John Holland Aviation announcement

[Jetsbest]

Egalitarian....

My Oxford dictionary says "of or pertaining to the principle of equal rights and opportunities for all"; nothing about pay.

Romulus: you implied that once efficiencies were found then everyone could get the job done faster. To what end? More time off for their same salary? My reply was cynical of such a characterisation because it never stops there. Perhaps that is utopia to you?

Romulus, Aeromedic & Sunfish, I actually don't disagree with most of what you're saying re management ethos. In my view the biggest destroyers of employees' trust in management are things like:
- talking up the cost challenges & losses, then having massive parties to see in a new alliance.
- saying they value their employees in Christmas newsletters, then calling them kamikazes etc in the press,
- choosing to treat all employees in a sweeping generalisation as if they are the very few trouble-makers, (manage the problem people but don't make everyone the problem)
- speaking part-truths in the hope that no one will ask the hard questions (see Olivia Wirth, Aust Magazine, Apr20-21), then refusing to elaborate and answer when legitimate concerns about inconsistencies are raised by employees who can see obvious gaps in the mantra (see ALAEA's 62 questions). Simple questions can have simple and honest answers that are not always commercial-in-confidence.
- sending work overseas then denying that 'catch-up' rectifications are required when the asset returns, when it is obvious to the engineers doing the work,
- 'siloed' management where one efficiency idea is stymied by another manager because it's "not part of my KPI"... from the horse's mouth!

I could probably work with, or even for, you all. Unfortunately, it would appear that none of you work where I do.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by jetsbest

My Oxford dictionary says "of or pertaining to the principle of equal rights and opportunities for all"; nothing about pay.

Perhaps you see some as being more equal than others.

Who should receive the highest salaries if all is no distributed equally?

Originally Posted by jetsbest

Romulus: you implied that once efficiencies were found then everyone could get the job done faster. To what end? More time off for their same salary? My reply was cynical of such a characterisation because it never stops there. Perhaps that is utopia to you?

Essentially yes, the job gets done more quickly.

That will yield benefits in terms of time off etc.

Equally that time is available time to be utilised for productive work if the company can win it. Which it has a greater chance of given that it has improved efficiencies.

That company is then strong and vibrant, has a good order book of work and thus all employees, no matter what level, are in a secure and safe position. If you doubt that has any benefit or value to employees I disagree, I would suggest any QF or JHAS employee would be much happier and far less stressed if they knew they had a solid predictable future in front of them.

Yes, "my utopia" in this instance would involve a highly efficient Australian aviation engineering industry where we turn out good quality results in volume. People are kept busy on genuinely productive and therefore rewarding tasks, that leads to a happier work environment where the only whingers are those who do not wish to work and they soon leave because the overall positivity of the place is just too much for them.

But, as I said, that is a utopia.

Originally Posted by jetsbest

Romulus, Aeromedic & Sunfish, I actually don't disagree with most of what you're saying re management ethos. In my view the biggest destroyers of employees' trust in management are things like:
- talking up the cost challenges & losses, then having massive parties to see in a new alliance.

Always celebrate success, give people something to feel good about. But make sure EVERYONE gets to celebrate, not just a chosen few.

Originally Posted by jetsbest

- saying they value their employees in Christmas newsletters, then calling them kamikazes etc in the press,

Yes. Consistency and respect.

Originally Posted by jetsbest

- choosing to treat all employees in a sweeping generalisation as if they are the very few trouble-makers, (manage the problem people but don't make everyone the problem)

Agreed, this one also requires the cooperation of the employees. Much is made of the fact Germany has employee representatives on the board of companies. That is definitely a good thing. But what is less well publicised is that if an employee is not pulling their weight at one of those companies it is the other employees and the Union that will remove them from their position in the company.

I have been involved in too many investigations in the workplace where it is very clear that people know what is going on and what has occurred but because of our "mateship" we do not "dob" in Australian culture. That makes us all (and I have done exactly that myself so I claim no high moral ground) complicit in condoning poor behaviours. Somehow we need to change that without losing the value of mates.

Originally Posted by jetsbest

- speaking part-truths in the hope that no one will ask the hard questions (see Olivia Wirth, Aust Magazine, Apr20-21), then refusing to elaborate and answer when legitimate concerns about inconsistencies are raised by employees who can see obvious gaps in the mantra (see ALAEA's 62 questions). Simple questions can have simple and honest answers that are not always commercial-in-confidence.

Be honest and open no matter whether the message id positive or negative.

Originally Posted by jetsbest

- sending work overseas then denying that 'catch-up' rectifications are required when the asset returns, when it is obvious to the engineers doing the work,

Agreed.

Originally Posted by jetsbest

- 'siloed' management where one efficiency idea is stymied by another manager because it's "not part of my KPI"... from the horse's mouth!

One of the very best indicators of a lousy manager and lousy management system. And one that is all too common.

Originally Posted by jetsbest

I could probably work with, or even for, you all. Unfortunately, it would appear that none of you work where I do.

The ideas are simply too challenging for most Australian workplaces and senior management.

[Algie]

Sunfish

You could have stopped typing after:

"It is necessary to act like a human being to be a good manager and I am also coming to the view that most of the "scientific management" tools we get taught at MBA school and elsewhere are both useless and dangerous, in the hands of anyone who does not have sufficient background knowledge of that which they purport to manage"

In those few words you have provided a wonderfully simple cut and paste reply to about every second thread on PPrune.

A few years back I was a guest at the commissioning of a fresh bunch of young US Marine officers and at the ceremony a 3 star Marine General made the promise that:

"You will never be led in peace or in battle by anyone who has not walked that same path ahead of you".

(He also, by the way, reminded all the young officer candidates that it didn't matter what ever else they did in the Corps, chaplain, catering officer, librarian etc.....they would always be first and foremost a Marine infantry platoon commander and capable of taking up that role at a few minutes notice)

Kindred remarks to those of Sunfish I might opine.

We fail to heed such sentiments at our peril.

Algie

[AEROMEDIC]

The problem of maintenance in industry is thorny for one very good reason:- defects accumulate very quietly over time. Catastrophic failures are rare. It is often almost impossible to see or categorise a defect at all. Like measurement tolerances, defects always accumulate, they never cancel each other out.

So yes, quality is often invisible, you can take your aircraft to an Asian MRO and it will be fixed "legally" but the quality of workmanship may be another matter and that may not become apparent for Ten years.

Meanwhile our bean counter manager has made his savings, received his bonuses and has been promoted sufficiently far away from the ticking time bomb his penny pinching created.

Sunfish,

Pretty much to the point. It only has to happen once to lay the groundwork of a latent defect that emerges at the worst possible time.
The only upside is the forgiving nature of the design features of today's modern wide bodied aircraft, for without that, today's jet travel would be far less safe.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

The problem of maintenance in industry is thorny for one very good reason:- defects accumulate very quietly over time. Catastrophic failures are rare. It is often almost impossible to see or categorise a defect at all. Like measurement tolerances, defects always accumulate, they never cancel each other out.

So yes, quality is often invisible, you can take your aircraft to an Asian MRO and it will be fixed "legally" but the quality of workmanship may be another matter and that may not become apparent for Ten years.

So all those 10 year old aircraft owned by SIA and serviced by SIAEC, they're clearly falling out of the sky. All over the place I assume. It that the case and there is a global media conspiracy to cover up the losses?

Or is it that, just maybe, SIAEC keep the SIA aircraft flying reliably and safely. Just the same as QANTAS.

Originally Posted by sunfish

Meanwhile our bean counter manager has made his savings, received his bonuses and has been promoted sufficiently far away from the ticking time bomb his penny pinching created.

Again with this obsession regarding bonuses...

Originally Posted by Aeromedic

Sunfish,

Pretty much to the point. It only has to happen once to lay the groundwork of a latent defect that emerges at the worst possible time.

And these Asian MROs are doing this how often? Perhaps you blame them for, say, Air France 447?

Seriously, if you have a genuine complaint against Asian MROs then let's examine the evidence rather than just smearing them.

Originally Posted by aeromedic

The only upside is the forgiving nature of the design features of today's modern wide bodied aircraft, for without that, today's jet travel would be far less safe.

Thanks Alan, yes the new generation of aircraft like the 787 require less maintenance...

[Kiwiconehead]

Seriously, if you have a genuine complaint against Asian MROs then let's examine the evidence rather than just smearing them.

I am actually on a project in an Asian MRO at the moment. We have stopped using all local labour and brought in AMEs and sheeties from Australia.

This is on the direction of the owner.

Not saying all are the same - but this one is terrible.

[AEROMEDIC]

And these Asian MROs are doing this how often? Perhaps you blame them for, say, Air France 447?

Seriously, if you have a genuine complaint against Asian MROs then let's examine the evidence rather than just smearing them.

Romulus,
It is on record that a Qantas aircraft had a lap joint inspection carried out by an Asian MRO. The inspection required sealant removal from the area to inspect the structure. What occurred was the use of sharp implements such as knives to remove the sealant as it was taking too long to remove the sealant in the approved manner. The resultant scoring was not reported nor repaired and was not discovered until the next lap joint inspection BY Qantas years later. Subsequent NDI results showed that the scores had become cracks. People in the industry are saying this is just one of many.
I'd accept that improvements have been made to quality control and oversight since then, but I HAVE witnessed seriously flawed work practices at a site I was visiting. The action I took, including a solution, did remedy the situation at the time, but it was not welcomed. I make no apology for that.

I do not know how often events like this occur, nor do I know if there are any others, but the alarm bells are ringing.
As to aircraft falling out of the sky, I don't expect that to happen, but my yardstick would be those discovered with major defects (any defect affecting the safety of the aircraft).

Can't wait for the 787 to come to town (I think).

[Ngineer]

So all those 10 year old aircraft owned by SIA and serviced by SIAEC, they're clearly falling out of the sky. All over the place I assume. It that the case and there is a global media conspiracy to cover up the losses?

The quality of staples being used at overseas MRO's are on the improve.

Stick to a topic you know Romulus, and stop feeding the minds of the inexperienced and ignorant with your rhetorical claptrap.

[600ft-lb]

Was wondering when someone was going to mention one of the first 744 ER's that Qantas bought 2nd hand that had daylight shining through it from an old scribe mark caused by an overseas MRO.

Romulus - I don't think you'll find anyone in this country apologizing for carrying out the job in the nature it's intended to be carried out. If that means the company now has to spend $1000's on approved plastic scrapers instead of a piece of stainless that only has to be sharpened once - so be it. Staples ? Leak checks carried out with no fuel on board ? Inspections carried out without panels removed ? Engines installed with upsidedown countersink washers ? Turning a blind eye to obvious defects outside of the C check inspection scope ?

Will any of them cause a plane to crash ? No. It still doesn't make it right. Planes crashing out of the sky because of any single event is unlikely these days, you know that. It's a combination of things going wrong. Plane crashes shouldn't be the determining factor on how a facility is chosen.

[Wellwellwell]

Yep, and there's a list of maintenance errors by Qantas LAMEs that others have found as well. Im sure this is not the place for them to be aired so I expect we respect the rights of those MROs and not spread innuendo. This thread is way off track. Romulus is spot on, some of us are just too stubborn to realise that quality is different things to different people. I absolutely disagree with deliberate and negligent unsafe practices, however in today's MSG3 world damage tolerance and on condition are the design philosophy. The operators only want what is required, nothing more.
Now, to get things back on track. My view, unfortunately Australian productivity and labour rates prohibit a competitive cost base across an aircrafts life cycle. That's why Jetstar, Skywest, Virgin, and Tiger all have their heavy maintenance performed offshore. JHAS had a crack to bring them all onshore, Romulus was part of the vision that gave it a go. Obviously, those airlines are not patriotic enough to pay a bit more and for it to take a bit longer using Aussie labour, run by an Aussie company.
Qantas is the only large airline that continues to do so onshore.

[Jetsbest]

Romulus; we're mostly agreed then...

Perhaps you see some as being more equal than others.

: Huh? No.

Who should receive the highest salaries if all is (now?) distributed equally?

Huh? You tell me. I thought AMEs get AME pay. LAMEs get LAME pay. Managers get manager pay etc. I said nothing about all receiving the same pay!

Your original assertion implied that salaries could help find efficiencies leading to the 'blue-collar' work being done in 75% of the previous times. I simply said that less time at work (by any individual) in return for the same pay (as they formerly received) simply would not last.

When change is needed management should be able to coherently and honestly;
a. explain their research and what it shows,
b. enunciate what they think needs to be done,
c. elicit valuable/knowledgeable employee input which may even uncover options not previously considered,
d. finalise a clearly understood plan, and
d. bring an engaged workforce along with them for the good of all, in order that
e.

EVERYONE gets to celebrate, not just a chosen few.

How egalitarian of you to recognise that!

The problem is that recent management strategies seem more intent on ramming through "improvements" (an apparent yet common euphemism for "cheaper on paper") which benefit a few, and with very little of all the other true leadership traits which would add credibility to the plans. By the absence of true leadership, exhibiting the positive behaviors you've explained, management actually create the resistance-prone employees it so abhors.

My concern is that, given so many commentators still consider some of these buffoons to be 'world-class' managers, perhaps such a management style really is part of a plan to characterise employees as 'too hard to work with', and thus facilitate a slash-&-burn/get-rich-quick-and-bugger-the-rest-of-'em mentality.

[Nero62]

Wise words www. The problems greater than that. Australia's insulated location means that barring JHAS, no other MROs have attempted to service Australian airlines onshore. The cost structure is not competitive at an industry level. This is not just because of high labour, it is the whole cost structure. MAS engineering charge around $40 per hour. Now a cheap hangar for say a 777 costs say $50M in Aus. Allowing for interest, depreciation and lease, if u r doing say 750 hours per day, that's around $20 cost for the hangar alone. Of course if you are doing only overnight maintenance you will be lucky to do 250 hours per day. Then the hangar is costing you $60 per hour - thats before security, electricity, let alone staff. Now MROs like JHAS in reality compete with airline insourcing. For airlines, things like insurance and Approvals are corporate costs. They usually don't charge these on to their engineering divisions. Then there are hangars, often regarded as sunk costs, then there is tooling and training, often included free with aircraft purchases. How many of these do u think JHAS get for free? Do I need to go on?

Australian airlines must decide if they want an independent MRO. For these reasons no one independent will follow in JHAs footsteps. They have to back JHAS or lose it. Simple.

[600ft-lb]

Yep, and there's a list of maintenance errors by Qantas LAMEs that others have found as well.

Which is true, maintenance ERROR's not blatant violations of the rules. I have seen many mistakes in my time there, I've even made some myself, HOWEVER, I've never seen anyone go out of their way to blatantly not do something and just sign it off.

My view, unfortunately Australian productivity and labour rates prohibit a competitive cost base across an aircrafts life cycle.

Why are cost bases competitive in Europe ? North America ? Japan ? All high cost countries to do business. They all have OH&S standards. They all have fatigue limitations. They have all high taxes. Isn't the 300odd aircraft the Qantas group has scale enough ?

I believe you've been sold a lie. Just because the third world lives on our border with facilities who are willing to underquote to take all the work on from a company just means you've been sold an oft repeated line by executives who care only for their bonuses.

It's funny what this industry has come to. The whole "well they're built to have dodgy maintenance performed on them because when something fails theres a backup anyway" attitude is great isn't it.

You know how Chinese solar companies have been accused of dumping products in the USA and Europe ? A big prize lies down the road if you can kill off your competition.

[listentome]

Why are cost bases competitive in Europe ? North America ? Japan ? All high cost countries to do business. They all have OH&S standards. They all have fatigue limitations. They have all high taxes. Isn't the 300odd aircraft the Qantas group has scale enough ?

Not sure I agree with this. Cost base is relevant to who your competing against. For QF domestic, that's the equivalent cost of maintenance for Virgin and Tiger. Which is less because they choose to get it done for less. QF international it's predominantly SQ, Skoot, Air Asia X, MAS, Cathay, and the Chinas etc. Anyway, last time I was in Haeco it was full of North American airframes so I guess they want it cheaper as well.

Your bonus statement is irrelevant. Reducing efficiency and cost is about profitability and longevity. Businesses exist for their owners, not managment.

[Ngineer]

I absolutely disagree with deliberate and negligent unsafe practices, however

There are never any however's when it comes to safety mate.

It appears all the "experts" come out of the closet to defend outsourcing to the cheapest MRo when the topic is raised. Funny thing that.

And, as Romulus stated, safety is usually judged by the incidents read in todays papers. What the guys working on the planes (the ones who speak from experience) actually see is a completely different side to the story than the "professionals" who sit in the office. They see aircraft fly in sometimes and wonder how it was legally dispatched from it's last station, incidents on ramp with other operators, etc. These things don't make the papers.


Sure there is a margin of error of all involved in aircraft maintenance. We are all human. But as 600ft-lb pointed out, there are other incidents happening in the airline industry that cannot be attributed to human error. These are the things that you so called experts do not see, or choose to ignore when highlighted.

This thread is way off track.

Agreed. This is usually the case when people post biased opinions.

[Jethro Gibbs]

Aircraft workers sacked at Melbourne Airport, tough economic conditions to blame - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) NEXT !

[DrPepz]

According to the latest SIA Engineering Company annual report, their 6200 employees cost about SGD500 mil. SGD80,000 per annum, or AUD71,000 at current exchange rates. Are SIAEC's labour costs really lower than the US (doubt it) or Australia? If the AUD depreciates a further 10% against the SGD to parity, I'm sure any labour cost advantage SIAEC ever had would evaporate.

I doubt that labour costs alone are everything.

[Sunfish]

Romulus:

So all those 10 year old aircraft owned by SIA and serviced by SIAEC, they're clearly falling out of the sky. All over the place I assume. It that the case and there is a global media conspiracy to cover up the losses?

Or is it that, just maybe, SIAEC keep the SIA aircraft flying reliably and safely. Just the same as QANTAS

Sorry, but you are misinformed, and sorry I didn't get back sooner, my partner is in Peter Mac and I am somewhat preoccupied.

The trouble, Romulus, is that you need to take account of maintenance philosophy which is something the Government, Economists and the General public do not understand.

Of course SIA aircraft don't "fall out of the sky" but that doesnt necessarily mean they are well or badly maintained.

By way of example, the Boeing maintenance schedules used to be predicated on the expected life in service of an aircraft operated by an American carrier in an American maintenance environment and an American weather environment, but more importantly, an American tax and depreciation environment.

The above "environments" used to mean that carriers would replace their aircraft every ten years, hence their maintenance philosophy was to do exactly what was necessary to achieve that working life and not a dollar more. We used to call this "buy it and fly it" the aircraft got SFA structural work on it

Take engine maintenance for example, when you have spare engines and/or modules scattered all over America together with people qualified to change them, you can operate to a much relaxed standard compared to a smaller and geographically isolated operator like Qantas, which is why Qantas develped its much vaunted RB211 maintenance prowess.

Now compare that to the Australian "environment" - the tax and depreciation laws here used to mean that the aircraft have to be kept for Twenty to Thirty years - so the structural task and maintenance philosophy has to be very different by definition, in that you have to get on top of and fix incipient problems that American carriers don't, which is why you end up with professional engineers devising work schemes not contemplated by Boeing.

Then of course there is the issue of the definitions of "maintenance". "repair", "overhaul" and "upgrade". Say you have a problem - a crack in the pilots opening window assembly..

You go to the applicable manuals and you find that there is:

(a) An immediate repair scheme with a specified high frequency of inspection to ensure that the repair holds.

(b) A modification scheme for the original assembly that should fix the problem for a specified life with a relaxed inspection period.

(c) A series of replacement parts that Boeing believes will fix the problem permanenetly with no further inspection required.

(d) A totally new assembly that avoids the matter entirely.

(e) and when (d) doesn't work, some fixes (a,b,c) for the totally new assembly.

(f) ..and finaly another new assembly to replace (d)

rinse and repeat..


So there you have it mate, to "maintain" this aircraft you can do a,b,c or d. Which one do you choose? That depends on your company maintenance philosophy.

Now multiply just this one assembly by Ten years of factory production cost saving modifications, aircraft variants, in service failures and you get Fifteen effing pages of combinations of replacement parts and repair schemes, of the type that frequently got handed to me to sort out. Then multiply that by thousands of assemblies.

So no, you cannot say "SIA is cheaper than Qantas maintenance and just as good" unless you know in excruciating detail just what it is that both maintenance organisations are trying to achieve, and the forensic maintenance management planning ability to do this in Australia is now minimal.

This is why overseas maintenance scares the crap out of me as well as the ALAEA, we know that what they do overseas will mostly "comply", but we don't know for how long or what other problems may be introduced, especially if there is an Australian Manager who is tempted to cut corners to save money, leaving bigger problems to her successor.

The Australian depreciation and tax rules when I was at Ansett required that we "gold plate" the aircraft because it cost us nothing to uprgrade rather than repair various items, to the point where a certain media proprietor and a former truck driver sold some "written off", "very old" DC9 aircraft to Evergreen for a peppercorn sum and pocketed some very serious money, since the "old" aircraft were actually very close to latest production equipment status.

[Bagus]

Every where you see there is job losses in aviation industry especially aircraft engineers,what is Alaea doing,all these jobs are going offshore, nothing is being done.

[Jethro Gibbs]

What can they do most likely they weren,t even told about the last lot till after it happened .

Just Look at the ufd case against forstaff in fwa months on still no decision .