When is the next cull at QF Engineering?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're the one showing ignorance if you think they are going to appoint all these Ops Managers and not take out a few other layers. The DMM position would be odds-on to go in my mind, after they help train up the new Ops Managers that is.
As for spreading gossip old mate, you do realise this is a rumour forum don't you?
As for spreading gossip old mate, you do realise this is a rumour forum don't you?
I think this is one of the main problems with this place, ie: People not knowing exactly what a role entails, and writing them off an encumbrance due to their ignorance. And secondly, making assumptions and spreading gossip that such roles are on the chopping block.
It's called an 'opinion' and CoolB1Banana, as we all are, is entitled to it.
Just because his view may obviously differ to yours doesn't make him ignorant.
Personally, from my experience, I tend to agree with CoolB1Banana.
But, that is just my opinion that I have from my experiences and observations.
I am sure others will also differ.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
making assumptions and spreading gossip that such roles are on the chopping block.
It may not happen in the near future, but the question will be asked by management. And the answer will be, we don't need both!
Guess who will be on the chopping block! I'm not saying it's right, but since when does being right mean anything in this place
People not knowing exactly what a role entails, and writing them off an encumbrance
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the EOI currently open across all areas (except Perth and North Qld), is there many volunteers for VR across the network?
There were a few guys in SAM that wanted "just 1 more year" last time around. It's been well documented on here that there's still plenty of guys that want the package in BNE LMO. What about other LMO ports and the MOC?
There were a few guys in SAM that wanted "just 1 more year" last time around. It's been well documented on here that there's still plenty of guys that want the package in BNE LMO. What about other LMO ports and the MOC?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Steve.
Any idea of the numbers for their latest cull?
Is it likely we will end up with a criteria similar that discussed last time, before the leave burn program was negotiated?
There's a lot of very nervous legacy LAMEs around the traps.
Regards,
CoolB1Banana.
Any idea of the numbers for their latest cull?
Is it likely we will end up with a criteria similar that discussed last time, before the leave burn program was negotiated?
There's a lot of very nervous legacy LAMEs around the traps.
Regards,
CoolB1Banana.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad to see this happening Steve.
This was decided long ago, and "The GrandPlan" was never going to be changed for anyone.
Outrageous decision, and no certainty of safe practices now either.
This was decided long ago, and "The GrandPlan" was never going to be changed for anyone.
Outrageous decision, and no certainty of safe practices now either.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orstraylia
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As AEROMEDIC has stated
So no surprises here.
The issue I and many of my colleagues have is that the author of the Qantas letter is a complete snake.
He certainly couldn't lie straight in bed and as I have previously stated he has no, read ZERO respect from the workforce whatsoever.
His ambivalence to the workforce is breath taking.
He openly bullsh1ts his way through supposed info sessions with the workforce only to go away and deliver hollow feedback emails purporting to be listeneing to the troops then to only deliver a double stack sh!t sandwhich down the track, e.g B747 to HAECO.
Wonder what gems he has to deliver tomorrow to the MEL LMO group.
This was decided long ago, and "The GrandPlan" was never going to be changed for anyone.
So no surprises here.
The issue I and many of my colleagues have is that the author of the Qantas letter is a complete snake.
He certainly couldn't lie straight in bed and as I have previously stated he has no, read ZERO respect from the workforce whatsoever.
His ambivalence to the workforce is breath taking.
He openly bullsh1ts his way through supposed info sessions with the workforce only to go away and deliver hollow feedback emails purporting to be listeneing to the troops then to only deliver a double stack sh!t sandwhich down the track, e.g B747 to HAECO.
Wonder what gems he has to deliver tomorrow to the MEL LMO group.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
31/12/13 Greg Dundas of the Geelong Advertiser wrote .
Avalon Airport was the focus of attention throughout the year with Qantas's decision to send Its 300 maintenance workers based there to Brisbane.
Which gave the impression to the entire readership of Geelong that everyone at Avalon was being transferred to Brisbane after numerous calls and letters to the editor no correction has ever been made and claims are still being made by local business groups that over 800 people work at Avalon not including Jetstar and Qantas clearly this is also wrong .
Avalon Airport was the focus of attention throughout the year with Qantas's decision to send Its 300 maintenance workers based there to Brisbane.
Which gave the impression to the entire readership of Geelong that everyone at Avalon was being transferred to Brisbane after numerous calls and letters to the editor no correction has ever been made and claims are still being made by local business groups that over 800 people work at Avalon not including Jetstar and Qantas clearly this is also wrong .
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ALAEA whilst consulting to keep Qantas Avalon maintenance alive offered a new Agreement where Engineers would take home 25% less pay in 2014. It was rejected in favour of this Hong Kong facility who saw staff receive a 14.9% wage increase in the last 12 months alone.
One may suspect that HAECO may have been coming from a much lower base. Wrong. Two years ago in a bid for Qantas reconfig work, HAECO were only 2.5% cheaper than Qantas. Since then our dollar has dropped over 10% leaving the Australian Labour rate cheaper.
Labour shortages across Asia are driving wage rates up there rapidly. Not only is the quality of maintenance taken out of Qantas hands, they will fall prey to the waking dragon when maintenance costs are put out of their reach.
Alan Joyce, Leigh Clifford, Lyell Strambi and Chris Nassenstein, you have no f****n idea what you are doing at Qantas. Get the hell out of our company and go back to the s***holes you came from.
Haeco's worker shortage cuts profit | South China Morning Post
One may suspect that HAECO may have been coming from a much lower base. Wrong. Two years ago in a bid for Qantas reconfig work, HAECO were only 2.5% cheaper than Qantas. Since then our dollar has dropped over 10% leaving the Australian Labour rate cheaper.
Labour shortages across Asia are driving wage rates up there rapidly. Not only is the quality of maintenance taken out of Qantas hands, they will fall prey to the waking dragon when maintenance costs are put out of their reach.
Alan Joyce, Leigh Clifford, Lyell Strambi and Chris Nassenstein, you have no f****n idea what you are doing at Qantas. Get the hell out of our company and go back to the s***holes you came from.
Haeco's worker shortage cuts profit | South China Morning Post
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: aviation heaven, australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not just the labour rate. The cost of all the red tape, green tape and any other tape in Australia make it un-affordable. Have a look at the NON-PRODUCTIVE support staff at places like AVV. HAECO, MAS, SIA have no where near as many people sucking on the production. Nor do they pay them what QF does. Have a look at safety……… Just for arguments sake. Heavy Maintenance is dead in Aus.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The labour rates are now lower in Australia for maintenance than Hong Kong. HAECO and other Asian MROs can match or beat others when they bid for work by cutting corners. I know this is a big claim but we have Qantas internal safety audits that have countless examples. Things like flt control checks being carried out on days when the aircraft is completely unpowered.
The practice is commonly known as pencil whipping. It's certifying to say that the checks have been done from an office. Qantas LAMEs have reported cases where wiring looms behind panels required inspections for wiring security, chaffing etc..... After some suspicion they double checked work that had been certified in Asia to find that panel screws had not been undone (you know this because they initially give a little crack to break them from their long stuck bonds). Then the wires that were supposed to be inspected are covered in years of dust.
Qantas don't care about this. All the reports I have seen are quickly discarded or are written off. In one case over 100 reports at the end of a check in Malaysia were found in a Supervisors bin. It suits Qantas and other airlines to ignore the defects because defects cost money to fix. Life in the KPI lane is much better suited to maintenance teams that turn a blind eye. CASA are too numb to do anything about it.
What results from this is things we have noted from subsequent checks. C checks are normally run about every 3 years. When the Avalon boys would do the subsequent check after a plane had the previous one done overseas, the boys are finding and fixing 6 years worth of corrosion instead of 3. What is occurring here is criminal.
The practice is commonly known as pencil whipping. It's certifying to say that the checks have been done from an office. Qantas LAMEs have reported cases where wiring looms behind panels required inspections for wiring security, chaffing etc..... After some suspicion they double checked work that had been certified in Asia to find that panel screws had not been undone (you know this because they initially give a little crack to break them from their long stuck bonds). Then the wires that were supposed to be inspected are covered in years of dust.
Qantas don't care about this. All the reports I have seen are quickly discarded or are written off. In one case over 100 reports at the end of a check in Malaysia were found in a Supervisors bin. It suits Qantas and other airlines to ignore the defects because defects cost money to fix. Life in the KPI lane is much better suited to maintenance teams that turn a blind eye. CASA are too numb to do anything about it.
What results from this is things we have noted from subsequent checks. C checks are normally run about every 3 years. When the Avalon boys would do the subsequent check after a plane had the previous one done overseas, the boys are finding and fixing 6 years worth of corrosion instead of 3. What is occurring here is criminal.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.haeco.com/investor_relati...glish_2012.pdf
Haeco's staff costs were HK$2.2 bil for 14,000 employees - works out to US$23,000 per year. Of the 14,000 employees about 6,000 are in Hong Kong. Their staff expenses were up 7% in 2013, and overall expenses up 14%
http://www.siaec.com.sg/investor_rel...eport_2012.pdf
SIAEC's staff costs in 2013 were S$79,000, or US$63,000 per annum
http://www.singaporeair.com/pdf/Inve...report1213.pdf
SIA - the airline (not the group) had staff costs of S$1.6 bil for 14,000 employees or S$114,000 per employee/US$91,000
Qantas has horrific segmentation of financial statements. We only know the Group has 33,000 staff, and the wages bill for 2013 was A$3.8 bil - works out to around US$100,000 per employee. If the AUD falls a few more percent, SIA will end up having higher staff costs than QF.
However - wages costs are not the entire story. Things like tax incentives, government handouts, training, availability of supply chain etc helps. The Singapore government gives MROs subsidised land, tax breaks, works with polytechnics to ensure a steady supply of trained technicians, works with universities to ensure that they produce a minimum number of aerospace engineers per year. Concerted government action in Singapore and Hong Kong ensures that the entire supply chain and labour force required for MROs are in place.
If any SIA or CX plane has trouble in their home base, all the parts and repair facilities are just round the corner. SIA or CX own stakes in most of those facilities and can ensure that they're always at the front of the queue when there's any maintenance problem. (Are HAECO and SIAEC really inferior to other MROs in the world though? I'm not privy to inside information, so I can't pass that judgement. Why are SIA and CX and MH planes not breaking down and getting into huge maintenance defect problems?)
And anyway it appears Qantas has a huge amount of staff compared to revenue. SIA Group had 22,000 staff generating S$15 bil (A$13.4 bil). That's A$609,000 per employee. Qantas group had 33,000 staff generating A$15.9 bil - A$480,000 per employee - so each Qantas employee generates 30% less revenue for Qantas than SIA.
Haeco's staff costs were HK$2.2 bil for 14,000 employees - works out to US$23,000 per year. Of the 14,000 employees about 6,000 are in Hong Kong. Their staff expenses were up 7% in 2013, and overall expenses up 14%
http://www.siaec.com.sg/investor_rel...eport_2012.pdf
SIAEC's staff costs in 2013 were S$79,000, or US$63,000 per annum
http://www.singaporeair.com/pdf/Inve...report1213.pdf
SIA - the airline (not the group) had staff costs of S$1.6 bil for 14,000 employees or S$114,000 per employee/US$91,000
Qantas has horrific segmentation of financial statements. We only know the Group has 33,000 staff, and the wages bill for 2013 was A$3.8 bil - works out to around US$100,000 per employee. If the AUD falls a few more percent, SIA will end up having higher staff costs than QF.
However - wages costs are not the entire story. Things like tax incentives, government handouts, training, availability of supply chain etc helps. The Singapore government gives MROs subsidised land, tax breaks, works with polytechnics to ensure a steady supply of trained technicians, works with universities to ensure that they produce a minimum number of aerospace engineers per year. Concerted government action in Singapore and Hong Kong ensures that the entire supply chain and labour force required for MROs are in place.
If any SIA or CX plane has trouble in their home base, all the parts and repair facilities are just round the corner. SIA or CX own stakes in most of those facilities and can ensure that they're always at the front of the queue when there's any maintenance problem. (Are HAECO and SIAEC really inferior to other MROs in the world though? I'm not privy to inside information, so I can't pass that judgement. Why are SIA and CX and MH planes not breaking down and getting into huge maintenance defect problems?)
And anyway it appears Qantas has a huge amount of staff compared to revenue. SIA Group had 22,000 staff generating S$15 bil (A$13.4 bil). That's A$609,000 per employee. Qantas group had 33,000 staff generating A$15.9 bil - A$480,000 per employee - so each Qantas employee generates 30% less revenue for Qantas than SIA.