JHAS Keeps 457's over Local workers in new Redundancy round

[aveng]

I hear ya SP, but there is no point in spending what few shekels I earn on union dues if I can't get results and I am heartily sick of being shat on, by virtue of the misfortune of being born here.

I look forward to seeing the results of your political lobbying on behalf of the Australian aviation industry.

Seriously? You don't get "results". As a collective whole we stand a chance. I for one believe that what I pay to the ALAEA is worth every cent. I dare say it is the ONLY union who truly represents its members.

"few shekels" indeed?

[NuckingFuts]

"It's the Vibe".

A most relevant expression here you could say.

[Jethro Gibbs]

457 Visa sponsorship will be considered

And still more of this 457 Visa sponsorship will be considered This is just Bloody Madness in Australia today.
SEEK - Are you an experienced Aircraft Engineer? Job in Sydney

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by fedsec

JHAS are not meeting training obligations to overcome the shortfalls in labour that create the need for 457 holders in the first place. No apprentices and bugger all training. They are destroying our industry and really, it would be better off for safety outcomes and the industry in general if they just left town.

SP, I know you're a bit frustrated but really?

Outside QF and Virgin Tech they're about the biggest employer going. They're financially safe as part of the Leighton group, they're keeping a facility going in Melbourne after QF have largely left, there are a whole bunch of people there who earn a living.

Yes they're trying to do things differently, I don't know exactly how but as an MRO they have to. They have to become more productive than the in house alternative in order to survive. It's a harsh reality that the world has moved on and the ideal Australian model is just too costly compared to the way others do things.

That's the challenge for you and your members, and it's a tough one, I'm not arguing it isn't. But unless you and your guys adapt then either JHAS or some other MRO is going to nip at your heels until someone at QF bites the bullet and outsources vast swathes of work to that MRO. That sort of powerful decision making takes guts, and given QF grounded themselves tough decisions with massive impacts have been made, no matter whether you think those decisions right or wrong.

As soon as someone provides a genuine alternative, and I agree JHAS doesn't have the right model at present, then it just takes one of the new CEOs to make it happen and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

[Gas Bags]

I have worked in 5 different countries over the years and I can tell you that from my experience as soon as the going gets tough the expat gets going.....no if's, and's, or but's. They all look after the local staff first. That being said I always got paid a lot more than the locals.

Forget the ALAEA thay can do nothing about this. Accept that fact and move on. Whilst private (non government funding) is allowed to finance political parties in Australia situations like this will continue. Who has the money..?

GB

[genxfrog]

Romulus, your analysis that JHAS is financially safe due to its umbilical chord to Leightons is obscured optimism. Ansett was owned by that mob across the Tasman and their owners and Management team were the first ones to bail when it went belly up, remember that moment?
JHAS needs to stand on its own feet and whilst it continues to haemorrhage financially to the alleged tune of millions and millions, Leightons will microscope it for a little longer but the ruthlessness of business is just around the corner.
The current plan isn't working that's true, but the biggest worry is there seems to be no clue from its Senior Management on how to develop a plan that will work.
Jetstar, Virgin and Tiger will decide how long JHAS will continue to flicker on unless Leightons makes an early decision that the experiment failed and call it a day.

[Romulus]

genxfrog - that's a fair call. What I was really driving at were people's entitlements etc were safe. If JHAS is to remain then yes it must become profitable and that fact needs to be understood by all involved.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Romulus, I think from memory, you are not an aircraft person. Bean counters are trying to run JHAS, not aircraft people. You fit that mould when you make comments like -

Yes they're trying to do things differently, I don't know exactly how but as an MRO they have to. They have to become more productive than the in house alternative in order to survive.

Aircraft people know the profitable model and it goes against the grain of everything bean counters are taught at their University courses. About two years ago a JHAS manager called me and asked to come for a coffee and chat. He said "Steve, we are losing money, how do we become profitable?". I told him how. He did the opposite.

Aircraft maintenance is a process that has been refined over 100 years. You need experienced people to make the most of the learned processes. JHAS and others for that matter have elected to promote idiots over experienced engineers because idiots do not argue. This is the flawed process that is losing JHAS money. Do you undrstand this or do you need further explanation?

[Romulus]

Further explanation please SP. Airlines all over the world are changing how they do engineering and we're not seeing a flood of planes dropping out of the sky.

You're right, I'm not an aviation person, so I would be interested in hearing the advice you gave JHAS as to how they could make a go of it.

[rudderless1]

Yep

Ugly American: seats come loose on ‘Kafkaesque’ Qantas partner | Australian Aviation Magazine

[AEROMEDIC]

Airlines all over the world are changing how they do engineering and we're not seeing a flood of planes dropping out of the sky.

It's really comforting to NOT have aircraft falling out of the sky and it's a testimony to the ingenuity of the designers of today's large wide bodied aircraft that have the built in redundancy and safety that we need.
These aircraft are very forgiving in what can happen to them before they finally "drop out of the sky"

Pilots and engineers can make mistakes and and these aircraft will still operate albeit sometimes beyond their design limitations. But with inadequate maintenance or pilot skill, eventually it won't be enough.
The cause of a crash may be just a minor weakness in design not envisaged by the designer, a simple failure to remove static port protective covers or lack of experience by ground staff failing to identify a serious problem that is catastrophic in flight.
The probabilities of such an event just increase when good practices in maintenance decrease and so therefore risk also increases.

There cannot be ANY good reason, business or otherwise to increase risk at any time by an operator or MRO.

[mightyauster]

Quote:
I hear ya SP, but there is no point in spending what few shekels I earn on union dues if I can't get results and I am heartily sick of being shat on, by virtue of the misfortune of being born here.
I look forward to seeing the results of your political lobbying on behalf of the Australian aviation industry.

Seriously? You don't get "results". As a collective whole we stand a chance. I for one believe that what I pay to the ALAEA is worth every cent. I dare say it is the ONLY union who truly represents its members.

"few shekels" indeed?

Sorry sunshine, unless you are part of one of the major airlines, the ALAEA has little or no bite at all. If you are stuck in a company where Australian citizens are definitely a minority, the ALAEA has even less influence; hence my negative cost/benefit analysis.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by rudderless

Ugly American: seats come loose on ‘Kafkaesque’ Qantas partner | Australian Aviation Magazine

A loose seat is not an aircraft dropping out of the sky.

Not saying that it's right, but I have no doubt this has happened plenty of times before regardless of maintenance undertaken. I've flown on several Qantas flights with broken chairs where I spent the entire flight continually trying to pull my chair forward rather than fully recline into the person behind me because the damn thing wouldn't lock.

[Romulus]

Aeromedic - if you don't want risk you don't do or achieve anything. Life has a degree of risk associated with it, it comes down to managing that risk.

Just as cars have gone from drum brakes to disks, engines are now good for 200K miles etc and servicing intervals have increased and actual time spent in servicing has decreased as newer technology has replaced old so it is for aircraft. New developments mean less maintenance is required, and new maintenance techniques reduce the time spent actually doing services.

It has always been thus ad hopefully ever will.

Clear example - ever used a borescope in anything? If so then you've just saved a motza in time and cost. Bringing all those developments to bear is what needs to happen to maintain a cost advantage over the competition and thus ultimately helping secure jobs.

[Propstop]

Romulus
Therein lies the problem; the loose seats are what the passenger sees. They come to the conclusion that if the seats we are sitting on have been poorly maintained, remembering they are part of the particular airlines image, surely what else has been skimped or overlooked in the maintenance of that particular aircraft.
A major or catastrophic event is usually the sum of minor events which have not been attended to, and this fact alone is what the beancounters cannot comprehend.
I fear a major wakeup call is around the corner and as a regular traveller I hope I am not part of it, as we all do.
To quote Gobbledock........tick..tock.

[tail wheel]

JHAS are not meeting training obligations to overcome the shortfalls in labour that create the need for 457 holders in the first place. No apprentices and bugger all training.

There was a requirement under the previous Government that an employer must spend a minimum of 1.5% (I think?) of total payroll cost on staff training, or pay a penalty to the ATO.

I suspect that provision may have been rescinded?

[Lucerne]

Was there union action at JHAS prior to this decision being made? That would be an easy explanation for it.

[Nero62]

The fundamental issue is that the industry is losing money and is exposed to international competition on their doorstep, like few others.

There has to be better returns for all the risks of running a business than putting your money in a bank. JHAS ownership aside, those with long track records in aviation are doing no better, look at how LHT gave up on LTQ. Virgin have $4B in assets, the bank would give u $200M in interst on that, no risk. Virgin actially earned $27M. Qantas have $21B in assets, that would earn a cool $1B in a bank. Qantas lost $350M. Many companies expect 20% return on assets. BHPB gets 23% and its been up to 38%. Do the math.

JHAS deserves every support to make a go of it an a tough industry. The heavy maintenance it does would be overseas now, were it not for them.

[genxfrog]

tail wheel....you are spot on. That requirement was abolished in the mid 90's because the Government decided that it was being rorted and was too hard to monitor and fix. Companies were using corporate social functions and claiming it as "training" in order to meet the 1.5% training expenditure. Boardroom meetings, weekends away at conferences whilst balancing a holiday attached to it, corporate boxes at sporting events etc.
Big business won the day and now they cry about skills shortages.

[AEROMEDIC]

Aeromedic - if you don't want risk you don't do or achieve anything. Life has a degree of risk associated with it, it comes down to managing that risk.

Just as cars have gone from drum brakes to disks, engines are now good for 200K miles etc and servicing intervals have increased and actual time spent in servicing has decreased as newer technology has replaced old so it is for aircraft. New developments mean less maintenance is required, and new maintenance techniques reduce the time spent actually doing services.

Romulus

Sure, we have better, newer and less labour intensive aircraft, but the risks are not the same in different industries.
Risk management in the aircraft industry is run by the carriers and MRO's, not the regulators.
Costs, unfortunately, dictate the level of engineer oversight and maintenance management. Pilots are under continual pressure to ensure on time schedules are kept and are treated like bus drivers along the way.
The carriers and MRO's in tough competitive times are under great economic pressure themselves, so it follows that risk increases to meet "on time under budget " milestones.
Management of that level of risk becomes the domain of the pilots and engineers by default when told "just do it !! "

Those companies that are under pressure have the pilots and engineers in this country to thank for being dedicated and committed to their jobs and we are lucky to have them.