Rival unions target Qantas

[airsupport]

Thanks to Google I just found out that ALAEA covers a lot more than I realised it did.

---------------

ALAEA HAWAIIAN SEA SALT

Alaea is the traditional Hawaiian table salt used to season and preserve. It is non-processed and rich in trace minerals, all of which are found in sea water. A small amount of harvested reddish volcanic baked clay enriches the salt with iron oxide. Used as a rub on red meat, the clay seals in the moisture while roasting.

---------------

Sorry Mods a little off topic, but a little humour is surely way better than Politics.

[ACT Crusader]

Thanks for the explanation talkwrench. It seems to me that there are two issues at play here - the ALAEA rules and the CASA regulations

From the ALAEA rules

3.1 The Association shall consist of an unlimited number of persons employed or usually employed as engineers licensed to undertake, supervise and certify the maintenance of any one or more of the components, items of equipment, and/or systems (including associated equipment) in the airframes, engines, electrical systems, radio systems,and/or instrument systems on aircraft operating within the Commonwealth of Australia, its Territories and/or overseas from the Commonwealth of Australia

3.2 And any persons employed by Forstaff Pty Ltd or its subsidiaries or successors who perform, administer, or work in connection with, the refurbishment, reconfiguration or heavy maintenance work on aircraft at Avalon Airport in the State of Victoria, excluding persons employed in the occupation, industry or calling of storeworker.

The interpretation of those rules may be what's in dispute between the "rival unions", in particular 3.1.

Again my understanding is that the CASA stuff relates to the changes brought in last year as outlined on this link
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...t66booklet.pdf

[Talkwrench]

ACT Crusader,

I had a look at the link you provided and it confirms to me that the Category A Licence is indeed a Licence issued by CASA, therefore making the recipient of a Category A Licence a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME).

The LAME should then be covered by the union that covers LAMEs - The ALAEA.

Is that not a reasonable position to take?

[Longbow25]

Certainly is, provided you are not one of the craft unions looking to keep a foothold in an industry you care nothing about.

From the ACTU point of view it may simply be a matter of supporting one of their major benefactors.

It all depends on your point of view but as a LAME I know what I believe should happen.

Craft unions represent the AME's and those who certify are represented by the ALAEA.

Lets see what the courts say.

[LHLisa]

I think sunfish is very correct likely about the world changing, and us the serfs rising up against our masters . Like i said somewhere else here. Capitalism is about the trickle down process. The rich "tinkle" all over us the working class, and we should thank them and be grateful.

If labor and some union leaders would stop acting like a bunch of spoilt brat bully children and support one another , who knows what could happen? Crazy idea.

[ACT Crusader]

Originally Posted by Talkwrench

ACT Crusader,

I had a look at the link you provided and it confirms to me that the Category A Licence is indeed a Licence issued by CASA, therefore making the recipient of a Category A Licence a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME).

The LAME should then be covered by the union that covers LAMEs - The ALAEA.

Is that not a reasonable position to take?

I'm just trying to understand the issues better before I could say if it's reasonable or not. I'm an IR tragic and over a number of years have found union coverage disputes intriguing.

While i was looking at one of the union websites recently I found a link to the QF engineers Alliance and questioned why ALAEA was not involved when many of the "principles" at least we're akin to the ALAEA arguments during last years bargaining. And my first thought was that there was an issue boiling under the surface.

But this issue of coverage isn't new. Back in 2010 ALAEA applied to Fair Work to get its rules changed but nothing occurred according to the ALAEA rules (no changes since 2005). I'm not claiming to know all the facts but something seems amiss with this whole issue.

http://www.alaea.asn.au/attachments/article/106/20100527_Notice_All_Members__ALAEA_Rule_Change.pdf

http://www.e-airc.gov.au/107n/rules

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I can make it easier for you and your search. Our rules can be interpretted in various ways. The AME unions are trying to grab additional members and they particulalrly think they will become more "powerful" if they have certification rights. The contentious part of the rules is this bit -

employed or usually employed as engineers licensed to undertake, supervise and certify the maintenance of any one or more of the

The AME unions are reading this as you must do all 3 things to qualify to join the ALAEA. That is, undertake, supervise and certify all at once. The Cat A can only sign for his own work and they say this means they cannot Supervise.

The ALAEA claims that the rules should not be read that way and certainly were not designed as such in 1960 becasue there was no such thing as a LAME who could not sign for others. I won't state our whole case here but essentially we say that the words mean that you must do one of the 3. That is Supervise, certify or be licenced to undertake. The "and" in the rules should be read or considered as an "or".

Similar to Painters and Dockers. You didn't need to be a painter as well as a docker, just one of them. We have LAMEs at Qantas today that do not undertake maintenance, they just Supervise. We have those that do not certify, they work in Maintenance watch. We have those that do not Supervise others, they work in outstations.

All LAMEs who certify, supervise. LAMEs self supervise a task much the same way as an accountant will supervise the books of a business. The matter is a complicated one but at the end of the day, if Engineers want to join a better union, nothing should prevent them doing it.

[ACT Crusader]

Cheers Fed Sec. I'm guessing it's a sensitive period now, but as the Hannan article said the unions are taking you to FWA to get orders against ALAEA. Will anything actually come or can I suspect that the ACTU 'nipped that in the bud', not wanting a blue with all the HSU drama and Congress up in less than a fortnight.

The silence from Qantas on this is somewhat deafening also....

[aveng]

The Cat A can only sign for his own work and they say this means they cannot Supervise.

I wonder if it could be successfully argued that an "A licence" person would be required to "supervise" the refuelling during a normal transit. Engineers have not been actually doing the switching at the refuel panel for some time now.

[QF94]

Quote:
The Cat A can only sign for his own work and they say this means they cannot Supervise. I wonder if it could be successfully argued that an "A licence" person would be required to "supervise" the refuelling during a normal transit. Engineers have not been actually doing the switching at the refuel panel for some time now.

The "switching" has not been part of our job for years now. We get a pre-fuel/provisional and give the figure to the refueller. Once we get a final fuel figure, we then give that to the refueller. The refueller then advises us when the fuelling has stopped at the final figure. We then contact the cockpit and see if they're happy with the fuel. Once we get the OK from the cockpit, we tell the refueller and they print off a receipt. We calculate the fuel uplift and give the flight crew a receipt and a copy of the fuel calculations.

We, as engineers do not and are not required to supervise the refuelling during transits. This task belongs to the refueller. Our job is to ensure the correct figure is given to the refueller, and that we have put enough fuel on board. We touch no switches on QANTAS aircraft.

In short aveng, I can't see how it would be possible to argue that a Cat A licence would be required to supervise the refuelling during normal transits. But, I am no legal expert, and it could be interpreted differently.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Interesting discussion on the fuelling. I note that you have naturally characterised it the way we interpret it.

We, as engineers do not and are not required to supervise the refuelling during transits.

The reference here is about the refuelling not the refueller so your words relate to the task not the person. Simple question that goes back to the manuals. Who supervises the refuelling if there is a defect in the refuelling system?

[listentome]

The way the manufacturer intended, the crew. The AMM is for Maint activity not aircraft operation.

[airsupport]

Okay, I know, I am a Dinosaur , I just can NOT believe how much things have changed since my time as a LAME.

NO refueller would EVER touch any switches on an aircraft I was looking after, unless I asked them to.

And this A Licence, well if I tell you what I really think of that I would be banned from PPRuNe.

IF as has just been pointed out the A Licence holder can NOT certify for work done by others then it is basically just an MA, IF they still call them that, however to hold an MA in the Good Olde days you had to be a (full) LAME anyway.

[QF94]

@ Fedsec

The reference here is about the refuelling not the refueller so your words relate to the task not the person. Simple question that goes back to the manuals. Who supervises the refuelling if there is a defect in the refuelling system?

If the refuelling becomes a maintenance task that requires troubleshooting, we as LAME's then take over the switching and transferring. The refueller's task is to control the ON/OFF switch at the fuelling truck. Also, if we have to transfer fuel from tail to centre tanks or centre to wing tanks due to fuel loading for a particular flight, we then control the fuelling panel on the aircraft.

I guess you could draw a parallel to the upcoming MoD. AME/LAME doesn't arrive aircraft. Baggage handler does. If there's a problem, then LAME is called out to rectify it, then baggage handler departs aircraft.

To summarise, you could say we have introduced a middle-man to do a job that was already being done quite efficiently and without misinterpretation of a pending problem.

@ airsupport

Okay, I know, I am a Dinosaur , I just can NOT believe how much things have changed since my time as a LAME.

NO refueller would EVER touch any switches on an aircraft I was looking after, unless I asked them to.

I don't know how long you've been out of the game, but this is how it's been for a number of years now. Unfortunately, we have more than willing "colleagues" who will do whatever it takes to make a name for themselves by making things work, then get a spot in the offices behind H271 or Admin1. A recent Federal Court case that QANTAS has lost, is proof in the pudding of the QANTAS of today.

[airsupport]

I don't know how long you've been out of the game, but this is how it's been for a number of years now. Unfortunately, we have more than willing "colleagues" who will do whatever it takes to make a name for themselves by making things work, then get a spot in the offices behind H271 or Admin1.

Yes it has been a few years now, actually more than a few, and I was never with Qantas so I am not sure how things work now or in the past there.

It is just so sad to see the way the Industry has gone now, these ridiculous lower standard Licences, not supervising refuelling, and even NOT doing turnrounds and even meeting Aircraft, NEVER happened in my day anywhere in Australia that had LAMEs based there, and even many other parts of the World with Aussie registered Aircraft.

Well except for a couple of times back in the early 1970s when I slept in for an 0300 start, luckily the Porters and Fuellers looked after the freighter those mornings.

[QF94]

Well except for a couple of times back in the early 1970s when I slept in for an 0300 start, luckily the Porters and Fuellers looked after the freighter those mornings.

Sooooooo, you're the one responsible for what we have now. See, that's all it takes. One person to sleep in and the whole industry goes to the packs.

[airsupport]

Sooooooo, you're the one responsible for what we have now. See, that's all it takes. One person to sleep in and the whole industry goes to the packs.

That's right, blame the Old Guy.

Actually it was well covered up, and ONLY you and I know about it here now, so do NOT tell anyone else.

[aveng]

The reference here is about the refuelling not the refueller so your words relate to the task not the person. Simple question that goes back to the manuals. Who supervises the refuelling if there is a defect in the refuelling system?

I too am a LAME @ Qantas. I was indeed refering to the supervising the task not the refueller. I always supervise the refuelling (old school), seen too many f@#k ups over the years. Perhaps referring to the refuel manual wording would clear this up. The refueller is suppose to get clearance from the transit engineer before fuelling commences ie. if there are defects - this could be regarded as some sort of supervision.

[hadagutfull]

As I recall, a lame still certifies that the refueling was carried out as per QF procedures... Covering water drain requirements etc.
I believe the refuel agent is only permitted to use the auto function of the system. If any defect arises or is known with the system, it's engineerings responsibility to take over.

As for CAT A.. Supervise or not, if a cat A certifies a document with a licence number , he assumes full responsibility as would any LAME.
The only ones who are issued a cat A at the moment are LAMES. I know of no AME that has one.. Therefore if it appears on a licence, it's ALAEA TERRITORY.

Is there an AULAEA- Australian unlicensed aircraft engineers association ?

[QF94]

To clarify my earlier posts. The refueller does NOT start fuelling until given a pre-fuel/provisional fuel load, and does NOT disconnect until we give him/her the OK to do so. Yes, the refueller is only allowed to refuel in AUTO mode. No individual tank can be selected for refuelling purposes.

To use the definition of "supervise" would be to stand with the refueller the whole time during fuelling operations. In a normal transit, this would be next to impossible.

For example, a 1 1/2 hour turnaround on a 747 with two engineers doing the transit couldn't be done, particularly on LAX or JNB sectors. What with arriving the aircraft, connecting ground power and external air as required, doing walkaround inspections, engine oils, going upstairs checking cabin and flight logs and doing a cabin check. Should there be a wheel change, how many people are you going to get so you can supervise the refuelling which can take up to an hour if there's only one truck to refuel?

There is a difference between checking the fuel panel at the end of refuelling to ensure the switches are off, fuelling connector covers refitted and fuel panel cover closed, and to supervise the refuelling operation in its entirety. A bit like AME supervision if carried out as it is intended. 1 LAME to 1 AME.