Qantas Sacking Tarmac Engineers
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of those to return to work I received the phone call to arrive for duty on Wednesday 29th and was last week told I would receive a letter in the post confirming this . Has anyone else not yet received this letter?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am also one to return to work. I finally received my letter early this afternoon that was promised last week as well. It also showed my roster for the next 6 months on my new crew - with XXXX for every single day! What a great roster to start with back at QF Engineering! 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The AUK
Age: 80
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite Right.
Getting upset at your fellow engineers for Certifying what they're entitled to Certify for isn't going to stop the condensing of functions to less people.
A newly recruited CAA Airworthiness Surveyor duly came to the Hangar and asked me to visit him at his Office, which I subsequently did soon after finishing my shift. During the interview I dragged out of him as to who had reported this totally non notifiable action.
I then proceeded to educate this Surveyor on the contents of the then CAOs (direct reprint of the ANOs) including the limitations and priviledges of my current and valid Airframe and Engine Extension(a) under which I had Certified for the INU change. Quite funny how the conversation suddenly went silent from his side of the fence though.
Point here is that there has always been continuing evolvement, and the days of the single Category (one armed bandit) have been gone for the last 40 years plus. The B1 is now the latest iterration of this process.
For the sake of professionalism ya all keep up the good work now, and minimise the internal bickering for the sake of your fellow workmates, as everyone is all in this together.
Regards, B E.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Big E, you are right in some of what you say (about the certification privileges of a B1 holder). And the guy responsible for dobbing you in without raising the issue with you first sounds like a tool.
However the domain of the unrestricted B1 guy has now shut the door on the career path of many LAME's, and right in the middle of some of their careers. There is an imbalance of training between trades (the 380 was testament to that), and it is obvious that a lot of B1 restricted guys (and most B2's) will be tossed onto the scrap heap, all but a select chosen few.
Even most of the B2 MA holders that were trained up to a B1 unrestricted qualification have been dumped by the company with no follow up or commitment to SOE or conversion to a licence.
I have even heard some of the chosen few tell the managers not to carry out any more licence training in their department as they have enough coverage, then watch them moan about being flogged through their meal breaks and smashing the OT.
It is very easy to sit back and point fingers at the disgruntled when your own career path is a bright and rosy picture. Sure some people are peeved off about it, let them have their say. Sitting back and copping it won't fix things, nor is it unprofessional to raise these issues.
We are not all in this together (unfortunately).
However the domain of the unrestricted B1 guy has now shut the door on the career path of many LAME's, and right in the middle of some of their careers. There is an imbalance of training between trades (the 380 was testament to that), and it is obvious that a lot of B1 restricted guys (and most B2's) will be tossed onto the scrap heap, all but a select chosen few.
Even most of the B2 MA holders that were trained up to a B1 unrestricted qualification have been dumped by the company with no follow up or commitment to SOE or conversion to a licence.
I have even heard some of the chosen few tell the managers not to carry out any more licence training in their department as they have enough coverage, then watch them moan about being flogged through their meal breaks and smashing the OT.
It is very easy to sit back and point fingers at the disgruntled when your own career path is a bright and rosy picture. Sure some people are peeved off about it, let them have their say. Sitting back and copping it won't fix things, nor is it unprofessional to raise these issues.
We are not all in this together (unfortunately).
Last edited by Ngineer; 2nd Nov 2014 at 05:02.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: s
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Done!!
I'm happy to see the blokes back. It is even better to see them back working OT! Lots of people are happy we left ourselves open to be abused by the company re leave burn, for these blokes to have their OT back.
Well Done!!
Well Done!!
Upsidefront,
Can't agree with you more, fantastic to see your missing brothers/sisters back... BUUUUUUUT... you and many others on this thread have mentioned OT. Guys/girls, look outside the box.... the company have you screwed by working OT, and, by my way of thinking, you have screwed yourselves by DEPENDING on OT. Just my humble interpretation, that's all...
McHale.
Can't agree with you more, fantastic to see your missing brothers/sisters back... BUUUUUUUT... you and many others on this thread have mentioned OT. Guys/girls, look outside the box.... the company have you screwed by working OT, and, by my way of thinking, you have screwed yourselves by DEPENDING on OT. Just my humble interpretation, that's all...
McHale.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen to the guy that has spent months of his time, 24 hrs a day, to get our friends their jobs back.
Overtime costs jobs ! I've lost count of the times he's tried to get his point across to some people.
Seems that unless there is a notice put out in black & white some of us just can't get it.
As the lovable Texan would say, Thanks Fed Sec for all you do ! Stay safe !
Overtime costs jobs ! I've lost count of the times he's tried to get his point across to some people.
Seems that unless there is a notice put out in black & white some of us just can't get it.
As the lovable Texan would say, Thanks Fed Sec for all you do ! Stay safe !
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me get this straight...
Firstly, we have 65 LAMEs back in the business. An admission that either they couldn't bear the risk of ANOTHER loss in court, or that somebody has badly miscalculated the workload vs LAMEs and the backlog was getting critical; perhaps both.
Secondly, we have the terminals requesting volunteers from SAM for secondments back to the terminals. They got rid of 26 from Domestic and now they're requesting 20 back. Another admission that they got their numbers wrong. The scope for backfilling is limited due to the understandable reluctance of former terminal LAMEs now comfortably ensconced in a 4-on 5-off roster and more sedate pace to volunteer to return to what is now a very hectic place; and due to the lack of appropriate licenses among those long-standing SAM LAMEs who would like to volunteer for a bit of exposure at the terminals.
So in an environment where supposedly, according to the company, we were SO overstaffed to the point that we had to redeploy people and get rid of 65 LAMEs, and yet the company is now calling in people on overtime, AFTER the return of the 65?
As the FedSec says, working EXCESSIVE overtime will ULTIMATELY cost jobs. I agree. But define excessive. And according to EA10 no LAME will be made redundant in a port while LAMEs in that port have leave to burn. The EA is for 4 years, in which time it is my view that the redundancies will be oversubscribed before the 4 years is up. There goes the "surplus" LAMEs and the leave burn.
In the absence of upgrading your fleet, and wholesale change to pay scales, the only way to profit for an airline is to better utilise your assets, whether that be aircraft or people. Utilisation of the A380, B747, A330 and B738 fleets is planned to be increased. Increased aircraft utilisation translates to more maintenance required. If fleet utilisation is increased, the opportunity for maintenance during ground time is decreased. So you have to work your people harder or smarter, or both. In addition, A330s are returning to the red tail fleet, and net B738 numbers have not yet peaked. Further, the 787s arrive during the term of EA10: 2016 - 2017. People will need to be removed from the workforce to be trained on the new type, creating a further crimp in numbers.
More aircraft, more flying, more maintenance, less time to do the maintenance, and a LAME workforce declining in numbers and license coverage. It is my view that in the term of EA10 the overtime will go from a trickle to a flood.
The necessity for overtime delivers a pretty stark message. Somebody, somewhere, has f@cked up: either they haven't trained enough people, or they have gotten rid of too many, or both.
If the O/T is not worked then the maintenance backlog builds up. Eventually the backlog gets to the point where QE can't fulfil the requirements of the MOU and the customer starts asking questions. QE will have no choice but to either recognise some of those external licenses widely held, and/or train people, so that the company can better utilise its people along with its fleet.
If the O/T is worked, and if as I predict the trickle becomes a flood, it starts to butt up against two things: the limitations imposed by the company's own fatigue management policy; and the mounting cost. It will get to a point where it is financially and humanly unsustainable, which justifies training people or recognising licenses already held to better utilise the people you have left.
The boys are back in the business, so there's no longer the moral imperative to not work O/T, and the only things the company understands are dollars and delays. Work the overtime or don't work it. It's your choice. Whatever you choose, you're sending a message that will be heard loud and clear in the months and years to come. But don't criticise your colleagues for working a bit of overtime here and there, so long as it's not "excessive", and it's fairly shared.
Firstly, we have 65 LAMEs back in the business. An admission that either they couldn't bear the risk of ANOTHER loss in court, or that somebody has badly miscalculated the workload vs LAMEs and the backlog was getting critical; perhaps both.
Secondly, we have the terminals requesting volunteers from SAM for secondments back to the terminals. They got rid of 26 from Domestic and now they're requesting 20 back. Another admission that they got their numbers wrong. The scope for backfilling is limited due to the understandable reluctance of former terminal LAMEs now comfortably ensconced in a 4-on 5-off roster and more sedate pace to volunteer to return to what is now a very hectic place; and due to the lack of appropriate licenses among those long-standing SAM LAMEs who would like to volunteer for a bit of exposure at the terminals.
So in an environment where supposedly, according to the company, we were SO overstaffed to the point that we had to redeploy people and get rid of 65 LAMEs, and yet the company is now calling in people on overtime, AFTER the return of the 65?
As the FedSec says, working EXCESSIVE overtime will ULTIMATELY cost jobs. I agree. But define excessive. And according to EA10 no LAME will be made redundant in a port while LAMEs in that port have leave to burn. The EA is for 4 years, in which time it is my view that the redundancies will be oversubscribed before the 4 years is up. There goes the "surplus" LAMEs and the leave burn.
In the absence of upgrading your fleet, and wholesale change to pay scales, the only way to profit for an airline is to better utilise your assets, whether that be aircraft or people. Utilisation of the A380, B747, A330 and B738 fleets is planned to be increased. Increased aircraft utilisation translates to more maintenance required. If fleet utilisation is increased, the opportunity for maintenance during ground time is decreased. So you have to work your people harder or smarter, or both. In addition, A330s are returning to the red tail fleet, and net B738 numbers have not yet peaked. Further, the 787s arrive during the term of EA10: 2016 - 2017. People will need to be removed from the workforce to be trained on the new type, creating a further crimp in numbers.
More aircraft, more flying, more maintenance, less time to do the maintenance, and a LAME workforce declining in numbers and license coverage. It is my view that in the term of EA10 the overtime will go from a trickle to a flood.
The necessity for overtime delivers a pretty stark message. Somebody, somewhere, has f@cked up: either they haven't trained enough people, or they have gotten rid of too many, or both.
If the O/T is not worked then the maintenance backlog builds up. Eventually the backlog gets to the point where QE can't fulfil the requirements of the MOU and the customer starts asking questions. QE will have no choice but to either recognise some of those external licenses widely held, and/or train people, so that the company can better utilise its people along with its fleet.
If the O/T is worked, and if as I predict the trickle becomes a flood, it starts to butt up against two things: the limitations imposed by the company's own fatigue management policy; and the mounting cost. It will get to a point where it is financially and humanly unsustainable, which justifies training people or recognising licenses already held to better utilise the people you have left.
The boys are back in the business, so there's no longer the moral imperative to not work O/T, and the only things the company understands are dollars and delays. Work the overtime or don't work it. It's your choice. Whatever you choose, you're sending a message that will be heard loud and clear in the months and years to come. But don't criticise your colleagues for working a bit of overtime here and there, so long as it's not "excessive", and it's fairly shared.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All good points N monster.
& you're right, O/T delivers a stark message to management eventually, but perhaps a workforce unwilling to work O/T can deliver a more prompt & clearer message ? A message that tells the management that the workforce is not engaged with them & not prepared to make a system that is flawed work.
Perhaps at this point O/T gives management an indication that the boys & girls are happy with their lot & can be manipulated more ?
Traditionally, at this time of an EBA terminating the management would be tied up fighting with our association & embarking on a buggery campaign, which would tie them up for months & cause them huge stress. But this EBA has been a dream come true for them & they can now channel their efforts into other more unsavory past times !
Don't forget, all the managers apart from the lovable Texan are still in office driving their same agenda.
I might save my O/T for a management team that would never contemplate terminating a loyal employee that is skilled, but would be able to find some way around a bad situation to utilise that person just as our association has done for this management team with the leave burn program.
Perhaps the time has come for the ALAEA exec To take over QE management ? Or at least start charging Joyce & his mates consulting fees.
Has anyone stopped by Bexley on the way home from O/T To drop a case of cold ones off for the reps that are unable to do O/T because of all they do ???
Just saying.
& you're right, O/T delivers a stark message to management eventually, but perhaps a workforce unwilling to work O/T can deliver a more prompt & clearer message ? A message that tells the management that the workforce is not engaged with them & not prepared to make a system that is flawed work.
Perhaps at this point O/T gives management an indication that the boys & girls are happy with their lot & can be manipulated more ?
Traditionally, at this time of an EBA terminating the management would be tied up fighting with our association & embarking on a buggery campaign, which would tie them up for months & cause them huge stress. But this EBA has been a dream come true for them & they can now channel their efforts into other more unsavory past times !
Don't forget, all the managers apart from the lovable Texan are still in office driving their same agenda.
I might save my O/T for a management team that would never contemplate terminating a loyal employee that is skilled, but would be able to find some way around a bad situation to utilise that person just as our association has done for this management team with the leave burn program.
Perhaps the time has come for the ALAEA exec To take over QE management ? Or at least start charging Joyce & his mates consulting fees.
Has anyone stopped by Bexley on the way home from O/T To drop a case of cold ones off for the reps that are unable to do O/T because of all they do ???
Just saying.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
& you're right, O/T delivers a stark message to management eventually, but perhaps a workforce unwilling to work O/T can deliver a more prompt & clearer message ? A message that tells the management that the workforce is not engaged with them & not prepared to make a system that is flawed work.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: epicentre
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really think management reads anything into us doing not O/T or anything else for that matter? Whenever I bring any kind of issue up with them the answer is always given in what their minimum requirements are under the legislation. They couldn't care less about whether we are engaged or not,as long as planes go out and that they can't be held accountable for the ones that don't.
Please don't get me wrong, not working O/T is a useful tool we can use, but don't expect our current management to pick up on any subliminal message we're trying to send.
Please don't get me wrong, not working O/T is a useful tool we can use, but don't expect our current management to pick up on any subliminal message we're trying to send.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they can read something into the following:
1. Very few former terminal LAMEs have expressed an interest in returning to the terminals. And why would they? People talk to their former workmates and the word is out. SDO especially is running too lean on day shifts and the boys are getting burned out as a result. Frazzled and frustrated, running from aircraft to aircraft trying to make it work, not getting meal breaks... The strain is causing some LAMEs to take it out on each other. There are a few heroes who are trying to make it work, but for what? Eventually they'll stop trying so hard because frankly it's unsustainable. Some expect it to ease up after the 767s are gone, but the capacity must be filled somehow, and that will occur with more movements and shorter turn times. The SAM LAMEs who volunteered for the terminals won't know what hit them and when they report back to their colleagues what it's like the volunteers will dry up to nothing.
2. Given my assumption that the egos involved won't admit they've cut too deep and undo what they've spent so much career capital on implementing - unless their head is on a chopping block, their options are extremely limited under the EA. Consultation and a vote will be required to get LAMEs back to the terminals, meaning it's all too hard. Further, it's also been deemed all too hard to request former terminal LAMEs with appropriate licenses from SAM on a day-to-day basis, because it's touch-and-go whether they can be spared. The terminals will not be able to implement leave burn at a meaningful level, so SAM LAMEs will need to carry the can for SYD precinct leave burn. Many SAM LAMEs are sitting on piles of leave, but then they're also sitting on piles of rejected leave applications. Something has to give.
3. CT has a mountain of manpower in SAM, plus he has an additional 47 LAMEs in the business no-one had foreseen. They need work and it is coming: the usual A380 manpower black hole, B738 transition checks, rumours of heavier work such as two phase/SMC/A-checks per night, engine changes, rumours of cabin reconfig work etc. He won't want to release B738 LAMEs to the terminals, nor will he want to release A330 LAMEs either, with ex-JQ A330s with 50,000+ hrs and some pretty interesting emerging defects on them coming back into the business.
4. The latest ALAEA notice states that there may still be LAMEs who "had decided to stay but have changed their minds", and that there are "still a few vacancies and people wishing to leave in Per and Bne that could be backfilled by those from Syd or Mel." There are extremely limited opportunities for younger LAMEs in SYD so perhaps a move interstate may work for some.
5. SYD precinct management have been presented with the data from their own people that in the next 5 years 100 SYD LAMEs will be gone by natural attrition.
6. The co. has expressed it is limiting growth for JQ International and that once mainline provides a return on capital they'll reinvest in the business and start expanding again. If AJ and GE are to believed, that will occur soon. The long term strategy has always been to use the A380 for high density slot restricted hub-to-hub and the B787 on thinner long range point-to-point routes; think secondary US west coast, Japanese and other Asia-Pacific cities. The airline is in its current state partially because the B787 is so late. The A380 has not lived up to promise, as evidenced by QF trying to either weasel out of the last 2 or convert them to another type; whereas the B787-9 is finally operational and so far has under-promised and over-delivered. The older A330s ex-JQ have 50,000+ hrs on them and they're a 60,000 hr airframe, so unless given an Airbus-approved life extension (unlikely, as there's just no fat in them like in a Boeing), under current utilisation they will start dropping dead in about 2 years. Something has to replace them. There are a bunch of B787-9 options for 2016-2017 that require a commitment in the near future. It's the aircraft we can't afford NOT to have, because strategically, QFI need them in order to replace the A330s, remain profitable and to then finance the purchase of B777-9s post-2020. Therefore B787s are on the horizon for QF International. There's no guarantee that QF Engineering will win the contract to maintain them, but if we do, LAMEs will need to be trained on type, taking even more LAMEs out of the business for months at a time.
It's a great time to be alive: certainty, blue skies, and managers wedged by their own egos & ideology, ignorance of their own business & lack of strategic forethought. Methinks pretty soon the bodies will start floating past.
1. Very few former terminal LAMEs have expressed an interest in returning to the terminals. And why would they? People talk to their former workmates and the word is out. SDO especially is running too lean on day shifts and the boys are getting burned out as a result. Frazzled and frustrated, running from aircraft to aircraft trying to make it work, not getting meal breaks... The strain is causing some LAMEs to take it out on each other. There are a few heroes who are trying to make it work, but for what? Eventually they'll stop trying so hard because frankly it's unsustainable. Some expect it to ease up after the 767s are gone, but the capacity must be filled somehow, and that will occur with more movements and shorter turn times. The SAM LAMEs who volunteered for the terminals won't know what hit them and when they report back to their colleagues what it's like the volunteers will dry up to nothing.
2. Given my assumption that the egos involved won't admit they've cut too deep and undo what they've spent so much career capital on implementing - unless their head is on a chopping block, their options are extremely limited under the EA. Consultation and a vote will be required to get LAMEs back to the terminals, meaning it's all too hard. Further, it's also been deemed all too hard to request former terminal LAMEs with appropriate licenses from SAM on a day-to-day basis, because it's touch-and-go whether they can be spared. The terminals will not be able to implement leave burn at a meaningful level, so SAM LAMEs will need to carry the can for SYD precinct leave burn. Many SAM LAMEs are sitting on piles of leave, but then they're also sitting on piles of rejected leave applications. Something has to give.
3. CT has a mountain of manpower in SAM, plus he has an additional 47 LAMEs in the business no-one had foreseen. They need work and it is coming: the usual A380 manpower black hole, B738 transition checks, rumours of heavier work such as two phase/SMC/A-checks per night, engine changes, rumours of cabin reconfig work etc. He won't want to release B738 LAMEs to the terminals, nor will he want to release A330 LAMEs either, with ex-JQ A330s with 50,000+ hrs and some pretty interesting emerging defects on them coming back into the business.
4. The latest ALAEA notice states that there may still be LAMEs who "had decided to stay but have changed their minds", and that there are "still a few vacancies and people wishing to leave in Per and Bne that could be backfilled by those from Syd or Mel." There are extremely limited opportunities for younger LAMEs in SYD so perhaps a move interstate may work for some.
5. SYD precinct management have been presented with the data from their own people that in the next 5 years 100 SYD LAMEs will be gone by natural attrition.
6. The co. has expressed it is limiting growth for JQ International and that once mainline provides a return on capital they'll reinvest in the business and start expanding again. If AJ and GE are to believed, that will occur soon. The long term strategy has always been to use the A380 for high density slot restricted hub-to-hub and the B787 on thinner long range point-to-point routes; think secondary US west coast, Japanese and other Asia-Pacific cities. The airline is in its current state partially because the B787 is so late. The A380 has not lived up to promise, as evidenced by QF trying to either weasel out of the last 2 or convert them to another type; whereas the B787-9 is finally operational and so far has under-promised and over-delivered. The older A330s ex-JQ have 50,000+ hrs on them and they're a 60,000 hr airframe, so unless given an Airbus-approved life extension (unlikely, as there's just no fat in them like in a Boeing), under current utilisation they will start dropping dead in about 2 years. Something has to replace them. There are a bunch of B787-9 options for 2016-2017 that require a commitment in the near future. It's the aircraft we can't afford NOT to have, because strategically, QFI need them in order to replace the A330s, remain profitable and to then finance the purchase of B777-9s post-2020. Therefore B787s are on the horizon for QF International. There's no guarantee that QF Engineering will win the contract to maintain them, but if we do, LAMEs will need to be trained on type, taking even more LAMEs out of the business for months at a time.
It's a great time to be alive: certainty, blue skies, and managers wedged by their own egos & ideology, ignorance of their own business & lack of strategic forethought. Methinks pretty soon the bodies will start floating past.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunda
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There will be no consultation or vote required to send people back to the terminals. If you work in Sydney, you work where they send you. All they need to do is swallow their pride and give you 2 weeks notice.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: downunder
Age: 73
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incorrect Hangerpilot, no consultation needed to move staff between sections in there port of origin. Management did the points system to try and make it fair 
On another note something that will need to be voted on is the arrival of aircraft by baggage personal or aircraft dispatcher (qantas ground services). Management want this in by mid next year, there was meetings on Wednesday with DMM'a and troops have been told Wednesday arvo.
Apparently Perth is using the above practise ?
On another note something that will need to be voted on is the arrival of aircraft by baggage personal or aircraft dispatcher (qantas ground services). Management want this in by mid next year, there was meetings on Wednesday with DMM'a and troops have been told Wednesday arvo.
Apparently Perth is using the above practise ?