When is the next cull at QF Engineering?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends if the company want it to drag on for six months plus or if they want it all to be over in a few weeks. Last on first off is the quickest and easiest method. If you're crunching numbers on how much it will cost to re-train LAMEs then you are looking too far into it. It is and always has been about LAME scalps. Nastyswine and his Yank mate (am I the only one sick of being referred to as 'folks') were tasked with one thing: to reduce the number of LAMEs. After all the money our EBA negotiations have cost them over the last 10 years (shutting down the entire airline at one stage), you can bet they've got an open cheque book to make it happen.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by coolb1banana
It depends if the company want it to drag on for six months plus or if they want it all to be over in a few weeks. Last on first off is the quickest and easiest method.
Redundancy means exactly that, they can only make positions redundant not specific people, i.e. they can determine positions they will not refill, the position must be removed permanently, and the person (or one of the people) who fills that role is then made redundant. It is based on operational requirements and (in theory) nothing else.
So yes, it IS likely that legacy LAMEs will be made redundant because those are the roles that will be removed. Specifically, if Qantas take out the 767 fleet and then make 767 LAMEs redundant then that can be defined as an operationally driven decision (same for 747).
It would be likely that a dual licenced LAME with a type that remains in the fleet would have an argument to be made redundant after a 767 or 747 only person or even a dual 747/767 person.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: H271/3
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon the 767/747 Lame could then argue why he wasn't trained on a new gen aircraft. I here a lot of the legacy Lames talking about a class action due to insufficient training.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wp
I reckon the 767/747 Lame could then argue why he wasn't trained on a new gen aircraft. I here a lot of the legacy Lames talking about a class action due to insufficient training.
Question could be asked why they did not undertake training themselves to boost their skills.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is no accident the older Boeing boys have not been airbus trained even though they should have been on the top of the training list (see selection criteria). CT let is slip a few years ago ie. >45 and only Boeing, your going.
Best of luck to you guys shafted yet again, at least you are probably so pissed already you are happy to go. Maybe there is some avenue of legal action because of discrimination, what do you think Fed Sec.
PS. if you are B2, it's U2.
Best of luck to you guys shafted yet again, at least you are probably so pissed already you are happy to go. Maybe there is some avenue of legal action because of discrimination, what do you think Fed Sec.
PS. if you are B2, it's U2.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like it or not training is a privilege, not a right
Training is according to the business requiring more licences for a type or types and at the moment it seems to be zero.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas will not recognise non QF Training, why waste your money unless you are moving to Virgin. Plenty have done extra training but the mighty QF will not pay, oh, except for a select few just recently, probably hoping many more will spend their own money on training and QF shut the training school.
Last edited by Short_Circuit; 8th Mar 2014 at 21:34.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately redundancies will be made as a business decision .
It seems some people are trying to believe we are still in the golden years and full of entitlement .
Alas we are not ... So be realistic guys .
Good luck to you all .
It seems some people are trying to believe we are still in the golden years and full of entitlement .
Alas we are not ... So be realistic guys .
Good luck to you all .
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big Yank knows we will make his life hell for months if he doesn't make it quick and fair as possible. If you think you are safe just because you jagged a new gen you are dreaming.
Last edited by CoolB1Banana; 8th Mar 2014 at 20:14.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe those Base guys who recently did their B737NG will save their bacon and have their licences recognised.
Either way, if you don't train yourself these days, you run the risk of not only redundancy, but not getting picked up by another employer. You only have to see how many LAMEs from other companies are paying for their own training.
Good luck to all involved.
Either way, if you don't train yourself these days, you run the risk of not only redundancy, but not getting picked up by another employer. You only have to see how many LAMEs from other companies are paying for their own training.
Good luck to all involved.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulus, whats your take on redundancies in a department thats actually increasing headcount?
Do you think it's legal to make someone redundant only to replace them with another?
Do you think it's legal to make someone redundant only to replace them with another?
If everyone were instantly replaceable perhaps it wouldn't be strictly legal, but they are not. In Sydney, the numbers and licences have all gone into the same bucket so it seems.
My advice, if you want to stay in this industry do your own training make yourself employable. It's your licence at the end of the day, not Qantas's. Otherwise look elsewhere. Pair that with the face that the industry has been totally decimated perhaps by Qantas, perhaps by the AUD, perhaps by unfavourable business environment compared to outsourcing over the last 10 years whatever it is, the 'good old days' are gone and they're not coming back.
Just take a look at the ghost town Sydney now is compared to 10 years ago when there was 707s, 767s, 747s, base maintenance, EOC, engine line, apu line, 95% foreign operators contracted to SIO. A mere shadow of that exists today, just reminders everywhere. AVV gone, MEL heavy gone, CFM56 engine line gone.
Besides, this is AJ's last throw of the dice with regards to Qantas. What's to say the year after he won't burn through another $700+million, it won't be long before the receivers are called in. But at least we have corporate mouthpiece propaganda 'Q-Tube' to tell us everything is good, everything is great, wherever we go.
My advice, if you want to stay in this industry do your own training make yourself employable. It's your licence at the end of the day, not Qantas's. Otherwise look elsewhere. Pair that with the face that the industry has been totally decimated perhaps by Qantas, perhaps by the AUD, perhaps by unfavourable business environment compared to outsourcing over the last 10 years whatever it is, the 'good old days' are gone and they're not coming back.
Just take a look at the ghost town Sydney now is compared to 10 years ago when there was 707s, 767s, 747s, base maintenance, EOC, engine line, apu line, 95% foreign operators contracted to SIO. A mere shadow of that exists today, just reminders everywhere. AVV gone, MEL heavy gone, CFM56 engine line gone.
Besides, this is AJ's last throw of the dice with regards to Qantas. What's to say the year after he won't burn through another $700+million, it won't be long before the receivers are called in. But at least we have corporate mouthpiece propaganda 'Q-Tube' to tell us everything is good, everything is great, wherever we go.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If everyone were instantly replaceable perhaps it wouldn't be strictly legal, but they are not. In Sydney, the numbers and licences have all gone into the same bucket so it seems.
You can't make someone redundant, if the position remains! They should have shuffled all the decks before they announced the redundancies, if they wanted to get away with this!
Last edited by Silverado; 8th Mar 2014 at 23:45. Reason: Forgot about the Cabin dept
All I can say is good luck with your assertions. Qantas will never not in a million years make a 738 guy redundant whilst keeping a 767 guy then training him up to replace the 738 guy they made redundant, both of whom work in the same precinct.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is a very good chance the blokes made redundant this round will be looked back on as the lucky ones. Once the liquidators step in there will be no golden handshakes. You'll be lucky to walk away with your basic entitlements.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Qantas wanted to reduce headcount in the "Sydney Precinct" they should have listed it as "Sydney Precinct", but they didn't.
Instead they separated it into 4 distinct area's (ports). Each with it's own tally of Current FTE and Future FTE.
So for them to claim that employees in SAM are redundant, whilst bolstering numbers in the same department is preposterous.
It is their assertion that Sydney is 4 separate departments(ports) both current and future! Not mine!
Instead they separated it into 4 distinct area's (ports). Each with it's own tally of Current FTE and Future FTE.
So for them to claim that employees in SAM are redundant, whilst bolstering numbers in the same department is preposterous.
It is their assertion that Sydney is 4 separate departments(ports) both current and future! Not mine!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: H271/3
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This all depends on what selection criteria Qantas and Alaea agree on.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Aus
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Petition
Hi all
Wanted to repost this for those interested
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petition...-alan-joyce-2#
Wanted to repost this for those interested
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petition...-alan-joyce-2#
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Aus
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selection criteria
Surely these clowns must have a selection criteria.
When they announced Lame redundancies last year they seemed to have little idea about a criteria that would holdup under scrutiny, didn't they learn from the last time. Excuse me if I've missed something, am I missing something
BB
When they announced Lame redundancies last year they seemed to have little idea about a criteria that would holdup under scrutiny, didn't they learn from the last time. Excuse me if I've missed something, am I missing something
BB
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Aus
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avalon
What's the latest.
Has the latest announcements of redundancies affected QF AVA Lame's wishing to relocate. Does the closure advantage or disadvantage those at Avalon who wish to redeploy compared to guys at other ports?
From what I understand HR completely fu,ked up the the MEL Heavy process. Have they continued their good form ?
Has the latest announcements of redundancies affected QF AVA Lame's wishing to relocate. Does the closure advantage or disadvantage those at Avalon who wish to redeploy compared to guys at other ports?
From what I understand HR completely fu,ked up the the MEL Heavy process. Have they continued their good form ?