Qantas A Better Business and Airline
 

Qantas used to have greater input from its employees.They were empowered and treated with respect.Then old scrotum face came along and the rot set in.
Employees are now kept at a distance.In particular pilots.
The problem with Qantas is that management has taken the corporation on a journey......they just havent taken the employees with them.
The management for the last ten years have had their noses in the trough.
One employee in particular tried to flog the business off and make himself $60 mil in the process.
So yes we are fortunate to be employed.Not because of management but rather in spite of them
So give that little cliche a rest
Many of us thought Joyce would be different.....he ain't!!
Clifford is the puppet master and after having met him let me say he is just a taller version of Dixon..ie a bigger prique

Was the "no confidence" in looking after the pilot's best interests or in looking after the airline's best interests?

FGD135
I think you will find that those sentiments are actually one and the same, only the '80's mentality Management have yet to work that out!

Employees Are Smart
 

We have figured out that our future is tied to the future of the business.
If management takes it down we will go down with it.We dont want them to screw it up.They appear to be doing their best to do exactly that.
There are a lot better qualified people on the shop floor to run Qantas.
This myth that managment knows best is exactly that ....a myth.
The whole management structure is based on a mate's network...not on ability.
What does Clifford know about airlines?He knows where 2K is.Thats about it
Jocye is a number cruncher who is still surprised by his enormous good luck.
He still believes the crap he is fed by the middle ranking snouts.
A naive Irish number cruncher helping run an Australian Icon into the ground.
Its called CFIT

I don't believe the Airlines best interest has been a key factor in alot of decision making.

Other poor decisions would be:

1. APA private equity bid
2. Freight collusion on pricing
3. Denying travel agents commisions
4. Not buying fuel efficient aircraft earlier, when they had the chance (B777)
5. Setting up Australian Airlines only to shut it down
6. Paying tax on behalf of the former CEO
7. Segmenting the airline into individual business units only to amalgamate them again.
8. The confrontation with the engineers over reasonable pay increases.
9. Pay freezes for employees post September 11th & Sars, then backing up with record profits.
10. Not affording employees reasonable career progression to J*, read that take a command at J* & you have to resign from QF.
11. Pulling out of ports like Rome & Paris, telling staff if you can't go daily its not worth servicing the market. Then within 2 years setting up an airline with a fleet of new aircraft.
12. Forcing staff to take annual & long service leave & continue to recruit in a subsidiary.

These are just a few examples of the top of my head.

Admittedly, AJ has inherited alot of issues.

Staff engagement being one of them & they wonder why.

I here what you are saying, but, why was maint outsourced because it was better maint, or because it was cheaper? I suspect the latter, which means safety was not the major consideration. I might also add that there are many people that have not got jobs at QANTAS now because of management decisions.

Would love to see a public debate between Joyce and Fed Sec. over Qantas maintenance, its past and its future.
Come on Mr ABC, there is a ratings winner!

BSB :ok:

Yes Steve, I will elaborate. Let me take up just one of the issues.
You spun a good story on the 7pm Project saying that QantasLink Dash 8's had unsafe flightdeck doors which could be opened with a paddlepop stick.
Your response to my previous post was that you said no untruths. Seeing you must be a man of impeccable integrity I can only assume that you don't know that the alleged flaws with the said Dash 8's has been fully investigated by a team of CASA airworthiness inspectors. This inspection found that there were no matters of concern, the doors are fully compliant with all safety/regulatory affairs. Would you please go back to the 7pm Project and set the record straight.

Hey Beatup,
If the flight deck door is fully compliant, how come you can open it with a paddle pop stick?
Maybe those responsible for the doors compliance have treated it with the same philosophy used by RR with their IP Turbines.
You just don't get it do you.

- T.T 40 years maintenance experience, 29 years a LAME

Qf Probs
 

SMELLS LIKE AN ANSETT BORN AGAIN PROBLEM BEANCOUNTERS FUNUKLING WITH THE EQUIPMENT THEY NO NOTHING ABOUT WHERE DO THEY GO AFTER THE BOOM IF IT HAPENS:ugh:

Thick thumbs, you've missed the point. You CANT open the doors with a paddlepop stick. Neither with a Drumstick, Cornetto, Magnum... blah blah...
Lets just say that CASA took with them more than a paddlepop stick when they checked the doors - in response to these allegations - and the all clear was given.

FGD135:

With respect it's you that don't get it. The management and employees get it absolutely, so do the shareholders.


The absolute function of management is to maximise the value of the corporation IN THE LONG TERM.

... For management that does NOT mean maximising the value of your annual bonus for the next Five years before you retire or resign, leaving a smoking wreckage of cost cutting and reduced capability behind you. That is the problem - managers have every incentive to do exactly that, and devil take the poor sod who has to clean up the mess.

....For employees, who may be starting what they hope will be a Forty year career with the same employer, what do you expect them to do when they see managers taking short sighted decisions that the employees know will compromise the very existence of the company in Five or Ten years time?

...For shareholders, what is the value of their shares after QF loses Two hulls in succession? Will they sell to Singapore when the bid is inevitably made after the accident? Don't expect senior management to give you good advice, senior management contracts these days have an automatic golden parachute attached to any "change of control" of a business. Don't expect the Board to tell you to do anything but sell your shares. As for the employees, you can expect the new owners to blame you for the accidents you tried so hard to avoid!

You saw this behaviour with Dixon and the privatisation bid, what makes you think that the same mindset is not at work right now? If QF is sold or taken over, these guys are fully protected and will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Why would they care about employees or shareholders, let alone the long suffering Australian public?

THEY DON"T CARE. THEY WIN NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.

What are these Dorothy Dixers? For those reading, Beatup is not an alter ego of mine throwing in simple questions with easy answers. I think he is serious. He must think I know nothing about aviation but I have had a few years in the game.

I'll get up to the shops and grab some stuff for dinner. Cook it up and respond in full later tonight.

Steve P

Steve, I have never asked you a question. I've only ever stated facts!

Just obvious how today's management dont manage they just do the books while crapping on about lots of things.

I would love to see the figures QF would have saved if they had got 777's when they were introduced, my meagre brain would reckon a few billion at least!

These incidents are regretable but it does just highlight how pathetic all the management are when it comes to operational things, and I beleive it is a good time for the unions to highlight crap decisions made by these fools. Everyone you speak to are praising front line staff but basically dismissing the minions in the management areas, its great to see! :ok:

I don't get it
 

How is it everytime QF has an engine fail they trot out the same line being 'its not a safety issue'
Joyce has been quoted twice in the past few days insinuating that losing an engine is no big deal - statements along the line that 'these things happen', ' its happened before'....
IMO until the top dog starts saying things like 'its unacceptable' and 'we will move to end this series of failures' - I won't be flying QF.

For all it's wirth
 

Is Olivia Wirth a blood relative of Darth ?
Same cold emotionless stare, same ice like attitude, they even flick and prune their hair in the same fashion !!

Swiss cheese for dinner ??? Look forward to your response Steve. Keep up the good work mate...

It's not often I express an opinion on the content of a thread. However, tally-ho Mstr Caution and AoA.

Well stated, those men!!:ok:

beatup, since you only state the facts, can you please tell me why QANTAS, with a perfect safety record, outsourced its maintenance?

AN1944, you have obviously been there and seen it, before- concur 'Absolutely'. As a counterpoint, where have the last two CEO's of QAN shared a common employer???

Sunfish- you've got it in one. The minute there is partial equity for the 'supposed' engagement of a 'particular employee' as opposed to 'accountable' equity (or onus of equity vis S28-BE of the Act) under the Civil Aviation Act, you have trouble as far as the said 'Employee' and the balance point between absolute responsibility & action/judgement to the building of/security of an AOC/Company Aeronautical Integrity vrs personal maximisation of reward....

And if we look back, we have seen it before in the recent (post 2000) new start Aviation Enterprises and their struggles with the Low Cost Model and Compliance & Business Stability/Integrity issues they've faced.

Well said both of you.
Rgs
S28- BE

Now I don't know English that well but checked with the wife and kid who is in uni.

This looks like a question to me. If it was a statement, the words "would you" would not be there. I understand that a question mark doesn't appear but that may be some trouble at your end.

Looking forward to posting all the info about the cockpit doors a bit later. (Hopefully in enough time to get another hit in the press tomorrow about it.)

Now you're talking Steve. You pretty much summed it up. It's all about getting a hit with the press.

To borrow a YouTube phrase:

"Obvious troll is obvious."

Having seen Fedsec in action, this is going to be hilarious... :}

I'm off to get a broom for the remaining pieces. :E

So beatup, if CASA came out and inspected the doors only after the ALAEA made an issue of it, is it a non issue ? Is going to the media the only way for the authority and the airline to get stuff sorted out ? Why were the latches replaced by QL management who still hold a LAME qualification ? Why wasn't the sign off "latches inspected, all ops as intended per mm xx-xx-xx' ?

And the fact that 6 LAME's were stood down for reporting a defect, doesn't that just show what a great level of engagement is present in the Qantas group ? AJ would've known exactly the situation and has done what about it ?

Doesn't it just make a mockery of the whole major Qantas catch cry in engineering - "Safety before schedule".... Only when it suits.

When will Qantas management go on the 7pm project to explain why they stand down the staff that the government authority entrusts to certify for the safety of aircraft, the staff the company has entrusted for years to certify for the safety of the aircraft, all for writing up a defect which existed. It's disgraceful.

Steve has nothing to apologize for.

Beatup ?
 

Hmmmm name Beatup ? Is that what happened when you were at school or what you do to yourself whilst looking at your picture of AJ in your wallet. You are obviously a Qf manager cause you're an idiot. :{

Ok Beatup, I will call you Greg from now on, don't ask why, I just think it suits. When Aircraft Engineers that I represent are threatened with their livelihoods I will take every opportunity to get that issue made public because it a bloody disgrace for any Engineer to be essentially told to turn a blind eye to defects. If you can't understand why, you shouldn't be reading the posts on this site.

You have claimed that I was not truthful on the box and your reason is allegedly this –

I did say that, or something close and it is 100% correct. They had unsafe flightdeck doors on the 19th of Oct and 7 of them were snagged by good LAMEs, here is one of the Tech log entries, the rest are similar -

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/7htqm4ej


You may note that the defect was raised, and it was supposedly rectified. If there was no problem, it would not have required rectification. The rectification was carried out by a Manager. It didn't fix the problem but allowed him to look like he did something to sign it off. We will hear more about this later.

Now Qantaslink suspected we had some video. They didn't really want it released because they needed to buy some time before CASA got out to investigate with the Office of Transport Security. To scare the ALAEA off they send me this -

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/42threatsj

I gave them an indication that I couldn't give a damn about their letter and knew the aircraft breached Aviation Security legislation. I spoke to the Head of that department and he threatened me with jail as well. I explained having aircraft with the doors in this condition is not a problem, unless you continue to fly them. They did. So we went public.

But they knew there was a problem, an EI had been ordered on the 21st and was ready by the 23rd. Here is the front page -

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/jw22424748j

Are you still thinking that the doors couldn't be opened with paddle pop sticks or this was fabricated? It hit the news on the 25th. In response Qantaslink took action against the LAMEs. Here is part of one of their letters -

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/71allegationsj

So there is a mad rush to get all the mods done in three days to make sure CASA and the Office of Transport Security see a clean ship. Here are a couple of pages from the workloads on them nights -

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/g1workplan1j

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/6rworkplan2j

So what do CASA see when they get out there, well firstly my invitation was withdrawn -

And yes Greg you are correct, on the 28th of October, over a week after the incident was raised on 7 aircraft, a team of highly skilled CASA investigators found nothing wrong. Neither did the Office of Transport Security. What a surprise.

Now back to your question -

Answer - No. My facts are always thouroughly researched before I open my mouth.

You wanna play on this site, try as you will. I suspect (but would stand corrected) that my open publishing over many years has helped build some credibility. Its a different approach, but our industry is being torn apart by bean counters and pricks who will take our jobs at the drop of a hat in the name of short term bonus targets and at the expense of Australias oldest airline. I will do whatever it takes to ensure Ansett never happens again and I'm pretty sure there are at least 35,000 people behind me.

If you still wanna believe that little Irishman when he says my claims or stories are outrageous, don't tackle me here. You will always come off second best.

Cheers
Steve P

If an airlines going to decimate its maintenance capabilities then surely it would make sense to operate new aircraft and turn them over frequently. Instead QANTAS have a number of ageing aircraft which require the very sort of skilled back up that they have got rid of.:confused:

Even newer aircraft still require considerable resources in the maintenance department especially if the type has been recently introduced and is unproven.

Not everybody wants to fly on a low cost or foreign airlines. QF can compete on the trunk routes within Australia and major overseas destinations if it sorts itself out.

Nice one Steve. Eagerly awaiting gregs response

Fedsec is on fire!:ok:
greg = OWNED:ouch:

After the best part of 40 years as a professional military and airline pilot, I would rather put my faith and trust in Steve Purvinas and his team of Aviation Engineers...rather that in a bunch of 3-5 year itinerant managers who are inspired and motivated only by short-term performance bonuses.

The long term health of any business or company does not really matter to any professional manager who may be able to flit from one company to another like a butterfly when things get tough or broken.

But, for those at the sharp end of an airline such as the aircraft crew and engineers, the health of the aircraft fleet and the true backing of the spirit of safety is very personal indeed. It means a hell of a lot more to us than some PR person or cash-motivated manager mouthing empty words of "We put safety first".

But, each and every passenger should reconsider his/her personal choice of who should be trusted and who may be telling the truth as the aircraft engines spool up for take-off.

Steve P - that was just fecking brilliant. Please take that approach to the 7pm project and anyone who will listen, as it's the approach that will get you and what your members want/deserve!.

Don't be put off by the 'anti' union folk - expose this and you'll have every person who has put foot on an aircraft behind you.

The future of our industry lies in your hands right now - never before has there been such an opportunity to hang draw and quarter the bastards who destroyed it.

Congrats Fed Sec on some great posts even showing the Executive Manager for what he really is.:D

This is only one of the reasons that I and many more have left QantasLink for greener pastures @ great cost to the airline.

Qantas should sack this pr*ck for threatening behavior and gross incompetence, over 35% of pilots left in 2007/8 and no doubt many ground and cabin staff as well.

Is this the sign of a good manager, I think not.:=

Then again his cost cutting and total staff disenchantment seem to be part of management philosophy within the airline, promote him I say!!!!

terrorist act?
 

What i find amazing is that they were trying to invoke 'assistance to a terrorist act' as threat to silence you. We certainly are on a slippery slope....

beatup said Beatup you just got beat up. ALAEA you just got a new member.

What simply amazes me is that Qantas no longer has the in house design ability to modify even a ****ing door latch!!

Doesn't QF management understand that if you outsource everything, then you can not produce a better, safer or more reliable product than any other customer that uses that same outsourcing outfit?

In other words, you can never, ever again claim product differentiation on the basis of having a superior maintenance capability.

To put it another way QF is now no safer (but not less safe) than BA and LH in regard to its engines, since they are all maintained in exactly the same way.

That automatically means the QF's claim to be "The Worlds Safest Airline" must one day be proved false.

Thanks for the explanation of the timeline for the incident Steve. You have answered my question on whether CASA inspected a "fixed" door or not.

If Management had any credibility on this issue, they would have allowed CASA and Security to inspect a unmodified door. That would have been the true test of their convictions.

Look forward to hearing you on TV and radio again soon.

To any of the Sunstate Engineers reading this post, you have my support. Stay true and put your faith in the Bexley boys and girls. I am sure they will support you in this until a satisfactory resolution is found with all the resources the ALAEA can muster.

Steve, these guys will be under some stress, please make it as quick as possible for such as resolution so they can get back on track with their lives. If you need a fighting fund just put the word out.

SP this needs a bigger forum and one with some clout like 4 corners.
ACA and TT have a big audience but lack the gravitas of 4 corners.I'm sure there are decent journo's out there right now looking for good story.
Mark Colvin from the ABC did a piece on qantas maintenance years ago, maybe him?

I am sickened by what I have just read.Utterly disgusted.

Lufty A380s Not Grounded
 

Probably because they maintain their engines better than Qantas.
Or they did their inspections and detected anomolies when directed to by RR