I am sure there is no desperation to get an A380 lic, it will come as did the 744, 767 and now 330. A split now is just a management wet dream, it won't happen again.
Together we stand, divided we wouldn't consider! :ok:

short cct I wish it were true but I know one or 2 who will imho ignore the directive if the carrot is dangled.
anyway its off to the commission where if they have any ticker they'll be forced to follow the agreed policy just the same as we would have to.

What a surprise to have management go back on their word.
If the new rumours are true the Base Ops Managers are not going let any more than 8 leave base maint.
Followed by the next rumour that base employees might be marked below what they deserve to artificially deflate their scores so that they dont lose the cream to team 380. I find this one a bit hard to swallow but hey, this is ACS and anything is possible.

So what happens if this whole flawed process does drag out, it is going to cause issues with the successful candidates who need to go to Brisbane for conversion training, but if they have already chosen who they want this wont be an issue.

Jonny V
As I alluded to before, the A380 criteria process was MEL centric . I tried to find out information about the selection process not one SYD based ALAEA rep or Exec had anything to say until after a formal meeting was held in SYD, well after the fact. When I asked why, I was greeted with screwed faces and mutterings. The reason to keep the A380 selection process quiet may have been to keep the scuttlebutt to a minimum but IMHO the characters I spoke to seemed peeved that they would have to answer to the members in SYD and were not involved in the criteria process.

the rim
Myself and many more would agree with you Rim but this is where we may need to tread carefully.
Currently there is no "real" (PPR) performance based review or rating of personnel in engineering therefore QF management have no bone fide way of rating people other than the old school method.(rumour matey club feed back etc)
If we (the union) demand the A380 selection criteria without any interview or current skill base requirements in the selection process.
The company may demand in the IRC (Fair Work Aust) that a management managed/controlled PPR system be installed to allow a "rated" selection process in the future.
A PPR system is probably something that should be instituted and in times of peace would be beneficial to all parties IF administered well. A big IF
BUT
in times like the unpleasantness of 2008 with M and his Hench men at the helm imagine your review points if you did not tow the company (M) line of thinking or worse still you could be PPR ed out the door perfectly legally if part of company policy.
Next question is does the ALAEA let the selection process slip to protect all the members rights against a new PPR process or fight for the current selection process and give the company the ammunition make changes that could affect all in the future.


I don't submit this as a conspiracy hatched out by management but it would be how I would take on the association on this matter. If I can think of this having a beer and mag with mates on a Friday night I am sure the people whom are paid to think up this stuff already have.

Off topic and a bit out side the square.
My 2 cents
:ugh:

The biggest problem in our area is that the only people who know who performs well and should be on-trained are SOME supervisors (those who give a dam), and the LAME's who work with them. management and People morons (or what ever they call themselves this week) have absolutely no idea what goes on day to day.

The under desk bangers, who vanish from the work site to suck up anyone, join any committee to suck harder, are the usual suspects to be advanced while the true workers are hard at the task of fixing aircraft and covering for the head bangers.

Enough is enough. We must fix the problem now. It starts with A380 selection..... Take them to FWA.

Short Circuit, you've nailed exactly what happens in my airline too.
We don't get the 380 or 787 for a couple of years yet but already theres some manouvering going on from the usual suspects.
What they don't understand, as pointed out above, is that these aircraft will soon age and become the norm just like the 777 has and the novelty will soon wear off.
I feel for you :ugh:

Does anyone have an update on this farce? Is it going to go to the commission or will everyone just have to cop it sweet.

New notice out again this afternoon, Looks like it is all back on.

so around we go again. what worries me is know i have a leading hand who also has applied for the A380 that now will be rating myself and two other on his crew. fair and equitable i ask ? holding my breath.

Watch this space.
I don't think it is over yet, a few cards up the sleeve to be played :}

How unusual
 

Well F#@K ME, there's a change for the rest of the QF network, something that isn't SYD centric for once.:E
Sorry but had to point that out for you that particullary in engineering there is constant QF SYD centric policy and procedure rammed down the rest of the networks throats that isn't necessarily for the better and in the past a lot of ALAEA policy was very SYD centric.

Taking cover now!

BTW the rest of the post I agree with.:ok:

What's the issue? Is the CSC an improvement on the suck to rise policy.
Is it a better policy than currently in place? I think so.
Is it fairer? I think so.

The concerns of the so called useless people "unsuitable" for training being selected due time since last course factor? Well this only happens if they apply, and their natural tendencies of avoiding responsibility would reduce their interest and likely hood anyway especially for such difficult training. If they do what's the difference to now?

I certainly don't see a larger proportion of deadwood in the mix. Probably less.

So for the "Life's About Me" Lame's, struggling on a full compliment of recent training, get a grip,your biggest concern is now is how to spend the payments you are already receiving whilst others wait for training and deserve a shot. Bummer you have to share eh!

I would anticipate any course selection criteria of this nature for current types and in normal situations in the future would be by crew/section groupings which would obviate some of the bizarre concerns raised over this special in more ways than one A380 situation:ok::sad:

Forward with fairness, share the love.:)

well rudderless1 i do agree with your post,but we have all forgotten about the graded wage structure now the lower grade lame's who are not getting any training are advancing every four years without training they are now reaping the benefits of a system that most poo pooed when it was introduced and lets face it most people dont get training every four years :ok:

Just to recollect and comment-
I for one "poo pooed" the system at the time and still do.
The graded structure failed on its key point of recognising "experience" in the industry, which was intended to be essentially time as a LAME (even though still a lacking and crude method but far superior than everyone starting in 1997) was sold for 2% payrise and with a 50% vote!

Rim you forget also the two grades the great new system cost "new LAME's" so whilst these newbies may now be finally equalising due to cappings but the volumes of cash lost in the period short paid will still take some time to recover.

This structure also discourages people to leave and mature their skills or live elsewhere and come back. Quit restrictive and discriminatory really.

How many years should an old LAME be paid a premium before the young catches his benefit. Ie when do they peak? This is where the issue is more about d1ck size than anything else. Is it that bad being capped at level 12 or 13 with options for training.:ok: If it was about levels and cash Team A380, or various senior levels bypass the cappings!

The graded wage structure is a loyalty system, not much else really. That's what was voted for in 1997. The pitfalls were seen then and the LAME's that voted for it and creamed at the start at the cost to the new are now copping it in the end. (sorry for the freudian slip)! Fairs fair.

I don't think it benefits the company nor the skill base but they wanted it. GWS deters talent from applying and deadwood from leaving.

Sorry for the thread drift.:oh:

CSC is one step toward improving the system fairness, a new pay structure that recognises experience and encourages training and stimulates the idle would be another.

well the scores are in. Let the games begin, basically if you have sat on your hands for the past eight years then congratulations, You have made the seventy five people who will now be drawn from a hat for the twenty or so positions. let us now ponder will the same criteria be used for future vr/cr, will it be used when sio overstaffed move to base/sdo, will it be used as a performance appraisal tool.will it know be used for all future training ? ie, sio A330/737new/gen which is about to start.
well done to the succesful candidates.

This new system is absolute crap as most people seem to agree. If they use this system for all future training then most of us will be at a loss. I am glad the old matey system is going but this new ALAEA (melbourne centric) system is not fair end equitable.
Just because you have not had training for 8 years means you get a 25 point head start. It doesn't matter that the person is not the most driven or motivated, it doesnt matter if that person uses sick leave for annual leave, it doesnt matter if that person has been a cluster ph*%k for the past 10 years. Just as long as they havent been trained they get a head start.

And then we have the problem of inconsistent scoring. If it is true that the SIT seniors are using the union preferred scoring system of 4 and 5s then this is not a true representation of the individual being scored which is just crap.

The only way around this is for all the unsuccessful applicants to submit a grievance and hopefully this will send a message to the powers that be.

I know that this system is endorsed by the ALAEA but they need to take a good look at what they asked for as most of the members af far from happy with it.

As a worker from mel I can tell you that this so called mel centric course selection criteria was not well liked or well received process! And as another superlame mentioned it was an alaea agreed/conceived process .It penalises anyone one who is keen and wants to get ahead by buying a type course,and looks after someone who sits on their hands not putting any input in with the magic 25 points!
And for the union to push the 4/5 scoring on the rest of the questions for everyone,leaves no room for anyone obtain a competitive score.So are they really that blind to think that all LAME'S are the same??
Also why is it all a big deal now that syd is involved? noone was concerned when mel was being put through this process?;)

read my previous post about boofheads getting training before people who have the drive and know how ....aka the graded wage is good for the boofheads...this system by the alaea is flawed ...do not take bolt ons into account as they are not anywhere near a full payment and as for the person doing an outside course well the old school alaea[mel] frowned upon anyone doing external training as it negated QF's ability to maintain the upkeep of lame numbers....yes i know that the GWS is not so good for the line guys but for heavy guys only working on one or two types it dilivers a pay increase over a number of years and they would have not got that in the old system

Just out of curiosity - would you guys prefer a system were the company just picks who they want/has interviews to decide who gets trained?

Do LAMEs think that the ones who have not been trained for a long period of time should have an advantage or is it better that they have to lobby for a course along with those who have had ample training?

Have any of you ever missed out on a course in the past because you weren't in "the club"?


ALAEA Exec is meeting tomorrow and Wednesday, all these matters will be discussed so please provide feedback over tonight and tomorrow.

I have missed out on a course because my father wasnt the Duty Engineer or because I didn't go boating or golfing with the Leading Hand or foreman, so yes I agree that we needed a better system but I don't think this new one is the one.

Too often in this company you get nowhere from showing initiative and once again this is the case. The whole scoring system is open to abuse and misinterpretation so at the end of the day it seems that is is going to come down to time since last course.

This I believe disadvantages those members who have never done a company course. Yes I know that they are better off than those whose courses have not been recognised ,but why not have an extra concession for those who put in their own time effort and funds to further their careers.

This new system also doesn't recognise those individuals who have put in the time and effort to study and attain their cross trade basics. A lot of guys have down the extra work hoping it will give them a leg up to team 380.

The initial selection criteria for team 380 was an MA or cross trade basics as minimum to even get a foot in the door. Although it is widely known that the manager of the day could bypass this step and select the faces he wanted, so in seeing that the way forward is cross trade basics some driven individuals have gotten some or all of these thinking it will would surely help come EOI time.

But this is not the case, the goalposts have been moved again and no-one has been told.

So at the end of the day yes there is a new system in place to overcome a lot of the historical course selection problems, but will it work and will the outcomes be any different from the status quo?

I doubt it and going by the talk at the jetbase most other people feel the same.

Fed Sec I hope this is adequate feedback.

Bad luck Suckholes
 

I applied and will prob miss out as my last course was not long ago. But I will be glad that someone who hasn't been trained for ages will get it ahead of me instead of some suckhole or 'clubber' as is the past system of selection. Lots of winging on this post but no suggestions of a fairer system? I think you boys with carpet burns on your knees are realising all that sucking up has been a waste.

So if you haven't been trained for 8 years you get a 25% headstart on a guy who has had a course in the previous 3 years. Well bugger me, what an inovative idea. Two trains of thought from the crew, having heard both sides I interpret them as follows -

1. Im am great, yes great I am, better than everone else in base. I've spent a year helping the company on a special project to make the company more efficient. I went and bought a course to save the company money. I work faster than everyone else because I run between jobs. I am also a big man and when I tell the coneheads to get out of my way, they always move so I can get my job done first and that lazy dog in the corner who reads the paper at lunchtime instead of planning the afternoon work is now getting a head start on me for nothing. Kev said he would look after me and that has been taken away. How dare the union take away my opportunity to shine.
2. I got a course last year so of course he deserves a chance, he hasn't been trained for 8 years.

Now I am no rocket scientist but I can work out which option is morally correct. I don't like this new system because it only gives the poor mongeral who constantly gets overlooked an additional 25%. It should be 100%.

yes i think that some have missed out on training for not being in the matey club but in a class of 18 it might only be 2% of them so the others got there on their own and yes i think that time between course's is the major item for being selected for your next course....bolt-on's are a thing of the past as we dont have any [or little] other operators to worry about andI have posted enough about external training

This new selection system has already failed. Talk around the place yesterday is that SIT guys are scoring high and that base guys are scoring average, dont know about SDT, how is this a fair and equitable system?
Whoever heard of a system where your old employer gets to rate you and decide if you can move on to your new job. If your'e not a great worker you can be scored high to get rid of you, if your'e a valued worker you are scored just low enough to ensure you can't be lost to another section.
Its difficult, based on the scoring criteria to argue that you were unfairly rated!
The company are the ones who built these walls between work (A/C type) areas and now their system is biting us all.
At this late stage probably the best option is to scrap the current rating system and send the 135 names to Team A380 and let them pick whoever they want as it's their train set. Their new manager probably doesn't know too many of us and will have to rely on his Ops Managers and Leading Hands for the best selections as they know best who they want.:confused:

Reiak

Very well said, couldn't agree more.

Yes Reiak well thought out. Who do I have to suck up to, Cameron is it?

Too late to suck up.

They know what you were like 1 to 2 years ago before the A380 section was formed.

So Mr Fixit what you are saying is that we should all wait for the company to train us, no one should show initiative and anybody that does is a suckhole.
That is a bit rich.
The out if category basics bit, well the industry is changing whether we like it or not and I don't a few QF LAMEs doing extra basics has influenced that change.

The only people who did them before were the as you put it yum cha club members or the special projects tools.How is that fair? Why should these "wannabes" be penalised for doing a bit extra.

As I have said before I agree a new system is needed to overcome all this crap but they have moved the goalposts halfway through the game, and it seems not everyone is playing the game fairly or playing the same game.

And yes it is good to see the union stand up for the little guy, but in this instance the little guy is still being overlooked.

I dont think it will ever be 100% because you can't please everybody all the time, but it needs improvement.

Before the next course EOI comes out, be it for 380,330 737ng or 787 this system needs to be sorted with a set of rules that wont change during the selection process. Hopefully that will allow people to know where they stand from the beginning.

ALAEA Fed Sec: Time since last course can be misleading
 

FedSec,

I disagree with the logic that ‘no course for a long period = insufficient training’: Looking-around my section, the vast majority of those who will benefit from the 25% will be triple-licensed already (mainly 747, 744, 767).

In this respect, the points system will benefit those who are, in a way, “in the club”.

Most might not mow the manager’s lawn (although they exist), but when there was training, they were often either lucky (right section, right crew) or sufficiently well-connected to be put on course in front of others, who had waited their turn.

For the younger crowd, there are plenty of guys with 20 years’ service who are triple-licensed, versus plenty of guys who, at around 15 years’ service, have a single type. A bit of a skewed distribution, don’t you think? And if the the lucky ones managed to get all their training in first, then they'll be getting a first look-in this time as well.

I well remember some blokes going straight from one course to the next, leapfrogging over either a LAME who was waiting their turn, or an AME that was eligible for their first type. These licensed-up blokes then went on to get a great many lurks and perqs at a time when the number of licenses held was the determining factor in everything. Sure, they deserve more training, but there are others who need it more, and have waited. “Time since last course” simply doesn’t measure this.

IF the time since last course criteria had been applied all these years, it would work fantastically now: But it hasn’t been, so you are keeping the playing field uneven. I agree that if we could get to a stage where the time-since-last was the only criteria, that’d be great, but in the meantime you have to somehow compensate for previous inequitable distribution.

Suggestion: A percentage score, for example 25%, could have been included in addition to the score for time since last training – but instead, base it on courses/years of service. Most in QF deserve training, but if you’re going to target the training to the least advantaged, then this would be the way to do it. I reckon, unfortunately, that >1 course per 10 years’ service in QF indicates a (relatively) lucky individual.

Even more accurate would be counting only those years of service where you were eligible for a type course (all basics held). Disadvantage: Another dip into eQ; Advantage: It would not skew the benefits to those who hadn’t bothered to get their basics for many years.

Congratulations to all those successful applicants. Wishing you all many happy years working on such a large and brilliant piece of technology, with a wonderful team on a shift pattern that could change at any moment.

Wish I could be there, but am still recovering from the welts caused by the A38O security guys beating me away with a stick. (Still embracing the spirit though!)

Love your work Ngineer.

I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

What a tit you are !!
 

So Mr Fixit,you seem to have a problem with those that have taken the initiative to train themselves.

Thank God I dont follow your small minded, communist views, as today I would most likely have been made redundant whilst waiting for Qantas to train me.My career would have stagnated whilst all the glory boys got the training,and then when all the Ansett refugees came in and pipped me in the training stakes,I would have been kept down again.

So instead of leaving mine and my familys fate in the lap of the Gods,I decided to take control of my future and make sure I had a future.

If I had listened to eye swivelling lunatics like you and believed your tripe,and there were plenty of you then and still are plenty of your type about now,I would not be making my weekly subs to the ALAEA,and more importantly,I would be on about a third of the wage I am now.

Your comments typify those bludgers who sit around all day whingeing to whoever will listen to your utter bollocks. I suspect that you are most likely a queer trade pushing the upper levels of the wage structure.

And if I am wrong and youre not in the upper levels, then I would still assume that you are Avionics. And if you arent licenced on everything by now that Qantas flys after 30 years in the industry, then the reason for your lack of training is simple really. Its YOU!!

At the end of the day,my licence is MY licence and not Qantas's,so if training LAMEs was simply left to Qantas or other carriers,and we werent able to train ourselves, we would probably be a lot further down the track of a licencing system where the employer totally dictates who is trained and how many "approvals" are issued by QA.

Maybe that is what worked in Mother Russia in the old days pal, but if it wasnt for organisations such as Queensland Aerospace,JTP and the like, then you would likely have a lot less guys out there as fellow union members,and we would likely see a much weaker system where we would now be hiring foreigners on 457 visas instead of employing Aussies in what is a good industry.

Looking forward to you having a "cry" in reply.

BUT have not had any training for 20 years !!!!! I think it is their turn, they have baby sat your like for that time waiting for a new type.:ugh:

Fed Sec
 

This "time since last course" clause is rubbish!

While I can appreciate the intent to spread the licences more evenly over a wider number of LAMEs, to base the 25 points on just the number of years since your last course is flawed.

A simple system that divides the number of years you've had your basics by your number of company full type courses would be much more fair.

Bolt-ons, while not worth as much, do contribute to a LAMEs pay and hence should be worth 1/2 in this calculation. Current or not.

An outside course that a LAME has paid for himself should not count for as much as a company course but the fact that it also increses one's pay should mean it counts for 1/2 too. This recognises the effort and expense he has contributed but also recognises the increase in pay he recieves.

The current alocation of the union's 25 points does not seem fair when you consider the Super LAMEs that went from company course to course as soon as they were eligible, have since been racking up bolt-ons and now that the customer airlines have gone and their last few bolt-ons have dropped off the radar, they're next cab off the rank.

The number of licences you hold has to come into it. After all you can only sign one aircraft at a time.

Firstly, I reckon you'd be hard-pressed to find ANYONE in QF who has 747/744/767 AND hasn't had training for 20 years. Such a person would have had to have been one of the first on the initial 744 courses, with 747 & 767 already in the bag. Some of the guys who retired in the last 5 years might've fit that description - but then are we counting DC-4 & 707 too?? :}

More importantly, if anyone like that DOES exist, they'd be on top of the pile for BOTH the 25% for time since last training, and the 25% for courses per years' service (3 courses/40 years = way less than 1 course/10 years = they'd beat everyone else in).

So, no disadvantage to the old blokes who haven't had as much training as they should for their years of service :ok:

TBP

bug-a-lugs
 

:ok:spot on bugs and yes i am sure he is a conehead and sits at the top of the tree looking down at mech blokes saying how dare you go and get your conehead basics and try to be like me........his post was sh#t:mad:

For all those very experienced heavy maint guys who were shown the door, I reckon they are happy with the above comments.

Qantas is not the only airline in the world.

I threw some bread crumbs on the water around my line but lost bait, hook, line, sinker and rod in one foul swoop.

I apologise for whipping you into a frenzy Bugs your comments re communism and mother russia made my eyes swell with tears of days gone by.

Your opinionated degradation of the avionics personel re the 'queer' trade suggests you carry a rather large chip around on your shoulder

Yes I do have a problem, you just screwed over your supposed mates you work with and by the look of it you could care less oh how very LAME of you

Yes the EACs did put a dint in training and their desire to 'do anything' the supervision wanted to secure the next course slot ahead of deserving QF candidates stuck in my throat also. As for the glory boys they are now ops managers or used dried pieces of skin left over from the dispute and will always be lurking in the shadows. As to being kept down how long had you been a LAME when this being held down occured and while we're at it how long did you spend as an AME after your APP finished

By your earlier degradation of avionics personel, I take it you are mechanical, a group that numbers almost 2/3 the engineers in QF but receives only approx. 3/5 the training. Yes as a whole you have been neglected, instead of turning your anger to a group that doesn't have a say in your training (Avionics) how about you turn it towards a group that does ....MANAGEMENT or are the coneheads too easy a target and MANAGEMENT too vindictive which lessens your bravery extensively.

Prior to the last election of the ALAEA thats exactly what you were doing
I would suggest after our last eba your actually doing better than ever

What an a typical comment from the X generation 'Me Me Me" there are a large amount of mechanical men and some avionics men (not alot) out there who have been here twenty years plus done the right thing worked hard day and night and do not have all the Qantas types for one simple reason... Qantas didn't train and then self serving pr!ks went outside and did courses that removed the company's need to train them. I would also like to know how long you have been in the industry as I said I, thirty years (nearly) four qantas types an average of 1 type per 7.? years of company service 6 years since my last course. Care to offer your story ?

What a load of bollocks, company licencing has been with us for over ten years now since CASA did away with type licencing, Aviation is a closed industry, the company whoever they controls the aircraft they buy be very aware THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TRAIN EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US they choose to ignore that obligation so they can pit us against other so we don't notice the 101 ways they are retarding this company, this industry and our future.

That is exactly what they have done, did it ever occur to you that Qantas actually set up and funded each and every one of these organisations (check where DC, DF, MB, JV are board members) to further their own ends of denying their workforce an opportunity to train and ridding themselves of training inhouse. 457 visas are being imported into this country under what auspices ? they don't have the technical capability Why ??? because they don't train their own people..... Australian citizens and by the way if Qantas had of been compelled to train more by the solidarity of men / women not going outside to train we would way better off. In reference to your last words 'in what is a good industry' by the feverence and bitterness in your post (not only to Avionics personel, communists, long serving employees but me :O also) it suggests to me that this is a tongue in cheek comment and you are not all that happy and you are certainly not alone there Bug-a-lugs.

Well Put, Mr Fix it.

Another 20+ years, one type Mech LAME here and probably no chance at this A380 either. 7 years since last course.