When is the next cull at QF Engineering?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of staff an airline has does not reflect the amount of labour they use. I can take Sin Air for example. Engineers are all within a different company called SIAEC with HM employed by ST AERO. I doubt that they are reported in Singapore staff numbers.
Cathay is the same. Bugger all Engineers with Hkg Line and Heavy staff all employed by HAECO. They have a completely separate listing on the HK stock exchange and have their own annual reports even though they are also owned by the Swire group.
If you want to use the staff numbers from the airline annual reports, you may find that a number of airlines can run with a hand full of maintenance staff. It doesn't mean they don't incur the maintenance expense however.
Cathay is the same. Bugger all Engineers with Hkg Line and Heavy staff all employed by HAECO. They have a completely separate listing on the HK stock exchange and have their own annual reports even though they are also owned by the Swire group.
If you want to use the staff numbers from the airline annual reports, you may find that a number of airlines can run with a hand full of maintenance staff. It doesn't mean they don't incur the maintenance expense however.
Dr Pepz, you have highlighted a concern that has been voiced since the mid-90's: too many employees per aeroplane, per RPK, per RTK. What isn't apparent is the management overhead. QF labour under an almost 2:1 employee:supervisory overhead (including supervisors, managers, executives etc). Most of us are adults with acceptable reading comprehension.
Another factor not evident in the bare numbers is the revenue per RPK. Yield management is a fruitless exercise as long as Qantas weakens the market with a huge low-fare competitor. The idealogical Jetstar experiment is cannibalising yields to the detriment of the group as a whole. As predicted and observed everywhere else a legacy carrier hosted a LCC.
QF will have to trim staff per aeroplane down to industry standards. It is long overdue. Actual front line staff numbers have been stagnant or falling...administrative and management numbers on the other hand have been growing. The fleet is diminishing, staff numbers relatively stable.
Both of those mistakes are of the executive and board.
Another factor not evident in the bare numbers is the revenue per RPK. Yield management is a fruitless exercise as long as Qantas weakens the market with a huge low-fare competitor. The idealogical Jetstar experiment is cannibalising yields to the detriment of the group as a whole. As predicted and observed everywhere else a legacy carrier hosted a LCC.
QF will have to trim staff per aeroplane down to industry standards. It is long overdue. Actual front line staff numbers have been stagnant or falling...administrative and management numbers on the other hand have been growing. The fleet is diminishing, staff numbers relatively stable.
Both of those mistakes are of the executive and board.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: `
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would the breakeven costs figure if you take into account the financial benefit to Australia if the maintenance takes place at Avalon and the money stay INSIDE this country instead of being "exported" for inferior work done overseas? Engineers will pay tax on their wages, buy goods at the local stores (money stay here) and help keep local businesses open which pay tax on their earnings along with the staff they employ.
To compare it to the car industry, if Holden had received the Govt subsidy, then how much tax revenue would have been returned to the Govt coffers from the people at Holden and the others downstream, many of who shall lose their jobs. What happens when the AUD$ drops a few more cents against the greenback and Aussie manufacturing then becomes viable.
Apologies for the automobile comparison on an aviation site but it seems to me that we are going to lose potentially valuable manufacturing and maintenance skills and once they are gone will they ever come back?
Why is Joyce so desperate to destroy QANTAS? Is he being paid by any foreign airlines to do this? This seems to be the only logical reason why he is killing the Rat.
To compare it to the car industry, if Holden had received the Govt subsidy, then how much tax revenue would have been returned to the Govt coffers from the people at Holden and the others downstream, many of who shall lose their jobs. What happens when the AUD$ drops a few more cents against the greenback and Aussie manufacturing then becomes viable.
Apologies for the automobile comparison on an aviation site but it seems to me that we are going to lose potentially valuable manufacturing and maintenance skills and once they are gone will they ever come back?
Why is Joyce so desperate to destroy QANTAS? Is he being paid by any foreign airlines to do this? This seems to be the only logical reason why he is killing the Rat.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is true that SIA's engineers are mostly in SIAEC, but SIAEC is 80% owned by SIA, so under SIA Group accounts, they have 22,000 staff including those in SIAEC, who for all intents and purposes are SIA staff. (Like QF Engineers are probably under a department or entity called Qantas Engineering) So in the Group accounts, they're all consolidated. ST Aero is a competitor to SIAEC, SIA does not use them or their suppliers. From what little I know, the way SIAEC undercut ST Aero and other MROs was they used marginal costing, as all overheads were allocated to SIA. Non-SIA work was taken on as overflow if there were spare resources available, in between SIA work, to take them on. It also annoys ST Aero, because without the legacy airline baggage, ST Aero is a more efficient outfit than SIAEC.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever HAECO or SIAEC pay their engineers is irrelevant in this discussion.
What matters to QF is how much they will charge them for the manpower they supply, be it per hour or as part of an inclusive check price.
What matters even more is how much they'll charge once they know QF have no onshore alternative.
What matters to QF is how much they will charge them for the manpower they supply, be it per hour or as part of an inclusive check price.
What matters even more is how much they'll charge once they know QF have no onshore alternative.
Makes it difficult to justify an argument to the Government for subsidy/assistance....when the money potentially given by the Australian Public will be spent in Hong Kong!
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a flood of lames wanting to abandon ship.
I know of a few guys that have got their hand up for a package but I wouldn't call it a flood.
I'm hearing we'll know more in the next month or so but then again that's been the rumor for six months or so
Coolbanana:
Ho! Ho! Ho! Banana you have read my mind, but wait! There are more games that are yet to be played.
Whoever is in charge of outsourcing is no doubt totally schmoozed, wined, dined, lubricated fondled and provided with whatever they need by HAECO, legal or not, but there are now Three more steps to go to encompass the full capture of Qantas by its outsource company.
1. You gently but insistently suggest to the target, be it Alan Joyce, a Board member or the senior manager responsible that the project is tied around their neck and their success (and by implication their career prospects) depends not only on the projects success but the project being seen to be a success by the Board and senior management..
2. Once that thought is firmly implanted, the target then, with a little prodding, decides that the project must be protected at all costs from any adverse criticism from anywhere. Once that subvocal decision is made, the outsourcer has a new staff member - the Qantas manager who sponsored the project!
Of course our objective in doing this is to lobotomise/paralyse Qantas while we suck the life out of it. To do this we remove anyone in Qantas with the technical skills to analyse our performance, either technically or financially, so that no one can determine if we are providing value for money. We do this by:
(a) DIscovering who the technical and financial leaders are who could analyse our work and its costs. We hire the best and brightest of them ourselves (we make them relationship managers don't we? After all they know Qantas). With the willing help of the sponsoring Qantas manager whose neck is on the line, we suggest that Qantas fire the technical staff who might criticise our work,don't like us, or might blow the whistle.
(b) Offering to provide a full suite of "performance reports" every month for the Board and Senior management - of course our analysis and presentation is always designed to show us in the best possible light. Qantas of course fires the in house bean counters who once did this.
3. We are now in the happy end state to which all good outsource providers aspire:
We have total control of the Qantas technical agenda because there is no one left in the company with the technical background to stand up to us. Any who try are fired by Qantas management at our request. We can use this ability to maximise profits.
Our client does not have the faintest idea if they are receiving value for money. We have removed anyone who has the ability to perform forensic financial analysis of maintenance and overhaul costs. Any who try are fired by Qantas management at our request.
Should Qantas become a little anxious about this situation, we grab the management by the balls and squeeze, hard. We make it as difficult as possible to switch to a new outsourcing supplier. We ensure that any attempt to remove us is going to be career suicide for our Qantas management sponsor, we can do this by selective leaking to the media about the real costs of our services. If we are a teeny bit lucky, we also have a **** file on the Qantas management sponsor, maybe they liked underage chinese girls or been a bit free with the expense account? We know all about that and file it. We remind Qantas that as they have no technical expertise in aircraft maintenance any more, they will have to bear the costs of re-establishing technical expertise before they are even capable of assessing another supplier.
A company I worked for did exactly this to a very large Melbourne based undertaking. Of course once they worked out what we had done to them, they had the balls to hire a whole new technical team and gradually pry themselves free of our clutches. Pity that Qantas doesn't have the balls.
Whatever HAECO or SIAEC pay their engineers is irrelevant in this discussion.
What matters to QF is how much they will charge them for the manpower they supply, be it per hour or as part of an inclusive check price.
What matters even more is how much they'll charge once they know QF have no onshore alternative.
What matters to QF is how much they will charge them for the manpower they supply, be it per hour or as part of an inclusive check price.
What matters even more is how much they'll charge once they know QF have no onshore alternative.
Whoever is in charge of outsourcing is no doubt totally schmoozed, wined, dined, lubricated fondled and provided with whatever they need by HAECO, legal or not, but there are now Three more steps to go to encompass the full capture of Qantas by its outsource company.
1. You gently but insistently suggest to the target, be it Alan Joyce, a Board member or the senior manager responsible that the project is tied around their neck and their success (and by implication their career prospects) depends not only on the projects success but the project being seen to be a success by the Board and senior management..
2. Once that thought is firmly implanted, the target then, with a little prodding, decides that the project must be protected at all costs from any adverse criticism from anywhere. Once that subvocal decision is made, the outsourcer has a new staff member - the Qantas manager who sponsored the project!
Of course our objective in doing this is to lobotomise/paralyse Qantas while we suck the life out of it. To do this we remove anyone in Qantas with the technical skills to analyse our performance, either technically or financially, so that no one can determine if we are providing value for money. We do this by:
(a) DIscovering who the technical and financial leaders are who could analyse our work and its costs. We hire the best and brightest of them ourselves (we make them relationship managers don't we? After all they know Qantas). With the willing help of the sponsoring Qantas manager whose neck is on the line, we suggest that Qantas fire the technical staff who might criticise our work,don't like us, or might blow the whistle.
(b) Offering to provide a full suite of "performance reports" every month for the Board and Senior management - of course our analysis and presentation is always designed to show us in the best possible light. Qantas of course fires the in house bean counters who once did this.
3. We are now in the happy end state to which all good outsource providers aspire:
We have total control of the Qantas technical agenda because there is no one left in the company with the technical background to stand up to us. Any who try are fired by Qantas management at our request. We can use this ability to maximise profits.
Our client does not have the faintest idea if they are receiving value for money. We have removed anyone who has the ability to perform forensic financial analysis of maintenance and overhaul costs. Any who try are fired by Qantas management at our request.
Should Qantas become a little anxious about this situation, we grab the management by the balls and squeeze, hard. We make it as difficult as possible to switch to a new outsourcing supplier. We ensure that any attempt to remove us is going to be career suicide for our Qantas management sponsor, we can do this by selective leaking to the media about the real costs of our services. If we are a teeny bit lucky, we also have a **** file on the Qantas management sponsor, maybe they liked underage chinese girls or been a bit free with the expense account? We know all about that and file it. We remind Qantas that as they have no technical expertise in aircraft maintenance any more, they will have to bear the costs of re-establishing technical expertise before they are even capable of assessing another supplier.
A company I worked for did exactly this to a very large Melbourne based undertaking. Of course once they worked out what we had done to them, they had the balls to hire a whole new technical team and gradually pry themselves free of our clutches. Pity that Qantas doesn't have the balls.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
It sounds like you have done a course that was called the Strategic Selling course. A lot of corporates did it in the 80's and 90's.
Sponsor, Coach, tie in the project, success, all were used.
You are spot on with your assessment.
"1. You gently but insistently suggest to the target, be it Alan Joyce, a Board member or the senior manager responsible that the project is tied around their neck and their success (and by implication their career prospects) depends not only on the projects success but the project being seen to be a success by the Board and senior management..
2. Once that thought is firmly implanted, the target then, with a little prodding, decides that the project must be protected at all costs from any adverse criticism from anywhere. Once that subvocal decision is made, the outsourcer has a new staff member - the Qantas manager who sponsored the project!"
It sounds like you have done a course that was called the Strategic Selling course. A lot of corporates did it in the 80's and 90's.
Sponsor, Coach, tie in the project, success, all were used.
You are spot on with your assessment.
"1. You gently but insistently suggest to the target, be it Alan Joyce, a Board member or the senior manager responsible that the project is tied around their neck and their success (and by implication their career prospects) depends not only on the projects success but the project being seen to be a success by the Board and senior management..
2. Once that thought is firmly implanted, the target then, with a little prodding, decides that the project must be protected at all costs from any adverse criticism from anywhere. Once that subvocal decision is made, the outsourcer has a new staff member - the Qantas manager who sponsored the project!"
Whoever is in charge of outsourcing is no doubt totally schmoozed, wined, dined, lubricated fondled and provided with whatever they need by
Happens everywhere.
Was told that there are plenty of management questioning the relationship with Accor based on knowledge and experience lost (funny though that same issue doesn't extend to engineering) and the big one the accountants have worked out that it is costing QF more. Accor have told plenty that they want to get in and run QF marketing and events, it won't happen though.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two or so years ago Qantas Avalon were only 2.5% more expensive than HAECO over the $200M 747 reconfig project. Figures supplied by Qantas.
Now the dollar is down and HAECO wages up 14.9% last year alone.
Now the dollar is down and HAECO wages up 14.9% last year alone.
Here's a puerile bit of analysis by Warren Truss...
The acting prime minister says the government has also raised changing laws to allow foreign ownership to make up more than 49 per cent of the national carrier, but it would not pass through the Senate.
Mr Truss says it was a pity Qantas this week announced a tender process to maintain the company's dwindling fleet of 15 aircraft long-term.
However, he said an Australian maintenance facility was not viable, given Qantas' plans to reduce it's 747 fleet to just eight.
"You can't operate a major maintenance facility for only eight aircraft," Mr Truss told reporters in Brisbane.
"These aircraft have served Australia well over the years, but they're reaching retirement age.
"You can't keep the services operating when there are no aircraft."
Mr Truss said the government was willing to look at a change in laws restricting Qantas foreign ownership, but he did not think they would be successful.
"My assessment is it would not be possible at the current time to get changes in the law through the senate," he said.
"We continue to work with Qantas to find the best way for the company to develop and be prosperous ... (but) ultimately they'll be responsible for their own destiny."
Mr Truss said he welcomed Qantas' moves to keep itself viable.
Qantas' announcement came two months after the airline announced the Avalon facility in Victoria would close, resulting in 300 job losses.
But Qantas said it would continue to do heavy maintenance on the majority of its aircraft at its facility in Brisbane, which recently received a $30 million upgrade.
Mr Truss says it was a pity Qantas this week announced a tender process to maintain the company's dwindling fleet of 15 aircraft long-term.
However, he said an Australian maintenance facility was not viable, given Qantas' plans to reduce it's 747 fleet to just eight.
"You can't operate a major maintenance facility for only eight aircraft," Mr Truss told reporters in Brisbane.
"These aircraft have served Australia well over the years, but they're reaching retirement age.
"You can't keep the services operating when there are no aircraft."
Mr Truss said the government was willing to look at a change in laws restricting Qantas foreign ownership, but he did not think they would be successful.
"My assessment is it would not be possible at the current time to get changes in the law through the senate," he said.
"We continue to work with Qantas to find the best way for the company to develop and be prosperous ... (but) ultimately they'll be responsible for their own destiny."
Mr Truss said he welcomed Qantas' moves to keep itself viable.
Qantas' announcement came two months after the airline announced the Avalon facility in Victoria would close, resulting in 300 job losses.
But Qantas said it would continue to do heavy maintenance on the majority of its aircraft at its facility in Brisbane, which recently received a $30 million upgrade.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: aviation heaven, australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEDSEC, you are 100% correct in what you have stated. I have seen it first hand. Unfortunately in the world of "signed IAW" said MM you are very hard pressed to prove a thing. That is until a smoking hole in the ground and 400 peoples families destroyed…..
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
False maintenance
Gday SP
Surely if fraudulently certified maintenance can be proven either CASA or Canberra ( maybe Senator Nick) would have to step in and intervene?
The AMM is pretty specific re cleaning and inspection of wiring these days.
If supervising Qantas LAMEs can gather evidence, the whistle should be blown!
Keep up the fight mate !
Surely if fraudulently certified maintenance can be proven either CASA or Canberra ( maybe Senator Nick) would have to step in and intervene?
The AMM is pretty specific re cleaning and inspection of wiring these days.
If supervising Qantas LAMEs can gather evidence, the whistle should be blown!
Keep up the fight mate !
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FedSec
Two or so years ago Qantas Avalon were only 2.5% more expensive than HAECO over the $200M 747 reconfig project. Figures supplied by Qantas.
Now the dollar is down and HAECO wages up 14.9% last year alone.
Now the dollar is down and HAECO wages up 14.9% last year alone.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
"You can't operate a major maintenance facility for only eight aircraft," Mr Truss told reporters in Brisbane.
"These aircraft have served Australia well over the years, but they're reaching retirement age.
"You can't keep the services operating when there are no aircraft."
"These aircraft have served Australia well over the years, but they're reaching retirement age.
"You can't keep the services operating when there are no aircraft."
I personally have serious concerns for the fate of BNE heavy in the coming years. I see guys at the airport who look like 457 Visa holders carrying out work I used to do whilst my mates are facing the unemployment line. It makes me sick.
I have worked at HKG heavy a few years back and seen 1 LAME supervising and certifying 2 seperate arcraft in the hangar. Stuff knows who the workers were he was certifying (they were not Licenced, in fact I am unsure what qualifications they held).
I have personally seen some things that make me wonder if some of the bigwigs and decision makers in the various aviation fields in this country are in each others pockets.
"Australia is open for Business"...... my @rse it is.