Qantas Sacking Tarmac Engineers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree. 65 staff laid off, no-one works OT, planes still go out on time..... what exactly did you prove?
Some proved that they are selfish pigs and don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. They will be remembered.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a mess!
And what of those from the other Unions (ASU for example) within Qantas whom weren't asked to take a wage freeze/wage cut in order to save jobs? Will they also be given the opportunity to get their jobs back should they agree to reopen their EBA? I think not!
For the LAME's who have been forced out, will they have to pay back Qantas their redundancy should they come back?
What about the other departments within Qantas whom are still going through the 30% reduction, is that now on hold if the Unions whom represent them agree to reopen their EBA and agree to the wage freeze, leave burn etc?
I think it's well overdue for the major share holders in Qantas to vote for the removal of the entire Qantas Board and start again. As stated earlier, what a mess!
And what of those from the other Unions (ASU for example) within Qantas whom weren't asked to take a wage freeze/wage cut in order to save jobs? Will they also be given the opportunity to get their jobs back should they agree to reopen their EBA? I think not!
For the LAME's who have been forced out, will they have to pay back Qantas their redundancy should they come back?
What about the other departments within Qantas whom are still going through the 30% reduction, is that now on hold if the Unions whom represent them agree to reopen their EBA and agree to the wage freeze, leave burn etc?
I think it's well overdue for the major share holders in Qantas to vote for the removal of the entire Qantas Board and start again. As stated earlier, what a mess!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Pity City
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Baron - There are 2 reasons why this "mess" has occurred:-
1) Qantas Engineering senior management stuffed up the redundancy consultation so badly that as the court case started they were told to cut a deal or face another embarrassing loss in court.
2) Joyce is now doing his own engineering - engineering his departure with as much egg removed from his face as is possible.
1) Qantas Engineering senior management stuffed up the redundancy consultation so badly that as the court case started they were told to cut a deal or face another embarrassing loss in court.
2) Joyce is now doing his own engineering - engineering his departure with as much egg removed from his face as is possible.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for the ones that were tapped or the ones that watched their mates get taken away. How do we go back and act like nothing ever happened? If offered do you take a position elsewhere or go back and hope for the best, or is it a mater of the "battered wife syndrome". Like most of us I love the company but hate watching it go down the sh!t tube and being treated the way we were. I understand the union and the company want peace but how do we/they make a mend.
I'm still angry
Hell have no fury than a angry LAME with a pen.....but the ball is in your court now.
I'm still angry
Hell have no fury than a angry LAME with a pen.....but the ball is in your court now.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to question what the "possible" returning LAME's are going to do, I certainly do not want to see any person loose there job. But the main reason they were taped was due to the fact the aircraft they could sign for are no longer flown by QF (Dec 27th for the 767) Retrain them... no chance it will cost to much!
So if they return, what are they going too do.......over paid AME's!!! The current "A'" license people will be able sign for more!
So if they return, what are they going too do.......over paid AME's!!! The current "A'" license people will be able sign for more!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the main reason they were taped was due to the fact the aircraft they could sign for are no longer flown by QF (Dec 27th for the 767)
Hmmm, not so much. Everyone I know was 738 licensed and classic (freighter) licensed. So, no shortage of work for them going on current overnight workloads.
Even people in Melbourne who had 747 licences are now back in demand due to the return of 747 services to LAX.
Entire thing was a colossal management stuff-up and over reach.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, not so much. Everyone I know was 738 licensed and classic (freighter) licensed. So, no shortage of work for them going on current overnight workloads.
Even people in Melbourne who had 747 licences are now back in demand due to the return of 747 services to LAX.
Entire thing was a colossal management stuff-up and over reach.
Even people in Melbourne who had 747 licences are now back in demand due to the return of 747 services to LAX.
Entire thing was a colossal management stuff-up and over reach.
I've watched them do this 3 times over the decades and they don't get any better at it. Only the names change.
I said then in that post that it would be 2-3 years and recruiting would begin again, but perhaps it might take a little longer in this case.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pterois-volitans.....
Most of the guys I know who got tapped were either end of the scale. They were young with 738 or close to retirement with redundant licences. There was even someone with B1 738/330 who got asked to leave.....complete stuff up.
Most of the guys I know who got tapped were either end of the scale. They were young with 738 or close to retirement with redundant licences. There was even someone with B1 738/330 who got asked to leave.....complete stuff up.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jettronic
If most of the guys had 738 then that would mean by returning to base instead of SIO or DOM
Then on return they would have more points then guys near the thin redline in base.
hopefully in 4 years of stability enough take VR or workload increases.
If most of the guys had 738 then that would mean by returning to base instead of SIO or DOM
Then on return they would have more points then guys near the thin redline in base.
hopefully in 4 years of stability enough take VR or workload increases.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure you will.
And I sincerely hope that you do it in a very lonely manner. I hope you are alone in the lunch room.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to confirm the maths...
The last one is NOT a 3% annual payrise.
Let's assume you earn a nice round $104000 per annum ($2K a week) to make the maths easy.
July 1 2017 you get a 3% pay rise so your annual pay becomes $107,120 or $2,060 a week. Calculating the cross check from $2,000 a week with a 3% rise you get $2,060 for each and every week of the year.
Now, looking at July 1 2018 let's look at 1.5% for the first 6 months. Your pay would be $104,000/2=$52,000+1.5%=$52,780. If you then get a further 1.5% for the second half of the year you get $52,780+1,5%=$53,571.70. Total for the year $106,351.70.
Net difference = $107,120 - $106,351.70 = $768.30 less.
Alternatively it could be seen that you get an annual pay rise of $2,351.70 on your initial $104,000 which is a pay rise of 2.26%.
The reason for the differential is in the first 6 months you are only getting half the pay rise so you would need a larger percentage rise in the second half to compensate for the 6 months during which you only received 1.5% extra.
3% to cover the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017.
3% to cover the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 and
1.5% to cover 1 July 2018 to 31 Dec 2018. (it is just half a year therefore half the rise)
3% to cover the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 and
1.5% to cover 1 July 2018 to 31 Dec 2018. (it is just half a year therefore half the rise)
Let's assume you earn a nice round $104000 per annum ($2K a week) to make the maths easy.
July 1 2017 you get a 3% pay rise so your annual pay becomes $107,120 or $2,060 a week. Calculating the cross check from $2,000 a week with a 3% rise you get $2,060 for each and every week of the year.
Now, looking at July 1 2018 let's look at 1.5% for the first 6 months. Your pay would be $104,000/2=$52,000+1.5%=$52,780. If you then get a further 1.5% for the second half of the year you get $52,780+1,5%=$53,571.70. Total for the year $106,351.70.
Net difference = $107,120 - $106,351.70 = $768.30 less.
Alternatively it could be seen that you get an annual pay rise of $2,351.70 on your initial $104,000 which is a pay rise of 2.26%.
The reason for the differential is in the first 6 months you are only getting half the pay rise so you would need a larger percentage rise in the second half to compensate for the 6 months during which you only received 1.5% extra.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone heard the term Tight Ar$e LAME...?
If you want more money, just vote no. But I hope you are up for a long and bitter brawl. You don't need to justify your position with all the calculations.
The rest of us with a conscience will vote yes and save other members jobs.
If you want more money, just vote no. But I hope you are up for a long and bitter brawl. You don't need to justify your position with all the calculations.
The rest of us with a conscience will vote yes and save other members jobs.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulus, you don't need a larger pay rise than 3% 1 Jan 2019 to be better off over the 2018-2019 financial year. You may be down $768 by 31 Dec 2018 but you would more than make that up over the next 6 months because you would most likely get two pay rises over the period.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't read anything that says the pay freeze applies to movements through the levels. I'm happy to stand corrected.
So, the way I read clause 16.7, it applies post-2014, so any LAME on Level 13 or below will progress to the next level on service points during the life of the agreement.
The lower the level, the higher the percentage pay rise.
Worst case, for a Level 13 LAME progressing to Level 14, that's a 4.5% increase regardless of the year of increase, and in addition to the 3% + 3% + "1.5%". For all levels below Level 13, the percentage increase is higher - up to 7.4% for a Level 1 LAME.
Food for thought...
So, the way I read clause 16.7, it applies post-2014, so any LAME on Level 13 or below will progress to the next level on service points during the life of the agreement.
The lower the level, the higher the percentage pay rise.
Worst case, for a Level 13 LAME progressing to Level 14, that's a 4.5% increase regardless of the year of increase, and in addition to the 3% + 3% + "1.5%". For all levels below Level 13, the percentage increase is higher - up to 7.4% for a Level 1 LAME.
Food for thought...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romulan maths
Romulus,
What happened to the 01 July 16 increase of 3%?
What made you think that the 1.5% would apply to your example salary of $104K rather than the increased salary of $107120?
The starting point should be the salary payable pre-July 16, which I think you meant to be $104000.
On 01 July 16, that salary would increase by 3% to $107120.
On 01 July 17, that salary would increase by 3% to $110334.
On 01 July 18, that salary would increase by 1.5% to $111989.
That new post-July 18 rate would apply regardless of how long it is paid. December 18 is just the end of the Agreement, so the post-July 18 rate would continue to get paid until a new deal is negotiated.
The key problem is the belief that the 1.5% is justified as if it is the same as 3% for only 6 months - it is not!
For the period July 18 to December 18 you will get paid $111989/2 = $55995 (rounded up). Over the same period to December 18 , a 3% pay rise would have yielded $113644/2 = $56822, a difference of +$827.
I reckon the easiest way to think about it is simply that the agreement gives a pay rise of $111989/$104000 = 7.68% over the life of the agreement. While the nominal 3+3+3 would yield 9.27% by comparison, I do not believe that that was on the table.
What happened to the 01 July 16 increase of 3%?
What made you think that the 1.5% would apply to your example salary of $104K rather than the increased salary of $107120?
The starting point should be the salary payable pre-July 16, which I think you meant to be $104000.
On 01 July 16, that salary would increase by 3% to $107120.
On 01 July 17, that salary would increase by 3% to $110334.
On 01 July 18, that salary would increase by 1.5% to $111989.
That new post-July 18 rate would apply regardless of how long it is paid. December 18 is just the end of the Agreement, so the post-July 18 rate would continue to get paid until a new deal is negotiated.
The key problem is the belief that the 1.5% is justified as if it is the same as 3% for only 6 months - it is not!
For the period July 18 to December 18 you will get paid $111989/2 = $55995 (rounded up). Over the same period to December 18 , a 3% pay rise would have yielded $113644/2 = $56822, a difference of +$827.
I reckon the easiest way to think about it is simply that the agreement gives a pay rise of $111989/$104000 = 7.68% over the life of the agreement. While the nominal 3+3+3 would yield 9.27% by comparison, I do not believe that that was on the table.