing their own feelings personal emotions on a open forum with little facts or very little information.
Since when has the Aussie engineer been better than others around the globe?
We as engineers are there for one purpose to keep the planes flying SAFELY and within all regulations.
ALL eng shops work off the same CMM, it's either in or its out no quesions about it.
How can someone imply that another shop isn't as good as a local one????
All spec's are from the relevant engine manufacturer.
Jetstar's engines aren't maintained o/hauled locally i know of at least 3 occasions they have let go in flight no one is jumping up and down about them!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
drpepz
we are way off topic but wanted to acknowledge your posts again.Your view of Australia and QF as stated is imho quite correct.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Near an Airport
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
plasticmerc,
Your comment:
"I am disgusted by the fact that people on this forum always sh*t on overseas maintenance companies that carry out work on QF aircraft"
Your disgusted??
How about you try working in a company that had an engineering division that was the envy of the industry worldwide but decided it would destroy it all in the name of profit and where those that made the decision to do so collected obsene amounts of money for doing nothing more than slash and burn for immediate shareholder gratifcation without any thought of the long term future, or for the lives of those that had been working there to make the company what it was yet still try to cash in on that legacy, then tell me what disgusts you.
I'm sure if you did work at QF you would be far more disgusted than what you are now. I hope where you work value your experience and contribution to its bottom line.
AWBC
Your comment:
"I am disgusted by the fact that people on this forum always sh*t on overseas maintenance companies that carry out work on QF aircraft"
Your disgusted??
How about you try working in a company that had an engineering division that was the envy of the industry worldwide but decided it would destroy it all in the name of profit and where those that made the decision to do so collected obsene amounts of money for doing nothing more than slash and burn for immediate shareholder gratifcation without any thought of the long term future, or for the lives of those that had been working there to make the company what it was yet still try to cash in on that legacy, then tell me what disgusts you.
I'm sure if you did work at QF you would be far more disgusted than what you are now. I hope where you work value your experience and contribution to its bottom line.
AWBC
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great post DrPepz.
Unfortunately Aussies are good at growing it, shooting it and digging it; not always so good at thinking it (sic). In recent times I think we have suffered with poor quality managers and CEOs who have trashed our companies with short-sighted and parochial thinking. Qantas have been a prime example. Businesses here are largely run by small minded bean counters with no technical expertise. What they fail to realize is that in the event of a hull loss, no amount of bean counting can retrieve shareholder value. (and shareholders can be gone within a day, unlike liability and reputation).
We have some great workers in this country and some great professionals (doctors, scientists, farmers and the like) but where we fall down is with our managers. For the most part they are petty, ill educated parochial wannabes that pursue small minded goals like promotions and bonuses, and rarely, if ever want to achieve something worthwhile.
Unfortunately Aussies are good at growing it, shooting it and digging it; not always so good at thinking it (sic). In recent times I think we have suffered with poor quality managers and CEOs who have trashed our companies with short-sighted and parochial thinking. Qantas have been a prime example. Businesses here are largely run by small minded bean counters with no technical expertise. What they fail to realize is that in the event of a hull loss, no amount of bean counting can retrieve shareholder value. (and shareholders can be gone within a day, unlike liability and reputation).
We have some great workers in this country and some great professionals (doctors, scientists, farmers and the like) but where we fall down is with our managers. For the most part they are petty, ill educated parochial wannabes that pursue small minded goals like promotions and bonuses, and rarely, if ever want to achieve something worthwhile.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 6th Nov 2010 at 12:28.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like that, instead of trying to stop Singapore from flying out of Australia ,they should be allowed to buy QF and it might be better for all.
Well,maybe not for the QF chiefs.
Well,maybe not for the QF chiefs.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALL eng shops work off the same CMM, it's either in or its out no quesions about it.
So when that MRO who's trying to make a profit looks at the CMM and sees the wear limit is 0.020" and the part in question is worn 0.018". Are they going to replace that part, giving maximum service life to the overhauled component, or leave it because it's cheaper and within limits?
You may not have questions, but I do!
And here's the emotion
We're breeding simpletons
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: A free wi_fi near you
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree if the CMM gives you a limit of 0.020" and the wear is 0.018" personally I wouold change it out to ensure it will have a proper service life!
However the eng shop does not have the power to make that descision for the owner of the engine they can only forward their recommendations to the owner and let them make the descision!
It is then up to the bean counters and propulsion management team to decide on what they want! If they say refit it and are happy to wear the consequences of that descision I don't understand why the engine shop should be considered at fault? Can you?
If you took your car to a mechanic and they changed something that was within limits without telling you or giving you the choice how would you feel?
Where this gets difficult is power by the hour engines, it all comes back to how good a name you want in your respected field!!
If QF sent engines overseas and then chose not to have something done then its on them and not the eng shop.
I read somewhere that the A380 was serviced by Lufthansa in Germany they are not a cheap organisation their o/heads are comparable to those in OZ.
They are not a fly by the night operation either. If you think they don't know Airbus maintenance I think you should really look at there services, they have been Airbus operators and maintainers FAR longer than QF.
I almost think they are recognised as industry leaders on the various types. Also benefit from having Airbus/EADS right there.
I understand how one must feel about being industry leaders and now to be kicked form gutter to gutter by management. I do hope that the situation gets better for you but it doesn't improve by going into a mud slinging match us vs the world, it gets better by taking steps internally to improve the system.
I know how hard it was with Dixon but you have a new CEO and eng manager and I do know you guys at QF are negotiating your EBA, but will getting more money and better staff travel perks really going to impove your work place? or is it just going to make it easier to go to work everyday?
It's a fine line between heaven and hell in these situations and I wish you guys at QF good luck.
However the eng shop does not have the power to make that descision for the owner of the engine they can only forward their recommendations to the owner and let them make the descision!
It is then up to the bean counters and propulsion management team to decide on what they want! If they say refit it and are happy to wear the consequences of that descision I don't understand why the engine shop should be considered at fault? Can you?
If you took your car to a mechanic and they changed something that was within limits without telling you or giving you the choice how would you feel?
Where this gets difficult is power by the hour engines, it all comes back to how good a name you want in your respected field!!
If QF sent engines overseas and then chose not to have something done then its on them and not the eng shop.
I read somewhere that the A380 was serviced by Lufthansa in Germany they are not a cheap organisation their o/heads are comparable to those in OZ.
They are not a fly by the night operation either. If you think they don't know Airbus maintenance I think you should really look at there services, they have been Airbus operators and maintainers FAR longer than QF.
I almost think they are recognised as industry leaders on the various types. Also benefit from having Airbus/EADS right there.
I understand how one must feel about being industry leaders and now to be kicked form gutter to gutter by management. I do hope that the situation gets better for you but it doesn't improve by going into a mud slinging match us vs the world, it gets better by taking steps internally to improve the system.
I know how hard it was with Dixon but you have a new CEO and eng manager and I do know you guys at QF are negotiating your EBA, but will getting more money and better staff travel perks really going to impove your work place? or is it just going to make it easier to go to work everyday?
It's a fine line between heaven and hell in these situations and I wish you guys at QF good luck.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Downunder
Age: 74
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....To say the aircraft are maintained by engineers overseas and are less safe if a total misconception......Since when has the Aussie engineer been better than others around the globe........ALL eng shops work off the same CMM, it's either in or its out no quesions about it.......How can someone imply that another shop isn't as good as a local one.......All spec's are from the relevant engine manufacturer......
DrPepz wrote:
So, the four (at least that I remember) RR Trent LPT catastophic failures in SQ B772's don't count then?
SIA uses SIAEC and has no problems with engines blowing up mid air or things like that.