Rival unions target Qantas

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Just an update. There will be an ACTU meeting today to discuss this contentious issue. For Tech and Cabin Crew wondering what this is all about I will explain briefly.

Qantas want to bring in a new LAME licence that will allow the holder to certify for 90% of what we do. They will not have to sit a full Type course to learn about the aircraft (usually 3 months with an exam every week). They will not have to demonstrate 1000 hours of specific work on the plane that we must accrue in our Log books. They will not have to have sat the 25 or so post apprenticeship basic examinations on various aircraft systems. In fact they won't even need to have completed an apprenticeship.

They will have to have been in the industry for 2 years and they will recieve a training course that may be as little as a week. They will then be licenced to certify for your lives.

CASA call them Cat A LAME's. That is Cat A Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers. The AME unions claim that they are not LAMEs. They are just AMEs with a Licence. This is so they can't join our Association. Fully supported by Qantas of course and these unions are now negotiating terms for their engagement and trying to lock the ALAEA out of these discussions.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Would they be performing the same duties as LAMEs, with the same level of responsibility?

Are there any international precedents for this? Obviously places like Chad don't count, although that seems to be Qantas' preferred direction on a lot of things..
Good luck, anyway.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Yes they would be performing the same duties as existing LAMEs. A Domestic Line Maintenance crew in Syd and Mel has 30-40 LAMEs who do the transit checks, sign the RTS and undertake overnight maintenance. At the secret meeting between Qantas and the other unions, they were advised by the airline that a crew could be run with 2 B licences and the rest Cat A licences.

The Cat A was first introduced in Eurpoe by EASA about 15 years ago. I think there are about 32 countries that fall under the guidance of EASA. Only about 3 of the National governing bodies there have allowed this watered down licence, the rest have rejected it.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Only about 3 of the National governing bodies there have allowed this watered down licence, the rest have rejected it.

That's telling... Doesn't sound like world's best practice. Maybe CASA figure the 'safe skies for all' mantra doesn't actually mention the ground, so it's all sweet .
Thanks.

[Talkwrench]

Just AME's with a Licence....???

ALAEA Fed Sec:

CASA call them Cat A LAME's. That is Cat A Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers. The AME unions claim that they are not LAMEs. They are just AMEs with a Licence.

If this is the depth and sophistication of the AWU/AMWU/CEPU unions argument for justification of their desire to cover Cat A LAME's, then God help the Cat A LAME's. What a joke!

Do future Cat A LAME's really want these boneheads representing them?

Would you want them negotiating your starting wage and conditions of employment?

I suspect not. I expect any future Cat A LAME will join the ALAEA regardless of which union name appears at the top of the relevant industrial instrument.

If Cat A LAME's ever eventuate, they will realise that the ALAEA will be their best bet.

Good luck Steve. This whole case should be a no brainer, but once politics gets involved...

[gobbledock]

The Cat A was first introduced in Eurpoe by EASA about 15 years ago. I think there are about 32 countries that fall under the guidance of EASA. Only about 3 of the National governing bodies there have allowed this watered down licence, the rest have rejected it.

Tick tock

That's telling... Doesn't sound like world's best practice. Maybe CASA figure the 'safe skies for all' mantra doesn't actually mention the ground, so it's all sweet .Thanks.

As if the Regulator cares about safety. They are too spineless to chase the big guys, I dare them to do it. The do what everyone else does and bends over and panders to the Rats every whim.......tick tock

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

This whole case should be a no brainer, but once politics gets involved...

and hence the political side of this thread. Sorry mods but it is all part of it.

[Bagus]

The unions are there to protect our livelihood ,I know what the alaea is doing for its members,we have to support our executive ,this is our profession ,don't let qantas divide us ,even we have to loose our jobs so be it,our families and friends could be flying in these aircraft and I don't want to see inexperienced certifying engineers signing of for our lives.this is not Pakistan or Russia .let alaea do their job and we should support them.

[mcgrath50]

I always thought people had the right to join any union and multiple unions if they wished these days?

I believed for example, a Qantaslink pilot can choose to join the AFAP, AIPA or even the TWU if he feels the need.

Am I mistaken? If not then how can these unions say the ALAEA can not sign up there members?

[Bagus]

When u get into an investigation ,ur best bet will only be alaea as they have the expertise and knowledge.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

A few years ago there was an investigation. Not a bogus Qantas Kangaroo Court where the decision is made before you go there. A real one. Manslaughter after a light aircraft crash that was caused by a maintenance issue.

The AME was successully represented by the ALAEA in the trial.

[Worrals in the wilds]

I always thought people had the right to join any union and multiple unions if they wished these days?

Sort of. All unions have membership criteria, usually occupation based. For example, if you were a plumber you couldn't join a public sector union; although if you were a government employed plumber with something like Q Build you would probably have the choice of both.

It's reasonably common for particular workers to have a choice between several unions, and in civilised workplaces the SOP is for all relevant unions to send reps to visit new employees, each put their case forward and let the employees choose which (if any) union they want to join. Of course the Big Q is not very civilised at the moment.

It's also common for unions to agree between themselves about coverage of particular occupations. The optimistic view is that it's because one union can better represent that occupation, and the cynic's view is that it's because back in the day both organizations got together and carved up the territory. As always, the truth probably hides somewhere in the middle.


We live in a society dominated by products and consumerism. Even religion is now commoditized, as shown by the rise of new style happy clapping churches that market themselves heavily. They're attracting a lot of members, money and publicity, which is affecting the numbers of people joining traditional Christian religions. The traditionalists hate it and say it's superficial and commercial, but guess where the Gen Yers are flocking...

IMO it's the same with unions. Like it or not, unions provide a product. If they spent more time developing an awesome product people wanted then they'd attract members, particularly younger ones. Of course a number of unions are already doing this and their membership numbers reflect that. The ol' heavies may grumble, but that's the way the cookie crumbles, and whether they like it not, wrapping your membership form around a lump of 4x2 went out along with safari suits and XXXX Draught (yep, they're out, fellahs; and they're not coming back ).

From the outside looking in, the ALAEA provides a good product, and that's why people want to join. It's light on the faceless men, alleged rorts and Heavies and big on genuine union organizers from the trade and representing its members. IMO that's the only way forward for the union movement if it wants to survive. Real people are getting sick of the 'union as political force' thing and just want someone to bat for them at the EBA shakedown.

IMO it would be more sensible to concentrate on the product and avoid public punch ups in the papers. All that does is turn even more people off the union movement completely, because it smacks of ALP politics, back room deals and self interest. These are not attractive products (particularly to anyone under thirty) and illustrate a dinosaur mentality. Remember what happened to the dinosaurs...

[ranmar850]

It's also common for unions to agree between themselves about coverage of particular occupations. The optimistic view is that it's because one union can better represent that occupation, and the cynic's view is that it's because back in the day both organizations got together and carved up the territory. As always, the truth probably hides somewhere in the middle.

Gee, back to the good old days of demarcation disputes--where unions jealously held "their ground", ostensibly to maintain work for their members (read, numbers are power)--just one of things that led to a widespread distate for unions in general among the general public, and led to gross inefficiencies which were well up amongst the reasons for governments privatising enterprises that were union strongholds. The very reason behind indivual workplace agreements, with workplace flexibilty, which led to efficiency gains overall.
That said, I would support the ALEA against the likes of Paul Howe's lot.

[listentome]

The intent of the A licence was not to give Ames any certification ability on a similar level to a lame, in fact it is quite restrictive. The A licence is actually used to its full intent and extent by providing existing experienced lames authorisarions at a task level on other aircraft types. For example, a lame exercising the privileges of a type under a company authorisation will already have an A licence but no authority unless the individual has a task level authority for such things as a wheel change or fluid replenishment. It is not a type rating, it merely allows a lame with a full type, who has been trained for a particular task to do that task and certify it on a type they do not have. It doesn't allow for trouble shooting, interpretation of a defect or certification or supervision of others work on that task. This is what the A licence is designed for, the A licence task extension to an ame is quite a different path and a difficult feat. It would hardly be worth the effort for an organisation to design and approve a process that gives any more value than merely using the A licences you already have wih your current lames. You would gain more productivity from each individual, which would drive less overall headcount, rather than still having half unproductive skilled staff and half productive unskilled staff. My take anyway, shoot me down....

[going postal]

I think you might find the ames at Qantas are over qualified and that Qantas management are aiming further down the food chain for Cat A applicants. Could it be they are using it to play the unions off against each other, surely not!!!!

[nelbhoy]

Fight this tooth and nail Steve.
In the UK, before the introduction of the "A" license the industry was struggling to recruit licensed engineers. There was 2 ways to go:
1. Make the Licensed Engineer position more attractive to future generations by investing in the industry and paying a salary reflecting the responsibility that goes with signing off a multi million pound aircraft full of hundreds of people.

or

2. Bring in un-qualified sometimes un-traded workers to the industry pay them way less than licensed guys, give them a couple of years experience on the shop floor (usually stuck in holds or in the cabin) and then allow them to hold a company authorisation which gives them most of the stamping power that a full licensed engineer studied years for. They then have the carrot of a B license position hanging over them in a few years for a salary £20000GBP less than than a properly experienced and traded engineer.
Guess which option the CAA went with!!
Oh and if your British Airways strike a deal with the UK CAA that allow's that company authorisation to be converted to a full EASA Cat A license.
The result? Well in the UK far more A licensed guys than fully licensed engineers. Salaries stagnating or dropping by as much as 25% and morale at an all time low. And they wonder why they still can't recruit "good guys"

[nelbhoy]

In UK the management at BA spoke of a "pyramid model" which instead of having say 5 Licensed blokes a shift in charge of 3 or 4 guys each, they gradually changed it to only 1 Licensed engineer in charge of 2 or 3 A licensed guys who in turn were in charge of 7 or 8 mechs and 3 or 4 contractors.
It resulted in items being stamped blindly because the licensed guy at the top did not have anywhere near the time needed to oversee this amount of work. Plus the fact there was so much paperwork to deal with his arse was permanently on a chair stuck in the office.
I saw guys leaving the industry because they could not keep up due to the pressure and stress levels being just too high.
So much for Human Factors!

[airsupport]

Steve,

I think you already know my feelings about this ridiculous A Licence, one of the worst things EVER to happen in the Industry, and I am glad I am retired now and will not have to see it.

This Union thing is almost as ridiculous, the Craft Unions are saying that these AMEs are just going to be AMEs with a Licence, okay, well using that logic (as you know) I was an Apprentice AME for 5 years, then an AME just for a few months until I was granted my first Licence ( a real one NOT an A Licence off the weetbix box) which I then held for more than 40 years.

So I guess you could say I was an AME that held a Licence (real one) for some 40 years, I feel guilty now for being in the ALAEA all those decades.

[Kiwiconehead]

Spot on Airsupport.

I'm an AME with a (L)icence, that's why they call me a LAME.

I know who my money goes to in case sh!t happens

[Redstone]

How did it go in the ACTU meeting FedSec?
No doubt Shorten and Cameron will be applying pressure.