Prisoners on the flight deck, hookers in the aisles...what on earth is going on down there??:uhoh:

Get them all back in the office where they belong:}

And remember, where MEK was, X55 wasn't far behind.
http://www.euapps.shell.com/MSDS/Dow...1136_AU_EN.rtf

What a beat up!

The objective is to get the aircraft clean, is it not?

The objective is to get the aircraft clean, is it not?
I think it's more a case of highlighting why we struggle to compete with some of these cut price Asian facilities.
What's the cost of employing the crim compared to a legit cleaner in Oz?

An invalid comparison. The aircraft is not in Australia.

QF Engineering management would appear to think it a valid comparison

Pull your head in Bellthorpe. You seem to be here as a troll only.
Aussie based staff are fed up to hind teeth with being referred to as "uncompetitive".
So are we to accept the few minuscule dollars/hr that the crims do in order to be competitive??
are you a kiwi by any chance??

A troll? Why, because I have a contrary view to some? No, I have no intention of pulling my head in, and every intention of stating my view.
Are you missing the point deliberately? There are no 'Aussie based staff' in Singapore to clean Qantas' aeroplanes. You see, 'Aussie based staff' are based in ... well, they're based in Australia. The aeroplanes in question are, at the time of their cleaning, in Singapore. Are you following this?
In every country in the world in which Qantas bases its aircraft, foreign nationals perform work. Catering, tyre pumping, cleaning, you name it. Sometimes their rates are higher, sometimes they are lower. But they don't compete with 'Aussie based staff'. Perhaps you are confusing this with the bigger picture of having major maintenance done overseas? That's a valid and important issue, but it's not the issue being discussed in this thread.
I'm sorry, but as an adult I find myself unable to respond to the language of SMS.

Now I'm confused. I'm sure Heavy Maintenance, Stringers and 'D' checks were mentioned in this thread.

Not by me. And it's my comments to which BHMvictim took exception, resulting in my reply.

Bellthorpe!
 

Outsourced heavy maintenance is precisely what the ALAEA is talking about here, and the fact that AUS based QF heavy is continually bench-marked against outfits such as SASCO who "employ" these people to conduct cleaning duties and the like.

If you are looking to get a rise out of fellow pruners you're certainly heading down the right path.:= :=

Cox wouldn't know if you were rodgering him with a hot rock up the clacker let alone the employment practices of their overseas MRO's of choice! :ugh:

Oh well. I just didn't think the 'cleaning' issue was about turnarounds at the terminal.

More to do with cleaning aircraft undergoing a HM visit.

I must of thought wrong.

I think this link makes a few things clear

http://www.alaea.asn.au/CMS/plainTex...20Aircraft.pdf

It does make a few things clear.

But it doesn't explain why the use of prisoners to clean aircraft is a problem.

i think
 

its called security/ and protecting/maintaining a secure environment at airports. :ugh:

You would hope there was supervision of these people such that security was not an issue.

The main issue for most is cost.

It is a security problem giving any type of prisoner access all around the aircraft, unless you want to have something approximating one-on-one supervision (and I bet they don't). They may be "low" security, but are they vetted in any way (I'll bet they aren't)? For god's sake, we even keep a close eye on friendly, unescorted, over-stayed VISA deportees when they're sitting on the aircraft for a few hours!

It is also a moral/ethical problem. Oh, well a relative one I guess. If you don't have any problems with child-labour philippino sweatshop workers producing textiles for the Australian market because they're cheaper and more efficient (those kids complain way less than pesky fully-paid Aussie adults), then you'd hardly have a problem with illegal immigrants and small-time criminals being forced to clean an Australian aeroplane for next-to-nothing I suppose. I mean, many people appear to have very "flexible" ethics/morals when there's money involved.

I can't see what the problem with it is. If we use prisoners to clean then the airline becomes more profitable, the Executives receive bigger bonuses, their wives are then happier and wish to have sex with them more often, the more sex they have the happier they become and the better they treat the remaining employees.

mate, i'm going to nominate you for an excel award:ok: . QF need more people like you;) .

The Death of Aviation Safety?
 

A statement based on hearsay. Not admissable in court - with absolutely evidence to support it.

And what do we get - a confidential reporting system implemented by the ALAEA. For god's sake - CASA has one, Qantas has one, the press have one. I guess the ALAEA have to have something to divert the public from critical appraisal of employment T&Cs whenever the ALAEA come up with the latest outrageous wage claim.

Aircraft safety is a collaboration of staff, company, and regulator. The ALAEA could have a passionate, vital, leadership role in aviation safety. So why is it that this association only brings it up when it has an industrial barrow to push? It seems that they too subscribe to the mantra - safety costs, because it only seems to be important when they seek to line there own pockets.

This statement is a slap in the face of aviation professionals working in this country from regulator thru to the guy turning the spanner. I am ashamed.