JHAS Keeps 457's over Local workers in new Redundancy round
While I generally agree with Romulus, I need to make two points,
1", the work smarter not harder mantra doesn't work in aviation. It is not possible to do things differently in many cases.
There are a number of factors at work here:
- massive legal regulation of airworthiness that requires, among other things, complete traceability and time/event history for every aircraft, without which the aircraft is just scrap metal - this is what killed Ansett. There is no escape from this.
- the continuous search for aircraft performance which results in complexity and lethal penalties from failure to maintain. As someone told me, current designs are no longer fail safe, but the cheaper "damage tolerant" standard.
- the simple fact that bad or insufficient maintenance does not manifest itself for years, and when it does, it may have catastrophic and unrecoverable results. This fact is also a great temptation to bean counters and the unprincipled or lazy, since they will not have to wear the cost of the failure their Mal investment causes.
I view these matters as so important that I seriously doubt that anyone without a judeo Christian or Japanese work ethic is capable of building or maintaining a safe aircraft - there need to be motivations of fear, guilt, pride etc. to make sure the job is done right, and these do not obtain much on the Asian mainland in my opinion.
The second point is that the jhas facility is extremely valuable infrastructure because it's replacement cost is incalculable, or at least in the middle billions. The planning and approval costs for such a facility are stratospheric, not to mention the scarcity of real estate at international airports. Some may have noticed portable office structures inside the hangar - they have been there since at least as early as 1976 since it was regulatorily impossible to modify the original hangar design.
Sorry for the punctuation but it's difficult posting in bed with an iPad and a cat trying to sit on your chest.
1", the work smarter not harder mantra doesn't work in aviation. It is not possible to do things differently in many cases.
There are a number of factors at work here:
- massive legal regulation of airworthiness that requires, among other things, complete traceability and time/event history for every aircraft, without which the aircraft is just scrap metal - this is what killed Ansett. There is no escape from this.
- the continuous search for aircraft performance which results in complexity and lethal penalties from failure to maintain. As someone told me, current designs are no longer fail safe, but the cheaper "damage tolerant" standard.
- the simple fact that bad or insufficient maintenance does not manifest itself for years, and when it does, it may have catastrophic and unrecoverable results. This fact is also a great temptation to bean counters and the unprincipled or lazy, since they will not have to wear the cost of the failure their Mal investment causes.
I view these matters as so important that I seriously doubt that anyone without a judeo Christian or Japanese work ethic is capable of building or maintaining a safe aircraft - there need to be motivations of fear, guilt, pride etc. to make sure the job is done right, and these do not obtain much on the Asian mainland in my opinion.
The second point is that the jhas facility is extremely valuable infrastructure because it's replacement cost is incalculable, or at least in the middle billions. The planning and approval costs for such a facility are stratospheric, not to mention the scarcity of real estate at international airports. Some may have noticed portable office structures inside the hangar - they have been there since at least as early as 1976 since it was regulatorily impossible to modify the original hangar design.
Sorry for the punctuation but it's difficult posting in bed with an iPad and a cat trying to sit on your chest.
Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Oct 2012 at 20:32.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny # 61 - Sorry for the punctuation but it's difficult posting in bed with an iPad and a cat trying to sit on your chest.
Sunny 'posting', in bed, in a cat house, with a cat on your chest; is not only bad form, but a strict liability offence, if'n you get caught.
Sorry mate, irresistible.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sad fact here is that no one wants to do business with JHAS. They have managed to drive away just about every customer they have had and the ones that are there do it under sufferance due lack of alternative.
Unfortunately the staff on the floor wear the fallout. Those with the 457's just have a stay of execution at the moment.
Unfortunately the staff on the floor wear the fallout. Those with the 457's just have a stay of execution at the moment.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rudder
The sad fact here is that no one wants to do business with JHAS. They have managed to drive away just about every customer they have had and the ones that are there do it under sufferance due lack of alternative.
Unfortunately the staff on the floor wear the fallout. Those with the 457's just have a stay of execution at the moment.
Unfortunately the staff on the floor wear the fallout. Those with the 457's just have a stay of execution at the moment.
But what is it that is driving customers away?
At the end of the day this is only an internet forum but if there's anything they can do to turn around their performance I'd say get it out on here and hope like heck somebody there is smart enough to read, digest and apply the relevant things to the business so it isn't lost for ever. Once it closes down it will be gone and with it a whole bunch of Australian jobs (regardless of 457 utilisation). And that would be a great shame.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Twilight Zone
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulus, the problem stems from the fact that John Holland owned by Leightons is a construction company and JHAS is managed by people with a construction / infrastructure industry mentality. Leightons and John Holland only entered the Aviation MRO Industry for a quick dollar and didn't do enough to utilise industry expertise and knowledge from those who have worked and Managed in the Aviation MRO Industry. Senior Management given the role to run JHAS at its inception were ignorant, stubborn and refused to listen to the workers and middle level Managers who were desperate to make the business a long term success. John Holland and Leightons have always had a reputation for doing things their way with no room for input from their employees. I doubt anything has changed.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genx, that doesn't actually say anything mate. That's not to say I disagree with you, just that your statement doesn't actually identify any problem at all other than a very broad view that people didn't listen.
What didn't they listen to? What could/should have been done? I'm asking the question that you're effectively saying initial JHAS management should have asked.
What do you think they should have done to make the business a success?
What didn't they listen to? What could/should have been done? I'm asking the question that you're effectively saying initial JHAS management should have asked.
What do you think they should have done to make the business a success?
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tone down the us vs them rhetoric on the 457 guys
I understand that the 457 visa issue is complicated and the situation is not good at JHAS, but I believe this us vs them argument put forward by some here is just way too simplistic, and has way to much of a zenophobic tone for me to say nothing.
Ive worked with a lot of these guys at one of these "457" companies that is mentioned, and very few of them were actually on 457's. Most were permanent residents through the skilled migration program. The few on the 457's were well on their way to getting PR. All of them were top guys, who were highly skilled, highly rated knew their stuff. They had families here and were trying to improve their families lives like everyone else.
The problem is, they dont know their rights and how they can improve their situation. Some companies pay under the award for these highly skilled engineers, and as such they dont get the pay and conditions that they should. this ends up undercutting local staff with the guys from overseas being treated like c$&p.
I believe that the union has a stong role to play in getting these guys onboard and letting them know how things can be improved through union protection and enterprise agreements. This would not only protect wages and conditions for Australian workers but also protect the interests of fellow engineers who come here who should enjoy the same rights and conditions as Australian workers.
I believe this to a be a position that exploits the fact that line maintenance will always have to be done here, without the us vs them ugliness postulated previously. It also recognises the globalised reality of aviation in 2012, where highly skilled engineers will always be sought after.
Ive worked with a lot of these guys at one of these "457" companies that is mentioned, and very few of them were actually on 457's. Most were permanent residents through the skilled migration program. The few on the 457's were well on their way to getting PR. All of them were top guys, who were highly skilled, highly rated knew their stuff. They had families here and were trying to improve their families lives like everyone else.
The problem is, they dont know their rights and how they can improve their situation. Some companies pay under the award for these highly skilled engineers, and as such they dont get the pay and conditions that they should. this ends up undercutting local staff with the guys from overseas being treated like c$&p.
I believe that the union has a stong role to play in getting these guys onboard and letting them know how things can be improved through union protection and enterprise agreements. This would not only protect wages and conditions for Australian workers but also protect the interests of fellow engineers who come here who should enjoy the same rights and conditions as Australian workers.
I believe this to a be a position that exploits the fact that line maintenance will always have to be done here, without the us vs them ugliness postulated previously. It also recognises the globalised reality of aviation in 2012, where highly skilled engineers will always be sought after.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulus I know you want this place to be a success and the posters here did as well. I read their posts and understand exactly what they are saying, it is like you are also reading the same posts and just don't understand the problem. I do owe you a more in depth answer as well to explain as I offered last week. This is part of the conversation I had with management.
You talk about efficiencies or productivity/profitability, however you want to term it. Correctly we understand that a business must make money, no issue with that. To convert what I am talking about to examples you can undrstand I will put it a different way.
So say you have a business that is struggling, lets call it JHAS. You want to change somthing. You can either make the operation cheaper or make the operation better (more work output). Problem is, to make it better you need to spend some money. Now the accountants faced with this situaton always go for the cut costs model, it's simple for people who do not know a business to adopt. It creates problems later on, people who do know the business try to warn the decision makers who invariably do not listen, they just blame, lose more contracts, cut more costs until there is nothing left.
Alternatively, the business can fight for more work by selling their quality product. In order to do that, you need a quality product (JHAS has never had that but could have). When you have people delivering quality, others around them learn the methods to create what is being delivered. These people are proud of their work and if rewarded sufficiently will do anything for management because they would work together as a team. I've been part of a team like this before at Qantas (then some idiot went and changed it).
So at JHAS what does this mean. Early on there were Engineering mistakes. These occurred because management wanted to make it profitable from day one and did not employ enough experienced people. There were far too many unlicenced Engineers working alone and insufficient oversight. This is not a model for success in Aviation maintenance. I can assure you, an exprienced LAME may even be twice as expensive as an AME, they will nearly always deliver 2-3 times the work output if deployed correctly. This is no offence to AMEs, many of whom are fantastic. The LAME however works untethered, doesn't need to check with another to make a decision and in most cases just has greater exprience levels.
Qf Mel had a high ratio of LAMEs. They managed to drop the heaviest of 737 c checks from 42 days to under 20. Fastest time in the world by a mile. Now this is a market that could deliver something unique and JHAS could have done the same. Non aviation people are running fine businesses and the people there just will not listen. The wrong Engineers have been promoted to management positions. You (am talking Hr, IR non aviation persons) have selected leaders based not on their ability or knowledge but their promises of absolute loyalty to flawed models designd by buffoons.
You talk about efficiencies or productivity/profitability, however you want to term it. Correctly we understand that a business must make money, no issue with that. To convert what I am talking about to examples you can undrstand I will put it a different way.
So say you have a business that is struggling, lets call it JHAS. You want to change somthing. You can either make the operation cheaper or make the operation better (more work output). Problem is, to make it better you need to spend some money. Now the accountants faced with this situaton always go for the cut costs model, it's simple for people who do not know a business to adopt. It creates problems later on, people who do know the business try to warn the decision makers who invariably do not listen, they just blame, lose more contracts, cut more costs until there is nothing left.
Alternatively, the business can fight for more work by selling their quality product. In order to do that, you need a quality product (JHAS has never had that but could have). When you have people delivering quality, others around them learn the methods to create what is being delivered. These people are proud of their work and if rewarded sufficiently will do anything for management because they would work together as a team. I've been part of a team like this before at Qantas (then some idiot went and changed it).
So at JHAS what does this mean. Early on there were Engineering mistakes. These occurred because management wanted to make it profitable from day one and did not employ enough experienced people. There were far too many unlicenced Engineers working alone and insufficient oversight. This is not a model for success in Aviation maintenance. I can assure you, an exprienced LAME may even be twice as expensive as an AME, they will nearly always deliver 2-3 times the work output if deployed correctly. This is no offence to AMEs, many of whom are fantastic. The LAME however works untethered, doesn't need to check with another to make a decision and in most cases just has greater exprience levels.
Qf Mel had a high ratio of LAMEs. They managed to drop the heaviest of 737 c checks from 42 days to under 20. Fastest time in the world by a mile. Now this is a market that could deliver something unique and JHAS could have done the same. Non aviation people are running fine businesses and the people there just will not listen. The wrong Engineers have been promoted to management positions. You (am talking Hr, IR non aviation persons) have selected leaders based not on their ability or knowledge but their promises of absolute loyalty to flawed models designd by buffoons.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what will happen in Brisbane ,ratio of LAME too AME in a crew just like what they have in JHAS ,will the turn time get better with that model champion by the new Engineering boss they had to employed to change heavy maintenance ,most probably he came on a 457 too.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Twilight Zone
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulus, there is no "one" answer that will fix the current problem at JHAS. My point is that had their business leaders worked as a unit with their employees, many of the problems that they now face may have been avoided. I will give you an example. I understand the current EBA expired in March 2010, and currently Im told it has not been renewed with their employees and Unions and negotiations continue. A customer to JHAS (Virgin, Tiger, Jetstar etc) would want certainty with their aircraft maintenance via industrial peace and a locked in EBA would provide this. No one in their right mind would want to hand over one of their aircraft or a long term maintenance contract to an organisation in the middle of their EBA negotiations. So what does JHAS do instead? It drags things out for almost 3 years and my sources tell me there is no end in sight for the negotiations to conclude soon.
One would think that it would be a priority at JHAS to lock in a new EBA and use this as a selling point to their existing and potential new customers but those who sit at the higher end of the John Holland bureaucracy just don't get it.
One would think that it would be a priority at JHAS to lock in a new EBA and use this as a selling point to their existing and potential new customers but those who sit at the higher end of the John Holland bureaucracy just don't get it.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont particularly want to be too specific with instances as it will identify me, The List would be long though. However pretty much all of what has been said by ALAEA and more is the case.
His view is from a HR point of view. Mine is from the downstream affect of that and actual performance and dealing with them point of view.
It's just a shambles.
His view is from a HR point of view. Mine is from the downstream affect of that and actual performance and dealing with them point of view.
It's just a shambles.
Last edited by Rudder; 8th Oct 2012 at 00:18.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the message has been repeated quite clearly for some time now and I'm sure that company managers either don't read these posts or couldn't give a toss.
The message......? "You get what you pay for"
If you want a check to be "on time and under budget" and high quality, you pay the money and get the BEST people.....AND you support them.
It never ceases to amaze me to see high cost projects start up and then have the value eroded away by poor staff selection whatever the category. Then the compounding effect of "band aid management" undermines the morale of those left followed by staff reductions and shutdown.
The message......? "You get what you pay for"
If you want a check to be "on time and under budget" and high quality, you pay the money and get the BEST people.....AND you support them.
It never ceases to amaze me to see high cost projects start up and then have the value eroded away by poor staff selection whatever the category. Then the compounding effect of "band aid management" undermines the morale of those left followed by staff reductions and shutdown.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Past the rabbit proof fence
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be helpful if the "new breed" of aviation management realised that when a Lame puts his/her signature and licence number to a job, that the "ownership" of responsibility lasts for the life of the aircraft. Maybe if they placed themself in our position - they would understand why undercutting and taking short cuts make LAME's nervous.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sector 7G
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First up, I don't have a dog in this fight. I've been following this thread with interest, particularly the Romulus / Fed Sec debate.
This post by aveng screams out for an outsiders view (no slight on aveneg intended)
The "new breed" of [generic] managers understand exactly the point you have made, in fact, it is the cornerstone of the modern business model. It is the LAME and pilots who give them plausible deniability - in short you and I are their "bunnies". Its even worse for pilots, because, they are usually unable to defend their actions at the subsequent inquiry, and hence speculation about their performance can always be used to cast doubt.
By virtue of being licensed, we give managers cover to cut corners, take the bonuses whilst we bear the risk if it all goes wrong. How many times have you actually heard a senior manager or CEO stand up and say "actually, we the senior management made a mistake". It is always about finding a low level functionary to carry the can (QF Freight Cartel US prosecution is the classic case in point)
This post by aveng screams out for an outsiders view (no slight on aveneg intended)
Originally Posted by aveng
It would be helpful if the "new breed" of aviation management realised that when a Lame puts his/her signature and licence number to a job, that the "ownership" of responsibility lasts for the life of the aircraft. Maybe if they placed themself in our position - they would understand why undercutting and taking short cuts make LAME's nervous.
By virtue of being licensed, we give managers cover to cut corners, take the bonuses whilst we bear the risk if it all goes wrong. How many times have you actually heard a senior manager or CEO stand up and say "actually, we the senior management made a mistake". It is always about finding a low level functionary to carry the can (QF Freight Cartel US prosecution is the classic case in point)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Island Paradise
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JHAS Keeps 457's over Local workers in new Redundancy round
Firstly, I am employed at JHAS, but am not in any position to be aware of redundancy selection criteria or any rumours surrounding it.
I do work with those on 457 visas and in most cases cannot question their competancy or resposibility.
What I do know from reading the above is :
These LAME's were brought in initially to provide a skill set not available at the time. A330 Mech and Avionics.
JHAS has trained numerous people in the meantime with A330 courses in both trades. At a rough count 20.
Currently the 457's work in a day/night 7 day shift environment, as do the majority of those trained.
As far as I am aware, no one willing to work in this same environment, is under threat of redundancy.
Whereas, the few who may be, with the same qualifications, have refused to work the shift pattern that actually makes them available when the majority of the A330 maintenance is carried out.
Wages, as far as I am aware - are comparable. I certainly can't go to JQ without losing money.
Whilst I am all for protecting the Local (having spent 5 years as an expat, I always knew I was in the gun first), this argument has been skewed.
Concerning JHAS, we are all aware that it was set up and originally managed by those out of their league.
This was followed by others more used to running a building site.
Now we've upgraded to the guy who brought us Myki.
What I have noticed though, is there is now an intense focus on a quality product at the expense of short cuts. A focus on Safety with the employment of a QF person that takes it all seriously.
I have heard recently, that no longer will we be the whipping boy of the Customer and if rumours are true, recent events show this.
I can only hope that this trend upwards continues and the snide remarks of disaffected workers and former workers will fade to a whisper.
As for the ALAEA, good luck to you.
I do work with those on 457 visas and in most cases cannot question their competancy or resposibility.
What I do know from reading the above is :
These LAME's were brought in initially to provide a skill set not available at the time. A330 Mech and Avionics.
JHAS has trained numerous people in the meantime with A330 courses in both trades. At a rough count 20.
Currently the 457's work in a day/night 7 day shift environment, as do the majority of those trained.
As far as I am aware, no one willing to work in this same environment, is under threat of redundancy.
Whereas, the few who may be, with the same qualifications, have refused to work the shift pattern that actually makes them available when the majority of the A330 maintenance is carried out.
Wages, as far as I am aware - are comparable. I certainly can't go to JQ without losing money.
Whilst I am all for protecting the Local (having spent 5 years as an expat, I always knew I was in the gun first), this argument has been skewed.
Concerning JHAS, we are all aware that it was set up and originally managed by those out of their league.
This was followed by others more used to running a building site.
Now we've upgraded to the guy who brought us Myki.
What I have noticed though, is there is now an intense focus on a quality product at the expense of short cuts. A focus on Safety with the employment of a QF person that takes it all seriously.
I have heard recently, that no longer will we be the whipping boy of the Customer and if rumours are true, recent events show this.
I can only hope that this trend upwards continues and the snide remarks of disaffected workers and former workers will fade to a whisper.
As for the ALAEA, good luck to you.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard recently, that no longer will we be the whipping boy of the Customer and if rumours are true, recent events show this.
When will JHAS learn that the customer wants a quality product delivered on time without issues.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got it in one SRM.
JHAS is doomed while you have guys thinking like this working for them.
You only have to look at the number of aircraft now parked out the front to what is was just 12 months ago to see what effect the customers have. They are walking out the door and with them a lot of jobs.
JHAS is doomed while you have guys thinking like this working for them.
You only have to look at the number of aircraft now parked out the front to what is was just 12 months ago to see what effect the customers have. They are walking out the door and with them a lot of jobs.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Island Paradise
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys are really hardcore hehe. Please tell me what all the aircraft were doing out the front? Sounds like you're sitting on Jhas computers next to each other holding hands, hoping someone will come and save your incompetent asses. Maybe you're even some of the guys who sucked courses out of Jhas and now avoid the aircraft like the plague. Could you even be SP's message boys spreading fear to the masses who live in the good old days? Take a trip gentlemen and see the world. Maybe even try working somewhere else that gives you some real satisfaction.
Maybe you don't see aircraft at Jhas because you start (work?) after they have left and go home before they arrive.
You're too funny!
Maybe you don't see aircraft at Jhas because you start (work?) after they have left and go home before they arrive.
You're too funny!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pacificmarlin, FYI I have worked overseas and base my last post on what I have experienced.
There are MRO's opening up in Asia that can do exactly what the customer requires and one is backed by Boeing.
In my opinion if JHAS do not get there act together, they will not survive in the long term.
There are MRO's opening up in Asia that can do exactly what the customer requires and one is backed by Boeing.
In my opinion if JHAS do not get there act together, they will not survive in the long term.