Qantas S.I.T. Forced Transfers Ballot
 

So now it's official. S.I.T. are to lose 12 LAME's to Base. It is going to be interesting who will choose to go, or who will be chosen to go.

1. Last in the section, first to go; or
2. Last in QANTAS, first to go

Now that Air New Zealand will officially depart QF at SIT on 17/09/09, and there are no other worthwhile contracts left, save for JAL and Korean, there will simply be too many LAME's at SIT surplus to requirements. Oh well, I guess when te brainiacs in management severed all the other contracts, there is no need for so many LAME's at SIT.

This could get quite ugly when the fingers start pointing and shoulders start getting tapped, and unfortunately, the ALAEA can do nothing, as they are the ones proposing the ballot for either of the above two points.

Once again, QF reigns supreme in dividing and conquering, all in the name of operational requirements.

You would have to think, the brothers will band together and vote out "last in section" prob most of the heavy crowd that come over post closure, but your right not a very nice situation and things will get messy i'm sure. There are 3 DMM's that come from SDO recently i'm sure they will be a bit worried. They cannot be excluded from the process as we are "all in union together".

Any other airline contracts coming up that can be tendered for? What about labour hire out to the people who picked up all the work?

Not familiar with the situation - just trying think of other solutions.

Crew rotations
 

crew rotations with base would resolve many issues, it would be a benefit for both the company and the Lame's.

redundancies
 

Whilst it would be nice for those wanting VR qantas would be insane to offer VR when they really need troops.

alaea cant do much because jobs are being offered, not cut.
Same city same airport, you just can't fight it so they just have to leave the decision up to the troops.
if its not 'cushy' or suitable its tough on those affected but better than no job.
Its a nationwide ballot i think so the result will be interesting.

Rudderless, that sounds a practical suggestion!

Last in the Section, First Out
 

With reference to the last in, first out, Can the ALAEA advise - Is this going to include everyone, ie DMM, LAMES,AME,T/A's, all trades Mechanical & Avionic?

Cant vote unless there is 100% clarification on this subject as the goal posts will move if after the vote its stated that only LAME Mechanical are the ones to be selected from!

This will set a precedent for any other changes that happen in any other section within Qantas Engineering, possibly even when redundancies happen.

Either way this is going to be a mess....

Rudderless and 1746 while the crew rotation idea may sound fair, it is impossible now tha the SIO is part of the LMO business and BASE is part of AMS (Heavy Maintenance). I agree it the DMM's should def be involved also there are the blue tow team who only came last year, maybe that will save some white shirt posy's for us.

I doubt many avionics LAME's will depart, they are rare enough. Crews of 8+ mechanic's and a single Avionics LAME

this is going to happen in bne as they have lost the customer contracts as well and there are 20 lame's whose redundancy was cancelled,so the redundancy's should be offered first then maybe a combo of the two points offered up by the union,but which ever way it goes its going to get messy at SIT and base,maybe crew rotation would work as it did years ago

My prediction-

Single licence mech guys with 767 or 744 will be first in the firing line. The first on first off/seniority thing will only come into it if it comes down to two or more guys with the same licence.

I'm not saying it's fair but do you really believe they'll send someone with a 330 or 738 to the hangars or tell a newly appointed DMM to put his overalls on for that matter.

Like I said, just my prediction...

-JA1

The crux of the problem is team 380. If we let base do the 380 overniters, and SIT the transits the whole problem would be solved. Instead we have a heap of guys only focussing one aircraft type, creating a complete imbalance across Sydney engineering.

Lack of staff, not lic training our AME's, and Syd heavy closure has also compounded problems.

Sooner or later we may see a management regime, with half a brain, that will realise that we need A380 (and eventually 787 guys) at the SIT. But by this time they will be too under-staffed to handle the workload. Maybe if we trained A380 guys at the SIT and let them handle the transits the problem would be solved and no-one would have to move.

Once again we must clean up the mess made by poor management.

As far as we are being told in SIT, it is only LAME's, and it appears the majority, if not all will be mechanical. I don't believe the 12 that will be sent to Base will include DMM's. Hell, they're practically management, and they'll be choosing the ones they don't want.

It may not necessarily be that the management will follow a recommendation that the ALAEA proposes of first in, last out. They may choose the "trouble makers" to go, irrespective of the licences they hold. We all know that logic and commonsense does not prevail when it comes to making a section run. Just look at 380. All the SIT guys that went over initially, took all the 744, 767, 737, 738 and 330 licences with them, leaving us short, and here we are getting rid of another 12, and possibly more when Domestics need there operations propped up.

Beats me, Base and Domestics weren't bringing in income, but SIT were when they had all the foreign operators, then some bright spark decided we don't need customers which included:

1. British
2. Air Canada
3. Thai
4. Singapore
5. Malaysian
6. Royal Brunei
7. Air New Zealand (soon to depart 17 September)
8. Aerolineas
9. Air Pacific
10. Philippines
11. Air China
12. China Airlines
13. China Southern
14. China Eastern
15. Viva Macau
16. Hawaiin
17. Vietnam
18. Asiana

All that is left is (apart from QANTAS group airlines including Jetconnect and Jet Star):

1. Korean
2. JAL
3. Atlas Freighter (QF flight number)

Do the math. QANTAS will need to be looking at contracts down the track, and out of the 18 mentioned above, they will most probably actively seek about 3 or 4. And if/when they get the contracts back, they are going to need more guys back at the terminal

And when that happens, the 12 blokes who were dislocated from the SIT should have first dibs at going back (if they want) on a last out first back basis.

Spy, we both know that won't be the case. Once the "chosen 12" are gone, there is no going back (not for a long time). It seems that Base and Domestics have too much say in the goings on at S.I.T. We are just a kicking bag for the incompetence of our management and the arrogance of Base's management.

We only have to ask why Heavy Maint. was initially shut down. To build Avalon, which was touted at the time as being only for "overflow" work from SYD. Now Avalon gives "overflow" work to Philippines, Singapore and HAECO. Rumour has it, that QF had to BUY a line in HAECO to fit its scheduled aircraft maintenance in. Avalon couldn't handle it, and the others told QF to get in line and wait their turn. Meanwhile, H245 and H271 sit idle and empty and $$$$$$$ are being wasted on having other 3rd party maintenance organisations doing the work that was once done in SYD, and only done once.

Again, the maths just don't add up. It seems an expensive way to systematically shut down engineering, and erode the "mighty and powerful" engineering force that brought the company to its knees with only a few 4-hour stop-work meetings nationwide. Not wildcat strikes as reported by the company that supposedly cost them $150 million (probably more), as opposed to just giving about $5-$6 million in wage increases as was reasonably requested during the GREAT WAR of 2008. This increase would have been a valuable acknowledgement of the work that not only engineers do, but the company as a whole. That $150 million could have pretty well covered most, if not all employees within QF, and the "Brand" would not have been tainted the way it was, and the workforce would have gotten on and done the job they were initially employed to do.

Anyway, fun times ahead after 17 September.

I seriously hope that we won't be entertaining the idea of "rotation" at the whim of a few members. For the majority of members this would not work, simply for commitments outside of work. (businesses, wive's that work, seperated parents sharing custody, etc etc...)

Crew structures and licence coverage would also make this difficult.

Have they started tapping people on the shoulder yet?

Did the company put a date on it?

Was there any volunteers?

To be honest I'm not comfortable that I'll be deciding the future of people I mostly don't know.
I can see problems with whatever is adopted.
I cant see how the alaea can enforce a method.it can negotiate and cajole but its hard to make it happen.

Should the option of letting all the SIO people vote on WHO they want to see go?

No worse than simply last in first out of some description.Those newish to the section prob good young fellows are then new to the next section and get punted around next time.
How many long termers are just serving time and doing nothing else? Rhetorical question for the sake of debate.Will base accept dead wood (assumng there is) or will they get to choose or reject?

No winners here., but at least jobs are not being lost.

I personally think the ballot results this time around should not apply to future forced transfers.

A distinction should be made between forced transfers to departments in the same port and transfers to another city. Imagine having worked in PER for ten years with your kids in school etc. only to be punted back to SYD over a bloke with more years of service that's been on station a month.

In the current situation I think the years of service policy should be applied. IN THIS CASE. But I'm concerned the precedent will be used to make blokes move to another port in the future.

agreed JA1 each situation should be treated separately.I don't want to see any standards/precedents set that will be used to anyone's detriment in the future.case by case.