Qantas announcement today
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Victor2 and Mourgo are clearly a pair of chumps who never cut it in the big league, and now vent their disdain and wrath at those who had the smarts and testicles to attain a career path worthy of mention.
Victor 2/Mourgo, go back to your two bit outfit in Zimbabwe or Columbia, take your triplet Ken Borough with you and never be seen again.
You clowns may hate Unions with a passion, but unions offer something you nupties, Politicians and QF execs will never be able to offer - Loyalty.
Whether you like the unions in this issue or not, at least they are willing to show their cards, play a straight hand and show it for all it is worth, unlike Team Joyce.
Labor used to be the party for the working men (and gals), now you have a line up of inbred cabbages running (ruining) Australia. Again I reiterate that anything the Orange Clown and friends touch turns to effluent. Keep away from QF and for once try to do what you were elected to do, serve the people, not your own self interests.
Steve, you have my support, take it to them eye to eye, make it a fight to remember, if QF punch you - knee them in the balls, if QF kick you - bitch slap them and poke their eyes out. Throw away the rule book, play hard, play dirty, play it to the bitter end.
Victor 2/Mourgo, go back to your two bit outfit in Zimbabwe or Columbia, take your triplet Ken Borough with you and never be seen again.
You clowns may hate Unions with a passion, but unions offer something you nupties, Politicians and QF execs will never be able to offer - Loyalty.
Whether you like the unions in this issue or not, at least they are willing to show their cards, play a straight hand and show it for all it is worth, unlike Team Joyce.
Labor used to be the party for the working men (and gals), now you have a line up of inbred cabbages running (ruining) Australia. Again I reiterate that anything the Orange Clown and friends touch turns to effluent. Keep away from QF and for once try to do what you were elected to do, serve the people, not your own self interests.
Steve, you have my support, take it to them eye to eye, make it a fight to remember, if QF punch you - knee them in the balls, if QF kick you - bitch slap them and poke their eyes out. Throw away the rule book, play hard, play dirty, play it to the bitter end.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's remember who has had a hand in some of the turmoil of the aviation industry in the past 20 years, namely the ALP.
1. They sided with the airline bosses in 1989
2. They wrote the Qantas Sales Act
I can just see it now, Martin Ferguson being the Knight in shining armour to rescue Queen Julia in Carbon Tax-land, by slaying the evil unions with the magic FWA sword.
The country will be saved from those nasty engineers, and he will look good in the eyes of the boy from Wagga, Tourism Australia boss, none other than Geoff.
I think our Socialist Champagne buddies in Canberra are about to stitch us up and look after their pals LC & AJ. Its just so predictable.
1. They sided with the airline bosses in 1989
2. They wrote the Qantas Sales Act
I can just see it now, Martin Ferguson being the Knight in shining armour to rescue Queen Julia in Carbon Tax-land, by slaying the evil unions with the magic FWA sword.
The country will be saved from those nasty engineers, and he will look good in the eyes of the boy from Wagga, Tourism Australia boss, none other than Geoff.
I think our Socialist Champagne buddies in Canberra are about to stitch us up and look after their pals LC & AJ. Its just so predictable.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: On Uranus
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think our Socialist Champagne buddies in Canberra are about to stitch us up and look after their pals LC & AJ. Its just so predictable.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I'll give you ten minutes to name any profession that would require that person to have sat and passed as many exams as I have.”
The market has no interest in how many exams you are required to complete.
The market is only interested in examining the cost of aircraft maintenance conducted by QF compared to the cost at competitor airlines in Australia and more importantly the wider region.
What exactly does the hefty premium paid to QF engineering staff get QF that staff from other carriers or maintenance organizations cant provide for less?
The market has no interest in how many exams you are required to complete.
The market is only interested in examining the cost of aircraft maintenance conducted by QF compared to the cost at competitor airlines in Australia and more importantly the wider region.
What exactly does the hefty premium paid to QF engineering staff get QF that staff from other carriers or maintenance organizations cant provide for less?
Competence. Integrity. Peace of Mind.
The 'market' is a bunch of computer algorithms trading in microseconds. Time to put people back into the corporate strategy. You know....'our greatest asset.'
The market has no interest in how many exams you are required to complete.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Bug-A-Lugs
The military has only ever been used twice to break a strike - both times by the supposed worker's friends in the ALP.
1. Chifley used the army to break the 1948/49 coal strike
2. Hawke used the airforce in the 1989 pilots dispute
When the ALP rules it is a triumvirate of big government, big business and big unions. Everyone else gets squashed.
Exhibit (A) - favoured treatment of big miners at the expense of small ones under the revised Mining Tax.
Now the TWU is a "big union" and as such may be spared the pain but the ALAEA and AIPA, while ACTU affiliated (unlike AFAP in '89) are small unions. Whose interest will prevail: big business or small unions?
Just be careful & smart out there guys.
The military has only ever been used twice to break a strike - both times by the supposed worker's friends in the ALP.
1. Chifley used the army to break the 1948/49 coal strike
2. Hawke used the airforce in the 1989 pilots dispute
When the ALP rules it is a triumvirate of big government, big business and big unions. Everyone else gets squashed.
Exhibit (A) - favoured treatment of big miners at the expense of small ones under the revised Mining Tax.
Now the TWU is a "big union" and as such may be spared the pain but the ALAEA and AIPA, while ACTU affiliated (unlike AFAP in '89) are small unions. Whose interest will prevail: big business or small unions?
Just be careful & smart out there guys.
Professor:
With the deepest respect Professor; since you joined this forum in 2005, you have consistently posted rubbish that demonstrates that you are an uneducated fool with their head stuck firmly up your backside.
Where did you get this idea that there is a hefty Premium paid to Qantas Engineering Staff??????? This is bullshyte!
To make such a comparison requires consideration of not just raw basic wages, but the hours actually worked and paid for at those rates.
You should be aware that the labour force used in some Asian businesses is Three times the size of an equivalent Australian workforce, which negates the cost advantage.
You should also be aware that the quality of the output is shyte, as has been demonstrated by the extensive rectification work required on Qantas Aircraft when they have returned from the tender ministrations of overseas MRO's.
You should also be aware that the Chinese have no loyalties outside family members, as demonstrated by numerous scandals such as the melamine in baby formula episode. The chances of the Chinese diligently and reliably following the exact tenets of an Airbus or Boeing maintenance manual are non existent. They will lie, cheat, and cut corners if it saves time and money as they do not have the same Western sense of responsibility and empathy that Westerners do.
Of course the first people to find that out will be some poor passengers when the rear pressure bulkhead fails at 30,000 feet and kills the lot of them - it will have magically undergone a twenty hour radiographic "inspection" for corrosion between midnight and dawn in some Chinese MRO years before.
That is the message Professor, it is overall cost of ownership that matters, and if you skimp on quality it will come back and bite you on the backside years later. Of course this doesn't bother bonus driven managers. They will be long gone when the time comes to pay the piper for years of sub standard "cheap" maintenance.
And furthermore people much smarter than you are looking at re-industrialisation - pulling work out of China and Asia This will be the natural effect when the Chinese allow the Yuan to float to its true market value.
To put it another way; Asian maintenance costs will only get more expensive with time. But of course a bonus driven manager with a Five year time horizon doesn't care.
“I'll give you ten minutes to name any profession that would require that person to have sat and passed as many exams as I have.”
The market has no interest in how many exams you are required to complete.
The market is only interested in examining the cost of aircraft maintenance conducted by QF compared to the cost at competitor airlines in Australia and more importantly the wider region.
What exactly does the hefty premium paid to QF engineering staff get QF that staff from other carriers or maintenance organizations cant provide for less?
The market has no interest in how many exams you are required to complete.
The market is only interested in examining the cost of aircraft maintenance conducted by QF compared to the cost at competitor airlines in Australia and more importantly the wider region.
What exactly does the hefty premium paid to QF engineering staff get QF that staff from other carriers or maintenance organizations cant provide for less?
Where did you get this idea that there is a hefty Premium paid to Qantas Engineering Staff??????? This is bullshyte!
To make such a comparison requires consideration of not just raw basic wages, but the hours actually worked and paid for at those rates.
You should be aware that the labour force used in some Asian businesses is Three times the size of an equivalent Australian workforce, which negates the cost advantage.
You should also be aware that the quality of the output is shyte, as has been demonstrated by the extensive rectification work required on Qantas Aircraft when they have returned from the tender ministrations of overseas MRO's.
You should also be aware that the Chinese have no loyalties outside family members, as demonstrated by numerous scandals such as the melamine in baby formula episode. The chances of the Chinese diligently and reliably following the exact tenets of an Airbus or Boeing maintenance manual are non existent. They will lie, cheat, and cut corners if it saves time and money as they do not have the same Western sense of responsibility and empathy that Westerners do.
Of course the first people to find that out will be some poor passengers when the rear pressure bulkhead fails at 30,000 feet and kills the lot of them - it will have magically undergone a twenty hour radiographic "inspection" for corrosion between midnight and dawn in some Chinese MRO years before.
That is the message Professor, it is overall cost of ownership that matters, and if you skimp on quality it will come back and bite you on the backside years later. Of course this doesn't bother bonus driven managers. They will be long gone when the time comes to pay the piper for years of sub standard "cheap" maintenance.
And furthermore people much smarter than you are looking at re-industrialisation - pulling work out of China and Asia This will be the natural effect when the Chinese allow the Yuan to float to its true market value.
To put it another way; Asian maintenance costs will only get more expensive with time. But of course a bonus driven manager with a Five year time horizon doesn't care.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minto
Age: 44
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang your head in shame ALP for siding with the corporate cashcows. GEOFF DIXON chairman of the Tourism Board and MARTIN FERGUSON tourism minister hand in hand to screw Australian workers.
DISGUSTING !
DISGUSTING !
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In the Hanagar
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a read of the following wiki article on the UK miners strike to realise what you jobs may look like if the unions don't succeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_mine...ike_(1984-1985)
Like the voices of the Simpsons characters who took large pay cuts recently, you should have a good hard look at how you can restructure your activities to make them globally competitive.
Pilots are easily transportable - eventually you will have to accept some form of market rates to keep your jobs. Appreciate that you don't like this but as long as the company continues to provide the same level of training the public is in no danger.
Engineers - Domestic is hard to outsource but maybe the company could partner with a John Holland etc to establish new EBA conditions. At least the majority of these jobs are likely to remain Australian. International, you guys need to have a good hard look at how you remain competitive. Line mtc will always be required but it is hard to mount a good argument for retaining base and heavy in the country. Are engineers overpaid - well if you can buy labour for $50US in Asia per productive hour and you guys are on $120k plus super it is a no-brainer. There are some very good MRO's in the region now - United have a long term 747 contract with AMECO in China which is going well and there are many other examples. You could totally restructure your EBA to take some pay cuts for the guys at the top and not hurt the younger guys at the bottom. Getting paid for licences when the company doesn't even operate the type anymore sounds a little opportunistic.
TWU - catering and bag chucking will always be done in this country so there is no argument about going offshore. This union know they are onto a good thing compared to market rates and are trying to milk it for all its worth. Like always, if the company doesn't pay enough, it will suffer from high turnover, absenteeism and low motivation.
The market with some careful legislation to protect core rights is the way to go. Unions have a place but in my view some of them are going too far in an external environment which isn't conducive to thier industry. Hope you don't end up like UK Coal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_mine...ike_(1984-1985)
Like the voices of the Simpsons characters who took large pay cuts recently, you should have a good hard look at how you can restructure your activities to make them globally competitive.
Pilots are easily transportable - eventually you will have to accept some form of market rates to keep your jobs. Appreciate that you don't like this but as long as the company continues to provide the same level of training the public is in no danger.
Engineers - Domestic is hard to outsource but maybe the company could partner with a John Holland etc to establish new EBA conditions. At least the majority of these jobs are likely to remain Australian. International, you guys need to have a good hard look at how you remain competitive. Line mtc will always be required but it is hard to mount a good argument for retaining base and heavy in the country. Are engineers overpaid - well if you can buy labour for $50US in Asia per productive hour and you guys are on $120k plus super it is a no-brainer. There are some very good MRO's in the region now - United have a long term 747 contract with AMECO in China which is going well and there are many other examples. You could totally restructure your EBA to take some pay cuts for the guys at the top and not hurt the younger guys at the bottom. Getting paid for licences when the company doesn't even operate the type anymore sounds a little opportunistic.
TWU - catering and bag chucking will always be done in this country so there is no argument about going offshore. This union know they are onto a good thing compared to market rates and are trying to milk it for all its worth. Like always, if the company doesn't pay enough, it will suffer from high turnover, absenteeism and low motivation.
The market with some careful legislation to protect core rights is the way to go. Unions have a place but in my view some of them are going too far in an external environment which isn't conducive to thier industry. Hope you don't end up like UK Coal.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calm down fellas's, as a 89er I know only to well what it is like to be pissed on from a great height, but you have it far better than us, with all of the company joining the cause. In fact you blokes are well and truly in the LH seat on this one. We all know this is as much as about saving the company from the grubs that run it, as it is about wages and conditions. We all know that if you don't do something, you are deadset going to end up on JQ wages conditions and contracts which has been the ultimate aim all along. The public, judging by the blogs yesterday, are not so sure this is simply a disgruntled workers dispute, and are having a long hard look at management, with the problems of the 747/400 and the A380 still fresh in their minds, they are not all that sure that the employees don't have a case, nor do they want another Ansett. Unite, stay united, they cannot bring in the military on this one, far to big, yes you will have your scabs, but not enough to run the company. Us 89ers are cheering you on.
keepqantasflying.com.au
Presume all have looked at this website??.
It says the alaea is demanding a $95million hangar be built which is included in the total cost of $165 million for the total eba claim.
Even if the hangar was built at that cost,doesnt it become a QF asset??
So now the claim is $65 million! Still a bit of fat in that figure i would have thought & what about the depreciation costs associated with a hangar ??
Might be cheaper than anyone has considered??
It says the alaea is demanding a $95million hangar be built which is included in the total cost of $165 million for the total eba claim.
Even if the hangar was built at that cost,doesnt it become a QF asset??
So now the claim is $65 million! Still a bit of fat in that figure i would have thought & what about the depreciation costs associated with a hangar ??
Might be cheaper than anyone has considered??
With the political pressure hotting up ... are there alternative ways to push your claims?
Just thinking out loud ....
Just thinking out loud ....
- Is it leagal to "work to rule"
- Do you work much "above rule"?
- Would working "to rule" have any impact?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the cost of maintenance in Australia, I worked for over 2 years at a Asian MRO, they brought in some farmers from China, gave them a six week course, and put them to work as sheet metal workers.
They couldn't read any English, had to have their Leading Hand interpret for them (hid them when FAA did an audit) and payed them $6.00/hour.
How do you compete with that!
Also, they used to get the prisoners over to do the cleaning on the aircraft, no safety equipment supplied, they used to work in their thongs (slippers), so imagine how that makes maintenance cheaper, when you don't have to worry about safety.
So, the way I see it is, it doesn't matter how the maintenance gets done, as long as the package is signed off at the end of the check by an "approved" MRO at the right price, those above will share no responsibility if it all ends up badly.
They couldn't read any English, had to have their Leading Hand interpret for them (hid them when FAA did an audit) and payed them $6.00/hour.
How do you compete with that!
Also, they used to get the prisoners over to do the cleaning on the aircraft, no safety equipment supplied, they used to work in their thongs (slippers), so imagine how that makes maintenance cheaper, when you don't have to worry about safety.
So, the way I see it is, it doesn't matter how the maintenance gets done, as long as the package is signed off at the end of the check by an "approved" MRO at the right price, those above will share no responsibility if it all ends up badly.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just watched AJ's announcement
“Pilots have been using PAs to make political statements to our customers.”
The gist of the announcements highlight one major job security clause: Qantas Pilot for a Qantas Flight. It’s what the majority of passengers want.
What do you call standing in front of a press conference, making disingenuous, inaccurate and untruthful statements designed to trigger a response from the politicians? The Tourism Minister gets a flea in his ear from your former boss GD and responds accordingly! Remember, as a CEO of an ASX200 company, your access to politicians for behind-closed-doors dialogue is far greater than any Qantas pilot.
One union leader has gone so far as warning customers not to fly with Qantas before Christmas… try to destroy the business that employs his members.”
He advised that that’s what he’d do. He didn’t warn anybody. It was the responsible thing to do.
We’re trying to destroy the businesss? Quite the opposite in fact. We want to undo some of the poor business decisions that have resulted in the loss of customer work and the revnue it generated; the reduction in flying from poor route, timing and fleet decisions,; aircraft unavailabilities and reduced reliability due to lack of logistics caused by outsourcing… the list goes on!
“Today I regret to announce that go slows and overtime bans by the maintenance engineers are now making it difficult to clear maintenance tasks in a timely fashion. We are seeing a shortfall of (line) maintenance capacity of… 8%”
Go slows? Well, we’re working precisely to ALL the policies and procedures management wrote – even the silly ones we usually ignore. Are you suggesting we should work contrary to company policy and procedure? To do so is a dismissable offence under company policy. If you want to blame us for go slows, look for blame a little closer to home.
Overtime bans? So the only way the company can acquit the 8% shortfall in required maintenance work is with overtime? Does that mean you could really do with 8% more engineers? Why then the stated plans to make 300 out of 1600 maintenance engineers (most of them from line maintenance) redundant before the ink is dry on the enterprise agreement?
You also forgot to mention the 75% cut in logistics, the falling reliability of spare parts due to outsourcing, rework of poor overseas maintenance, and the poor state of infrastructure, tooling and ground equipment.
“This is why we are grounding (the equivalent of) four narrow body 737s and one widebody 767…
Six of our oldest 737-400s and two of our oldest 767s were scheduled to be removed from service this year. These older aircraft chew up more maintenance than the newer aircraft. This is just a rehash of plans already in place, ala Bob Carr and NSW Labor - announce, repackage and re-announce.
“These aircraft are from the Domestic operation… there will be no impact on the International operation.”
I’m confused. Didn’t Domestic make a $440 million profit and International make a $200 million loss? Why are you grounding Domestic aircraft?
I understand why people are wondering why Qantas management can’t just sit down and deal with these unions. Well that’s exactly what we’re doing. We have 15 unions in Qantas and a track record of being positive and flexible in our approach to negotiations… We have always been ready to negotiate a fair agreement… ”
Really? Why did you stonewall for 8 solid months in the ALAEA negotiations? Why did you refuse to meet on the latest occasion that the ALAEA invited the company to talk? Too busy crafting your press statement? Why are we STILL waiting for a full and considered counter-offer from the company, 13 months after negotiations commenced?
“Our pilots and engineers are among the best compensated in the world, with outstanding pay and conditions.”
We’re also some of the best, most experienced pilots and engineers in the world.
Remember, Qantas has been around for 90 years. You have pilots and engineers who have been with the company for 30 and 40 years: the average age of Qantas engineers is 49! That kind of experience deserves adequate recompense. Virgin Australia has only been operating for 10 years.
You are in this situation – particularly among the engineers - because you have failed to employ and train younger engineers. You cannot attract them to Qantas because your competitors pay structure actually pays younger engineers better than Qantas – a pay structure that has evolved over time into an archaic, befuddled and uncompetitive mess. We are negotiating in good faith to try and change that pay structure.
You’d get a lot better value for money from the pilots if you hadn’t almost halved their flying hours. And you’d get a lot more value for money from your engineers if you trained them more and backed them with the logistics, tooling, equipment, policy and procedure we need to get the job done.
“They want the right to control key elements of how we run this company.”
We want Qantas to remain in Australia, employing Australians, paying Australian income and company taxes and therefore supporting Australia, which is what most Australians want.
“Whether it’s the engineers union demanding a veto on the modernistaion of work practices…”
We offered to sensibly negotiate on Maintenance On Demand and you refused, because you were determined to crash or crash it through.
“Qantas is an international business expanding into Asia. Not one single job will go as a result of these plans.”
Really? What about the 1,000 job losses you announced two months ago? You are retiring the aged and fuel-inefficient Qantas mainline fleet and not replacing them. All new A320 and 787 aircraft are going to Jetstar. When Jetstar receive the brand-new 787s, Qantas mainline will get back the worn-out A330s you and your predecessor gifted them. What business sense does it make to either keep or transfer your highest cost aircraft into the part of the company with the highest cost structure?
“Contrary to union statements, 90% of aircraft maintenance is done in Australia.”
Our union is on the record as saying that we agree 90% of aircraft maintenance is done in Australia. However the majority of component and engine maintenance and control over engineering logistics has been outsourced. Some of those outsourcing decisions have been abject failures, resulting in engines not reaching critical performance margins, engines and components with poor time-in-service standards, and parts not being available when and where they are needed. These failures further compound the challenges Qantas International faces while attempting to maintain an aged fleet – a fleet that will not see new aircraft in the foreseeable future. You have announced the biggest aircraft order in Australian history: 110 A320s and A320-neo’s – all of which will be based offshore. Guaranteed all 50 new 787s on order will go to the new Asian based airline. Qantas International will continue to wither on the vine while engineers are expected to do more with less.
“The best way to deliver job security is to deliver a strong and viable business.”
Why the offshoring? Why let Qantas mainline wither on the vine? Why are you trying to circumvent or breach the spirit if not the letter of the Qantas Sale Act?
Make no mistake, we are ready to do fair deals, but they must be reasonable… With the licensed engineers union, we have tried to set up more dates before Fair Work Australia, so our efforts continue. But instead of calling off the destructive industrial campaign to negotiate, these unions are doing what they can to hurt our business and our brand.
The engineers union has offered to provide engineers on overtime to cover the stop work meetings. It has been your decision to allow the stop work meetings to effect the business.
We have been compelled to this action by Qantas’ utter refusal to negotiate towards an agreed outcome. The action is designed to get YOU back to the negotiating table. The engineers union has bent over backwards to accommodate some of the company’s more outlandish claims. We have tried to arrange conciliation and you have knocked back the latest invitation. We have been willing to negotiate on most aspects of our log of claims. Qantas has not even provided a log of claims! How can we negotiate when we don’t know everything that you want, and you’re not willing to either meet or discuss some claims let alone actually negotiate.
Make no mistake, we are fighting for the survival of Qantas. What we are doing is akin to chemotherapy. The patient gets sick but the cancer is killed and the patient eventually recovers. This is not a death threat, just an analogy. We view your “5-year plan” as a cancer, not you or management.
The gist of the announcements highlight one major job security clause: Qantas Pilot for a Qantas Flight. It’s what the majority of passengers want.
What do you call standing in front of a press conference, making disingenuous, inaccurate and untruthful statements designed to trigger a response from the politicians? The Tourism Minister gets a flea in his ear from your former boss GD and responds accordingly! Remember, as a CEO of an ASX200 company, your access to politicians for behind-closed-doors dialogue is far greater than any Qantas pilot.
One union leader has gone so far as warning customers not to fly with Qantas before Christmas… try to destroy the business that employs his members.”
He advised that that’s what he’d do. He didn’t warn anybody. It was the responsible thing to do.
We’re trying to destroy the businesss? Quite the opposite in fact. We want to undo some of the poor business decisions that have resulted in the loss of customer work and the revnue it generated; the reduction in flying from poor route, timing and fleet decisions,; aircraft unavailabilities and reduced reliability due to lack of logistics caused by outsourcing… the list goes on!
“Today I regret to announce that go slows and overtime bans by the maintenance engineers are now making it difficult to clear maintenance tasks in a timely fashion. We are seeing a shortfall of (line) maintenance capacity of… 8%”
Go slows? Well, we’re working precisely to ALL the policies and procedures management wrote – even the silly ones we usually ignore. Are you suggesting we should work contrary to company policy and procedure? To do so is a dismissable offence under company policy. If you want to blame us for go slows, look for blame a little closer to home.
Overtime bans? So the only way the company can acquit the 8% shortfall in required maintenance work is with overtime? Does that mean you could really do with 8% more engineers? Why then the stated plans to make 300 out of 1600 maintenance engineers (most of them from line maintenance) redundant before the ink is dry on the enterprise agreement?
You also forgot to mention the 75% cut in logistics, the falling reliability of spare parts due to outsourcing, rework of poor overseas maintenance, and the poor state of infrastructure, tooling and ground equipment.
“This is why we are grounding (the equivalent of) four narrow body 737s and one widebody 767…
Six of our oldest 737-400s and two of our oldest 767s were scheduled to be removed from service this year. These older aircraft chew up more maintenance than the newer aircraft. This is just a rehash of plans already in place, ala Bob Carr and NSW Labor - announce, repackage and re-announce.
“These aircraft are from the Domestic operation… there will be no impact on the International operation.”
I’m confused. Didn’t Domestic make a $440 million profit and International make a $200 million loss? Why are you grounding Domestic aircraft?
I understand why people are wondering why Qantas management can’t just sit down and deal with these unions. Well that’s exactly what we’re doing. We have 15 unions in Qantas and a track record of being positive and flexible in our approach to negotiations… We have always been ready to negotiate a fair agreement… ”
Really? Why did you stonewall for 8 solid months in the ALAEA negotiations? Why did you refuse to meet on the latest occasion that the ALAEA invited the company to talk? Too busy crafting your press statement? Why are we STILL waiting for a full and considered counter-offer from the company, 13 months after negotiations commenced?
“Our pilots and engineers are among the best compensated in the world, with outstanding pay and conditions.”
We’re also some of the best, most experienced pilots and engineers in the world.
Remember, Qantas has been around for 90 years. You have pilots and engineers who have been with the company for 30 and 40 years: the average age of Qantas engineers is 49! That kind of experience deserves adequate recompense. Virgin Australia has only been operating for 10 years.
You are in this situation – particularly among the engineers - because you have failed to employ and train younger engineers. You cannot attract them to Qantas because your competitors pay structure actually pays younger engineers better than Qantas – a pay structure that has evolved over time into an archaic, befuddled and uncompetitive mess. We are negotiating in good faith to try and change that pay structure.
You’d get a lot better value for money from the pilots if you hadn’t almost halved their flying hours. And you’d get a lot more value for money from your engineers if you trained them more and backed them with the logistics, tooling, equipment, policy and procedure we need to get the job done.
“They want the right to control key elements of how we run this company.”
We want Qantas to remain in Australia, employing Australians, paying Australian income and company taxes and therefore supporting Australia, which is what most Australians want.
“Whether it’s the engineers union demanding a veto on the modernistaion of work practices…”
We offered to sensibly negotiate on Maintenance On Demand and you refused, because you were determined to crash or crash it through.
“Qantas is an international business expanding into Asia. Not one single job will go as a result of these plans.”
Really? What about the 1,000 job losses you announced two months ago? You are retiring the aged and fuel-inefficient Qantas mainline fleet and not replacing them. All new A320 and 787 aircraft are going to Jetstar. When Jetstar receive the brand-new 787s, Qantas mainline will get back the worn-out A330s you and your predecessor gifted them. What business sense does it make to either keep or transfer your highest cost aircraft into the part of the company with the highest cost structure?
“Contrary to union statements, 90% of aircraft maintenance is done in Australia.”
Our union is on the record as saying that we agree 90% of aircraft maintenance is done in Australia. However the majority of component and engine maintenance and control over engineering logistics has been outsourced. Some of those outsourcing decisions have been abject failures, resulting in engines not reaching critical performance margins, engines and components with poor time-in-service standards, and parts not being available when and where they are needed. These failures further compound the challenges Qantas International faces while attempting to maintain an aged fleet – a fleet that will not see new aircraft in the foreseeable future. You have announced the biggest aircraft order in Australian history: 110 A320s and A320-neo’s – all of which will be based offshore. Guaranteed all 50 new 787s on order will go to the new Asian based airline. Qantas International will continue to wither on the vine while engineers are expected to do more with less.
“The best way to deliver job security is to deliver a strong and viable business.”
Why the offshoring? Why let Qantas mainline wither on the vine? Why are you trying to circumvent or breach the spirit if not the letter of the Qantas Sale Act?
Make no mistake, we are ready to do fair deals, but they must be reasonable… With the licensed engineers union, we have tried to set up more dates before Fair Work Australia, so our efforts continue. But instead of calling off the destructive industrial campaign to negotiate, these unions are doing what they can to hurt our business and our brand.
The engineers union has offered to provide engineers on overtime to cover the stop work meetings. It has been your decision to allow the stop work meetings to effect the business.
We have been compelled to this action by Qantas’ utter refusal to negotiate towards an agreed outcome. The action is designed to get YOU back to the negotiating table. The engineers union has bent over backwards to accommodate some of the company’s more outlandish claims. We have tried to arrange conciliation and you have knocked back the latest invitation. We have been willing to negotiate on most aspects of our log of claims. Qantas has not even provided a log of claims! How can we negotiate when we don’t know everything that you want, and you’re not willing to either meet or discuss some claims let alone actually negotiate.
Make no mistake, we are fighting for the survival of Qantas. What we are doing is akin to chemotherapy. The patient gets sick but the cancer is killed and the patient eventually recovers. This is not a death threat, just an analogy. We view your “5-year plan” as a cancer, not you or management.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Past the rabbit proof fence
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Victor Two,
I don't see any profession there where a person would have been required to pass the 120 exams I have sat, nearly all with a 75% pass mark. Correct me if I am wrong, spare the insults.
I don't see any profession there where a person would have been required to pass the 120 exams I have sat, nearly all with a 75% pass mark. Correct me if I am wrong, spare the insults.
Funny thing is, my brother in law has a BSc and a MBA and he once equated my training to approximate a 7 year degree - purely on hours alone. His figures not mine. BTW his degree sits proudly in the toilet - true.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Past the rabbit proof fence
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exactly does the hefty premium paid to QF engineering staff get QF that staff from other carriers or maintenance organizations cant provide for less?
Fact - Qf engineers actually earn less than their VB counterparts. Even JQ engineers earn more than like licenced QF engineers. Professor of bullsh!t.
Whilst I support you 100% I must say I'm a bit tired of reading about the sub standard maintenance in China ( Hong Kong ) If you are correct then one should never fly CX or KA 