QANTAS - WHERE TO NOW?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are an absolute multitude of issues that I have complete difference of opinion to SP. Many of his claims I find outrageous and very damaging to our industry.
However, never ever, have I had reason to think he has acted with anything other than members best interests as his motivation.
Fair's fair thank you.
MP.
However, never ever, have I had reason to think he has acted with anything other than members best interests as his motivation.
Fair's fair thank you.
MP.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's put a few things in perspective.
After last year's AGM AJ shut QANTAS down due to "industrial action". The whole of that cost was then placed against QANTAS International. QANTAS International "lost $400m plus" last financial year dragging the rest of the business down.
At the AGM this year, AJ announced that there will be a return of dividends on their investments. Today 500+ job losses are announced in engineering.
9 744's will be reconfigured to the all new you-beaut 380 interior. 3 of these 9 will be the older outdated RR744's, which will see Victorville in a couple of years.
Then we have the refurbishment of the 767 interiors, who are nearing the same fate as their 744 counterparts, and will be gone within a handful years if not sooner.
When J* start receiving their 787's next year, their 330's will be returning to QANTAS, which will be pushing the 767's out the door.
All of these costs are being placed against International, in addition to BKK being removed from QANTAS and given to J*, HNL, being one of the most profitable, if not the most profitable for QANTAS, being removed from QANTAS and given to J* and the removal of FRA from QANTAS.
I have said it before, and will say it again, QANTAS International is being engineered to fail.
Cargo744 and victor two, you need to pull your noses out of your apu's. It doesn't matter what FedSec or anyone else says. What these bogans in Coward St, Mascot do is beyond what anyone else can stop. Not even the impotent federal government could stop these guys shutting down the airline and forcing them into arbitration. If Gillard spoke to AJ like she did to Abbott during her misgonyst rant, the airline would have never shut down.
After last year's AGM AJ shut QANTAS down due to "industrial action". The whole of that cost was then placed against QANTAS International. QANTAS International "lost $400m plus" last financial year dragging the rest of the business down.
At the AGM this year, AJ announced that there will be a return of dividends on their investments. Today 500+ job losses are announced in engineering.
9 744's will be reconfigured to the all new you-beaut 380 interior. 3 of these 9 will be the older outdated RR744's, which will see Victorville in a couple of years.
Then we have the refurbishment of the 767 interiors, who are nearing the same fate as their 744 counterparts, and will be gone within a handful years if not sooner.
When J* start receiving their 787's next year, their 330's will be returning to QANTAS, which will be pushing the 767's out the door.
All of these costs are being placed against International, in addition to BKK being removed from QANTAS and given to J*, HNL, being one of the most profitable, if not the most profitable for QANTAS, being removed from QANTAS and given to J* and the removal of FRA from QANTAS.
I have said it before, and will say it again, QANTAS International is being engineered to fail.
Cargo744 and victor two, you need to pull your noses out of your apu's. It doesn't matter what FedSec or anyone else says. What these bogans in Coward St, Mascot do is beyond what anyone else can stop. Not even the impotent federal government could stop these guys shutting down the airline and forcing them into arbitration. If Gillard spoke to AJ like she did to Abbott during her misgonyst rant, the airline would have never shut down.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, never ever, have I had reason to think he has acted with anything other than members best interests as his motivation.
Fair's fair thank you.
Fair's fair thank you.
I was pretty upset when I read this story today , that ad on the same page did my head in..the irony.....
I suppose the punters don't pick this stuff up.. they have been used to bad news from Qantas group for too long now... the whole thing has been so badly handled... Q PR & HR should hang their head in shame, they come across as brutal... not sure when the promised time comes for the five year plan to work they will win back the punters, The collateral damage from all this doom and gloom may encounter resistance. So un-Australian... Another 500 jobs to go as Qantas looks to close maintenance base
Spare a thought for the Channel 10 news department, they too are in uncertain times, many jobs to go in their news department.. kudos to them for reporting the human side of things for a change..
.
Last edited by TIMA9X; 8th Nov 2012 at 14:03. Reason: update links
What these bogans in Coward St, Mascot do is beyond what anyone else can stop.
Add to Longhaul's cost base:
*The refurbishment of 'The Campus'.
*Cargo cartel fines.
*Abandoned refurbishment of the Qantas Club lounges in SIN and HKG.
*The Red Q non starter.
*Money outlayed for A380 cancelled orders, now redeployed to A320s that will never be part of Longhaul.
*Of course, the cancelled B787s were never allocated to Longhaul so the $400M or whatever it is Boeing is paying in compensation will not be accounting to Longhaul either.
It's all headwinds, no tailwinds.
Last edited by Captain Gidday; 8th Nov 2012 at 19:17.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: aviation heaven, australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet "AME" remains on the skills shortage list. What a f@&king joke. Anyone who thinks a career in aviation is a good idea is an idiot. What a mistake I made. And for any journal reading this, please call out Qantas management when they say new aircraft require less checking, this is bullsh&t. The techniques have changed, regulations have allowed the use of 1 or none engineers to check anything.
Last edited by empire4; 8th Nov 2012 at 19:32.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Why do you think they went scouring the globe for the last 7 years looking for the likes of CN, LS, and the cheapest maint operations out there?
This is only the start of a much more grand plan that they are to afraid to let us all in on.
In other words this is just the start, get ready for a more messy ride ahead. (who ever said you can't put a price on safety??).
Myself and others don't believe for a second that this is about capacity cuts, its just the unravelling of a long planned workplace remodel.
This is only the start of a much more grand plan that they are to afraid to let us all in on.
In other words this is just the start, get ready for a more messy ride ahead. (who ever said you can't put a price on safety??).
Myself and others don't believe for a second that this is about capacity cuts, its just the unravelling of a long planned workplace remodel.
Last edited by Ngineer; 8th Nov 2012 at 20:30.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sector 7G
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all headwinds, no tailwinds.
"Very frequently propaganda is describe as a manipulation for the purpose of changing idea or opinions of making individuals 'believe' some idea or fact, and finally of making them adhere to some doctrine—all matters of the mind. It tries to convince, to bring about a decision, to create a firm adherence to some truth. This is a completely wrong line of thinking: to view propaganda as still being what it was in 1850 is to cling to an obsolete concept of man and of the means to influence him; it is to condemn oneself to understand nothing about propaganda. The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action. It is no longer to transform an opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief."
--
Jacques Ellul - Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes
--
Jacques Ellul - Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes
I believe the public actions over the last 10 years by Qantas indicate there has been a highly sophisticated Public Relations ( read propaganda) campaign with a certain course of action as an outcome. We can reserve engineer the campaign with hindsight, however we cannot know for certain the motivations. At the top of my list would be the removal of the restrictions of the Qantas Sales Act, allowing for some sort of private equity play. The "terminal decline" of the International mainline brand will continue, to justify the pre-determined action - an engineered outcome. Nothing happens by accident.
The link I provided above will give you a very good precis of just how sophisticated modern propaganda has become - and that was written in 1965. The book is still in print & available for a modest price, as is a pdf copy floating around.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB is a fine manager but the board made a choice to go with AJ. And they are sticking with it.
QF needs a drastic overhaul and AJ is just the guy to do it. And whether you like it or not, the business community in Oz loves him.
The unions thought they could pull their usual tactics but failed. And now cannot deal with the fact that they are unable to hold QF hostage to get their demands met. Thus the conspiracy theories, the moaning about management, the building at Mascot and whatever else comes to mind.
QF needs a drastic overhaul and AJ is just the guy to do it. And whether you like it or not, the business community in Oz loves him.
The unions thought they could pull their usual tactics but failed. And now cannot deal with the fact that they are unable to hold QF hostage to get their demands met. Thus the conspiracy theories, the moaning about management, the building at Mascot and whatever else comes to mind.
These guys couldn't run the local corner shop let alone an international airline, and their reputation precedes them.
When things are going well the union mentality is "I show up to work so I should get a bonus." When things are not going well they are not willing to sacrifice.
Just to show you are factually wrong, we haven't received a "bonus" in years, with the exception of a few travel vouchers. The bonuses the bogans have received could have upgraded to new aircraft and actually kept routes they're throwing away, in addition to the pay increases they give themselves.
Shon7, crawl back under your rock and fantasise over your poster of AJ. You have enough to worry about after your recent presidential elections. Don't worry about us.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone heard the breakdown for how many ame and how many lame positions are being made redundant or the wish list up in brisvegas. Are they looking for ame's or lames.
As for the positions in BNE, I can't say on that and how long term that is either. When the 767's go, all that will be left are the "maintenance-free" aircraft in the fleet. So you won't be needed there either.
Like 2005 with the shutdown of HM in SYD, this is just the beginning of stripping numbers in line stations around the country.
For people who don't know much about QF Engineering it is a little difficult to work out what's what when it comes to this topic.
It is easy to see that QF management have been doing a poor job of running the airline and have made some questionable decisions on one hand. On the other hand it is easy to see that Australia is a very unionised country, they have a very very high dollar, competition has increased massively in the last decade, the competition has advantages re labour costs etc. It seems obvious also that QF treats it's employees in an antagonistic way.
What I am trying to figure out is whether QF is doing the right thing but executing it poorly, or doing the wrong thing and executing it poorly. I would find it easier if I knew the answer to these questions, can anyone help me out?
1/ what was the aircraft/ LAME ratio prior to these cuts at QF?
2/ what is the aircraft/ LAME ratio after these cuts?
3/ what is Air NZ's aircraft/LAME ratio?
4/ what is EK's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
5/what is Virgin Australia's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
6/ what is Cathay's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
7/ what is Singapore Airlines aircraft/ LAME ratio?
I realise that it's not that simple but If I knew the answer to those questions I would be half a step closer to forming an opinion.....does anyone know?
Framer
It is easy to see that QF management have been doing a poor job of running the airline and have made some questionable decisions on one hand. On the other hand it is easy to see that Australia is a very unionised country, they have a very very high dollar, competition has increased massively in the last decade, the competition has advantages re labour costs etc. It seems obvious also that QF treats it's employees in an antagonistic way.
What I am trying to figure out is whether QF is doing the right thing but executing it poorly, or doing the wrong thing and executing it poorly. I would find it easier if I knew the answer to these questions, can anyone help me out?
1/ what was the aircraft/ LAME ratio prior to these cuts at QF?
2/ what is the aircraft/ LAME ratio after these cuts?
3/ what is Air NZ's aircraft/LAME ratio?
4/ what is EK's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
5/what is Virgin Australia's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
6/ what is Cathay's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
7/ what is Singapore Airlines aircraft/ LAME ratio?
I realise that it's not that simple but If I knew the answer to those questions I would be half a step closer to forming an opinion.....does anyone know?
Framer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Planners looking for 18, yes 18, blokes to work o/t tonight, no takers.
Clearly overstaffed alright."
Why would you want to sacrifice your days off to help out the very ones (staff cutting managers) about to stick a red hot poker up ya.
Clearly overstaffed alright."
Why would you want to sacrifice your days off to help out the very ones (staff cutting managers) about to stick a red hot poker up ya.
Last edited by Short_Circuit; 9th Nov 2012 at 00:01.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@framer
I will comment on Sydney, as that's where most of QF's traffic is from and where all its competitors fly, and I am based here.
On a transit at the international terminal, each transit consists of two engineers per aircraft including 747, 767, A330. This can be sometimes 1 LAME and AME or 2 LAME's or 2 AME's with a LAME certifying for the job. This is all dependent on availability of people, sickies, leave, secondments etc. The 737's are a single person transit, with the exception of certain bays that require two people. The A380's require about six people on the transit, and this can consist of about 2 or 3 LAME's. But do not be deluded that these aircraft are maintenance-free. They tend to have their cowls up more than the aging 747's.
These figures can change depending on scheduled extra maintenance during the transit, incoming problems or problems found on a walkaround. Sometimes you need to throw extra people at the aeroplane to get the job done and close to on time.
As Sydney is still considered a home base (not for much longer) more work is expected here.
All the other airlines you mentioned fly here and Sydney is considered a Line Station for them. They don't need as many people here, and more often than not defer defects back to the airline's home base.
NZ has two people per aircraft
EK has no engineers of its own and uses a third party operator.
Virgin uses a third party operator for its 777's
Cathay has a LAME per aircraft but can have as much as 4 people on a transit
Singapore can have about 4 or so on an aircraft, depending on whether it's a 777 or A380.
It is impossible to make a direct comparison on QF's numbers and international operators numbers. Our aircraft are different, our requirements are different and the expectations are different. We have always had to do more in Sydney, because it has always been considered a "Home Base".
To add more about our flights. HNL is going but is always full. We are using 767's against JQ's and Hawaiian's A330's.
LAX is always full and we are using 744's and A380's against United 744's and Delta's 777's.
Johanneburg is always full, although we have the monopoly on the direct flight.
Singapore - Frankfurt is mostly full and we're using 744's to Singapore against SQ's A380's.
Just a few sectors to compare.
QF's management is making the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons.
Hope this clears things up a little for you framer.
For people who don't know much about QF Engineering it is a little difficult to work out what's what when it comes to this topic.
It is easy to see that QF management have been doing a poor job of running the airline and have made some questionable decisions on one hand. On the other hand it is easy to see that Australia is a very unionised country, they have a very very high dollar, competition has increased massively in the last decade, the competition has advantages re labour costs etc. It seems obvious also that QF treats it's employees in an antagonistic way.
What I am trying to figure out is whether QF is doing the right thing but executing it poorly, or doing the wrong thing and executing it poorly. I would find it easier if I knew the answer to these questions, can anyone help me out?
1/ what was the aircraft/ LAME ratio prior to these cuts at QF?
2/ what is the aircraft/ LAME ratio after these cuts?
3/ what is Air NZ's aircraft/LAME ratio?
4/ what is EK's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
5/what is Virgin Australia's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
6/ what is Cathay's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
7/ what is Singapore Airlines aircraft/ LAME ratio?
I realise that it's not that simple but If I knew the answer to those questions I would be half a step closer to forming an opinion.....does anyone know?
Framer
It is easy to see that QF management have been doing a poor job of running the airline and have made some questionable decisions on one hand. On the other hand it is easy to see that Australia is a very unionised country, they have a very very high dollar, competition has increased massively in the last decade, the competition has advantages re labour costs etc. It seems obvious also that QF treats it's employees in an antagonistic way.
What I am trying to figure out is whether QF is doing the right thing but executing it poorly, or doing the wrong thing and executing it poorly. I would find it easier if I knew the answer to these questions, can anyone help me out?
1/ what was the aircraft/ LAME ratio prior to these cuts at QF?
2/ what is the aircraft/ LAME ratio after these cuts?
3/ what is Air NZ's aircraft/LAME ratio?
4/ what is EK's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
5/what is Virgin Australia's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
6/ what is Cathay's aircraft/ LAME ratio?
7/ what is Singapore Airlines aircraft/ LAME ratio?
I realise that it's not that simple but If I knew the answer to those questions I would be half a step closer to forming an opinion.....does anyone know?
Framer
On a transit at the international terminal, each transit consists of two engineers per aircraft including 747, 767, A330. This can be sometimes 1 LAME and AME or 2 LAME's or 2 AME's with a LAME certifying for the job. This is all dependent on availability of people, sickies, leave, secondments etc. The 737's are a single person transit, with the exception of certain bays that require two people. The A380's require about six people on the transit, and this can consist of about 2 or 3 LAME's. But do not be deluded that these aircraft are maintenance-free. They tend to have their cowls up more than the aging 747's.
These figures can change depending on scheduled extra maintenance during the transit, incoming problems or problems found on a walkaround. Sometimes you need to throw extra people at the aeroplane to get the job done and close to on time.
As Sydney is still considered a home base (not for much longer) more work is expected here.
All the other airlines you mentioned fly here and Sydney is considered a Line Station for them. They don't need as many people here, and more often than not defer defects back to the airline's home base.
NZ has two people per aircraft
EK has no engineers of its own and uses a third party operator.
Virgin uses a third party operator for its 777's
Cathay has a LAME per aircraft but can have as much as 4 people on a transit
Singapore can have about 4 or so on an aircraft, depending on whether it's a 777 or A380.
It is impossible to make a direct comparison on QF's numbers and international operators numbers. Our aircraft are different, our requirements are different and the expectations are different. We have always had to do more in Sydney, because it has always been considered a "Home Base".
To add more about our flights. HNL is going but is always full. We are using 767's against JQ's and Hawaiian's A330's.
LAX is always full and we are using 744's and A380's against United 744's and Delta's 777's.
Johanneburg is always full, although we have the monopoly on the direct flight.
Singapore - Frankfurt is mostly full and we're using 744's to Singapore against SQ's A380's.
Just a few sectors to compare.
QF's management is making the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons.
Hope this clears things up a little for you framer.
Last edited by QF94; 9th Nov 2012 at 00:04.
Thank you for taking the time QF94.
The ratio's that I was after, ie the ratio's that I think would help me decide how reasonable or unreasonable the cuts are, are not so much " turn-around" specific but rather how many LAME's each company has to employ per aircraft. How many are on the books so to speak. The reason this would mean more to me is that it automatically takes into account days off, sick leave, OH&S training courses etc etc. Basically, efficiency.
I know that the figure won't be wholly representative of efficiency. Outsourcing work, the quality of the work, the regulations that are required to be complied with etc etc will be different so I would only expect the numbers to be "similar".
I do appreciate your info though.
Re the sector comparisons, it seems to me that QF made poor decisions about it's fleet some time ago and that is making it even harder to compete.
Thanks again.
The ratio's that I was after, ie the ratio's that I think would help me decide how reasonable or unreasonable the cuts are, are not so much " turn-around" specific but rather how many LAME's each company has to employ per aircraft. How many are on the books so to speak. The reason this would mean more to me is that it automatically takes into account days off, sick leave, OH&S training courses etc etc. Basically, efficiency.
I know that the figure won't be wholly representative of efficiency. Outsourcing work, the quality of the work, the regulations that are required to be complied with etc etc will be different so I would only expect the numbers to be "similar".
I do appreciate your info though.
Re the sector comparisons, it seems to me that QF made poor decisions about it's fleet some time ago and that is making it even harder to compete.
Thanks again.
Last edited by framer; 9th Nov 2012 at 00:25.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QE 4000 Engineers ?
Gday guys
I was just watching a clip from ten news where Strambi said that QE still had 4000 excellent engineers left after these cuts?
I seem to recall that when i left 5 years ago there were approx 1700 LAMES at QE? Since then 100s have been cut, so where does Stambi get 4000 from?
Is he including all LAMEs, AMEs, support shops if QE still has any?
A rough estimate of total LAME/AME numbers would be appreciated.
Cheers and Good Luck to all ! Youre gonna need it !
I was just watching a clip from ten news where Strambi said that QE still had 4000 excellent engineers left after these cuts?
I seem to recall that when i left 5 years ago there were approx 1700 LAMES at QE? Since then 100s have been cut, so where does Stambi get 4000 from?
Is he including all LAMEs, AMEs, support shops if QE still has any?
A rough estimate of total LAME/AME numbers would be appreciated.
Cheers and Good Luck to all ! Youre gonna need it !
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@framer
Very difficult to say how many LAME's per aircraft are needed. You would need about 8 to 10 per aircraft. This would allow a split of about 6 or 7 mechanical to about 2 or 3 avionics. This, I believe is on the conservative side of things. This would allow for rostering, leave, secondments etc. We now have 18 744's left. Going by my guestimates, you would need a minimum of 144 to 180 LAME's in the company to certify these aircraft alone. That includes all the ports in Australia, hangars, and overseas ports. This simply would not work.
I don't think there will be anyone on this forum who could give an accurate guestimate, but it would be these fugures management love to use to justify their slash and burn across the company.
Then you have types such as A330, A380, 767 and 737 for mainline QANTAS.
The ratio's that I was after, ie the ratio's that I think would help me decide how reasonable or unreasonable the cuts are, are not so much " turn-around" specific but rather how many LAME's each company has to employ per aircraft. How many are on the books so to speak. The reason this would mean more to me is that it automatically takes into account days off, sick leave, OH&S training courses etc etc. Basically, efficiency.
I don't think there will be anyone on this forum who could give an accurate guestimate, but it would be these fugures management love to use to justify their slash and burn across the company.
Then you have types such as A330, A380, 767 and 737 for mainline QANTAS.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Beyond The Envelope
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia Highly Unionised ?
A little research will show that around 30% of Australia's workforce are union members.
Hardly what one would call "highly Unionised" but rather a management myth.
Hardly what one would call "highly Unionised" but rather a management myth.