Qantas Sacking Tarmac Engineers

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

8pm tonight for all non Sydney members with a valid email address.


This is just an unofficial ballot to determine whether the ALAEA will postpone the court case against Qantas or not. If we get 60% in favour we would be comfortable to proceed.

[Probing]

1st time poster

Steve , Paul and team, thank you

[33 Disengage]

Apart from one wee laddie carrying on about his leave, everyone else seems to be very supportive. I would be surprised if the support for this proposal isn't over 80%. After all, isn't this what unions are supposed to be about. The collective supporting all from the individual through to the majority.

I'm engaged with the ALAEA, you never know, if upper engineering management get their marching orders I might even engage with the company again.

[Nassensteins Monster]

A great effort, but 1.8% per year is a bit poor.

Better than the alternative. Have a think about how far we've come. We can afford to pull back a bit on our claims.

2 weeks buy back of leave? No thanks how about a training allowance of 2 weeks for any course you wish, not necessarily aviation related...

...External B1/B2 courses course excluded from training selection criteria, if externally trained then internal training to still be completed by QF training school, allow QF training school to offer QF employees courses to avoid potentially shutting down of our training school. This would produce an income for QF and also save QF engineers from having to spend +6K for practical training. WIN WIN WIN

Not really sure how these two fit together. I assume you mean external theory and internal POC/PCT and differences? So you do an external course and miracle of miracles you're lucky enough to be anointed with the holy water, get on a differences course and have your license recognised, then when push comes to shove your external license is not counted in selection criteria? Why bother. Many do the external course for job security but this concept provides none.
It also encourages the company to rely on sub-standard courses offered by external RTO's. Anyone who has done one will tell you the courses are woefully inadequate and are little better than a famil course. Compare the old ~10 week A330 course QF training ran. It produced LAMEs that actually knew something about the A/C. The current ~5 week Kellogs Packet licenses on offer leave many saying they still know little about the A/C.
I agree with you that QF should be keeping training in house. Once upon a time QF pilot and engineering training was a world-recognised highly desirable commodity that we charged a premium for. That has been wiped out by managerial short-sightedness, incompetence and apathy. QF has failed to build on our strengths and foregone major opportunities to train external engineering customers like Emirates and failed to buy A380 sims when they were avaialble at rock-bottom prices, and keep that training skill set and knowledge base in-house.

I would like to see a forward plan for obtaining internal and external work, maybe automatically QF work goes to QF Engineering.

Wouldn't we all? Maybe we can "better utilise the manpower we have" by going back to how things were a few months ago, instead of the current shemozzle in evidence in Sydney.

Cat A licenses to all in LMO converted to full license within the term of the EBA.

Unfortunately the ALAEA won't have much say on this issue, pending the outcome of legal cases to allow the ALAEA to represent Cat A's - which is the absolute last thing the company wants.

A review of new positions created over the last 3 years to determine WHAT they have brought to the business, if nothing then why are they there?

Great idea. SDO once ran ~140 people with a planner, a secretary, 4 x DMMs and a manager. We now have <60 people run by a terminal manager (position vacant), 4 x ops managers, 4 x DMMs, a facilities manager, a MAC, a WHS manager, multiple planners, a secretary and one guy who sits in a corner whom I still haven't quite figured out what he actually does. Have I forgotten anyone? And the mooted response to this top-heavy structure is to cut back the DMMs - the ones who know a thing or two about running the operation, and giving more scope to the ops managers, many of whom are clueless neophyte wannabes.

Long service leave to be minimum of 4 days.

Would suit the roster of SDO and SAM.

If keeping wage averaging then apply this to sick leave so we don't have to come in sick on weekends.

Not going to happen.

More to follow

Moot point. The current WD will be rolled over to the new EA with absoulutely minimal changes. Save your mental energy.

[Nassensteins Monster]

I canvassed a couple of dozen LAMEs randomly at the terminals and SAM. I'd say it was a 90% yes vote for the in principle agreement. That said, people often vote differently in the quiet of their own homes to what they've publicly stated. This EA would definitely get up if it was a show of hands.

4 years of peace and certainty, not having to give any conditions away, plus the resurrection of 65 careers, the ability to choose and plan for one's time of exit, after the sh!t we've been through since 2008: I vote yes.

[Nassensteins Monster]

Finally, with the changes we are making in Line Maintenance there have been a lot of moving parts, particularly within the Sydney Precinct. Dave Filipetto and Chris Tobin will shortly be holding a Sydney Precinct Maintenance Forum where cross functional teams will come together to discuss any issues and workshop solutions that will achieve a greater consistency in the work movements and improve communication between the SAM, CE, A380 and Terminal teams.

These changes have meant that SAM, SIO and SDO need to work more closely as a collective Line Maintenance team within Sydney. Groups that haven’t previously interacted will now be crossing paths on a daily basis as aircraft, people and work move between the areas so it’s important that processes, responsibilities and a chain of decision making is clear to all.

There will always be teething challenges to some extent as procedures are adopted and embedded, and we become used to working with new people and processes. We can see some areas that need to be resolved in this transition, which has been evident in the last couple of weeks.

We have had some feedback from our own Supervision that we need to do some work and to that end we will be putting together a combined Workshop Forum with staff representatives from SAM, SIO, SDO, CE Teams.

So as usual, we've got to come up with the ideas to fix the mess they made, much of which was foreseen by the people on the floor, and should have been foreseen by that layer of management closest to the floor - the ops managers, and could have been avoided by just such a forum... BEFORE implementing the changes! FFS!!!

This will probably be the face-saving way for the company to about-face on some of the redeployments from the terminals, making way for the return of the SAM LAMEs in the CTC.

[CoolB1Banana]

If you don't like external training you better get used to it.

It will be a LONG time before the training school run any significant amount of type training.

There are about 50 people that have bought themselves a 738 ticket in SYD that are waiting to have it put on eQ. Similar numbers for 330. There's a 380 running now with 3 people on it! No more 380s or any new types to the fleet equals no more training.

The 738 course that caused so much angst at SIT is postponed indefinitely (will never happen)

[Talkwrench]

Definition of "Line" Maintenance?

Just stepping a little off topic for a moment,

These changes have meant that SAM, SIO and SDO need to work more closely as a collective Line Maintenance team within Sydney. Groups that haven’t previously interacted will now be crossing paths on a daily basis as aircraft, people and work move between the areas so it’s important that processes, responsibilities and a chain of decision making is clear to all.

Is SAM considered "Line" maintenance with regard to CASA's definition for the use of "A" LAME's?
Is Qantas using/intending to use "A" LAME's in SAM?
I was under the impression "A" LAME's could only be used in the "Line" maintenance environment, which I understood to be SDO and SIO only.

Any comments?

[domo]

base maintenance is heavy maintenance. all other SAM/ Terminal / cabin interior is all line maintenance

[Nassensteins Monster]

CoolB1,

Sadly, I think you're on the money.

Domo,

ditto

[Talkwrench]

Thanks domo,

I am surprised SAM is considered Line maintenance and that "A" LAME's can be used there.

Thought the scope of work in SAM goes beyond "Line" maintenance as defined by CASA for the purpose of "A" licence use.

Surely if it could be proven SAM's work is indeed beyond "Line" level maintenance, "A" licences could be excluded from that department and therefore increase the requirement for full B1 and B2 staff?

Or is that just wishful thinking?

Didn't SAM used to be known as Base Maintenance?

[Kiwiconehead]

I am surprised SAM is considered Line maintenance and that "A" LAME's can be used there.

The definition of "Line" and "Base" Maintenance will actually be in the Qantas Engineering Part 145 Exposition as approved by CASA.

If that designates "SAM" as part of it's Line Maintenance activities then "A" Licences can be used there.

The range of tasks "A" Licences can perform are set down in the CASR Part 145 Manual of Standards.

Part 145 Manual of standards

Appendix II is the "A" Tasks.

Some Q&As about Part 145 AMOs are here, including guidance on what "line" maintenance is.

It is worth having a ferret around as Part 145 is quite different - and to understand it definitely helps, not only during the day to day operations, but also when it is being used against you.


But from the outside it looks like Steve and the ALAEA have done a great job saving 65 jobs.

[Annulus Filler]

Steve, when will you post the results?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I will let people know on social media on Monday night (because our office will be closed by then). Will only be announcing whether our targeted 60% mark has been achieved or not.


BTW all members please feel free to join our facebook group. Just type in Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association and it should come up or simply ALAEA in capitals.

[Big M]

FedSec,

If you're reading this-switch off the computer. Have a BBQ, a beer, watch the footy, play with the kids etc. Same for Wes, Brad, Gary and everyone else at Bexley.

[blubak]

well done

our association has done us proud yet again,these are the guys who stand up for us & do their upmost to protect our jobs unlike the clowns that think we believe their weekly update e mails that are nothing more than a front to try & discredit our union leadership.
I often wonder how you guys feel when you have to consult with some of these people but it is very obvious now that your commitment to us(your members) is unquestionable & maybe it is time now for ALL of us LAME'S out there to fully support our leaders & take note of what has been achieved.
Well done Steve & team,we are proud of what you have achieved & your efforts dont go unnoticed.

[The Bungeyed Bandit]

Results of survey in. Great result Steve and boys.
Common sense prevails from more than 60% of membership.
Lets wrap it up over the next couple of weeks and move on.

[Suck&Blow]

Over 60%!!

What was the total percentage of Qantas LAME's eligible to vote FED SEC that did cast a vote? Whilst acceptable, 60% FOR the proposal sounds underwhelming!

[The Bungeyed Bandit]

I'd say it was at least 60% of the eligible LAMEs that cared Suck & Blow.
Don't forget, this was just a survey to see if a proposal should go ahead.
You'll have plenty of time to lobby your fellow workers say that it's not acceptable.
Buggered if I know want more you want.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

700 voted. The result was of those who voted as in any ballot. I said that over 60% were in favour. The following numbers are over 60 -


61, 66, 67, 73, 79, 89, 91, 96 and 100.


All that people need to know is that the result was over 60%.