Shorten FFS :yuk:

Video posted without comment.;) (for those who haven't seen it.)

How are you able to comment on that? Wot she said!

Ahhh well. There goes the country.

I have a handful....
 

Shorten is a toad. So is Gillard, Combet and any other former Union brother who turns their back on the Union to become a rectum licking politician.
It is time to bring the house of cards down....

This is all the motivation I need-

@gobbledock

Any day now. Any day.........

The ACTU are well aware of which unions pay the most in affiliation fees.

They are also equally aware of the danger posed by a union official who is not a Labor party member and is a free agent when it comes to what is said in the press.

Options for tomorrow prior to Dick Smith run.


a) send meaningless politically correct email to other unions to ensure my career in politics is not in jeopardy (danger that email may be meaningless and not in interest of members)

or

b) send email in plain english using words we would use on shop floor (danger that uni grad union leaders may not understand language and send straight to Murdoch press for interpretation)

Are they aware that a lot of rank and file members who pay those fees (via membership) are starting to wonder what the ACTU has done for them lately? Or are they basking in a self generated, self satisfied glow of perceived awesomeness? :hmm:

Guess the membership figures will show that, and the public trustability surveys :eek:

Shorten, Thomson and friends are doing the movement more harm than bloody Howard. :ugh:

Trolls and ungrateful tools.

As a non Engineer, watching from the outside, I would say Steve P has done a stirling job.

He made the EMT looks like exactly what they are, and now the public knows.

Those who do not like what he has done have one of two options, nominate themselves as a union rep and have a crack themselves or shut up.

It amazes me how people will criticise when someone makes a stand, yet they don't have the stones to have a go themselves.

Good job Steve, do not listen to these retards.

To the nut less wonders, give yourself an upper cut from me.

As Steve P and many other have said, Gillard is a Liberal in Labor clothes, the Carbon Tax has sunk her battleship.

But who to replace her, Abbott, Hockey ?. I'd sooner vote for the teletubbies.

Cargo, What time does the 4 o'clock train arrive?:ugh:

Perhaps Steve has been a bit busy with other matters?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-0...ment/3992950:D

They, together, all make a good case for non-compulsory voting. To paraphrase something old, what if they held an election and nobody showed up?

Bill the Social climber - Yes Minister!
 

Hit the nail on the head Talkwrench

SP & his team are one of the most approachable union executives to get information straight from the horses mouth, nothing is a problem. SP has indeed done a sterling job on here. I wish some other union executives took a leaf out of SPs book and communicate to the members via forums similar to this.

As for Bill Shorten, he is false and is in this for himself in my view, he used the union movement to get a leg up in the Labor Party for a shot at being PM one day, nothing more.

He supported the mind boggling (lawyer fest) FWA legislation that is a reworded "Work Choices" the Liberals wanted, and has used it against the very people he once represented, the union movement, plain a simple really..

BS, suitable initials for the man.


.

It's so funny when people don't want to listen to an alternate view. Hope you had a nice little march after deleting my posts. I'm sure that you're happy with your queen! Grow up.

Ok Ok sorry mods. Back on topic:

AWU/AMWU/CEPU traditionally cover the Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) classifications.

ALAEA traditionally cover the Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) classifications. They currently cover the CASA category 'B1', 'B2' and 'C' LAME classifications.

Seems fairly straightforward to me.

Can any ppruners explain to me why CASA category 'A' LAME Job Classification should be covered by any union other than the ALAEA?

Hey talkwrench unless I'm mistaken aren't we talking about Category A AMEs, rather than LAMEs? Hence the other unions beef.

Hi ACT Crusader:

There is no such thing as a Category A AME.

This is my understanding of the key difference between AME and LAME:

If you don't have a CASA Licence (Category A,B1,B2,C) then you are an AME (Aircraft Maintenance Engineer)

When you have met CASA's requirements and are issued with a CASA Licence (Category A,B1,B2,C), you then become a LAME (Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer).

ALAEA covers LAME's. AMWU/AWU/CEPU covers AME's.

If you have a Licence, you're a LAME.

If you don't have a Licence, you're an AME.

Seems quite clear to me. What do you think?

Well Said!

Yes, it seems quite clear to me too, IF you have ANY Licence issued by CASA you are an LAME and IF you wish to be in a Union/Association then it would/should be the ALAEA. :ok:

IF you do NOT have a Licence issued by CASA then you are what is now called an AME, this term applies now to anyone that works on the aircraft and is NOT Licenced.

I was near the end of my Apprenticeship when the ALAEA was started (1967 from memory) and joined the ALAEA as soon as I was Licenced in early 1969.

I always understood you could only be in the ALAEA if you were Licenced however I just read somewhere that the ALAEA does also cover some AMEs too, is this true Steve??? :confused:

WRONG ALAEA ccovers both see Forstaff Avalon and has done since the begining ALAEA even had WM sitting in with forstaff manager during interviews.:ok:
WM now Forstaffs head kicker.

Just found another site with info on the ALAEA, seems it is much more diverse than I realised all the 40 something years I have been in it. :confused:

(QUOTE)

About ALAEA

The ALAEA is a federally registered Australian organisation that represents the industrial, technical and professional interests of Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAMEs) and other civil aircraft maintenance workers.

The desire to establish the ALAEA arose in the late fifties; the association was registered in 1967 in order for LAMEs to control the future of their profession. Today the ALAEA is a very successful organisation and a key player in aviation industrial issues.

ALAEA membership includes most LAMEs employed in regular public transport and regional airlines, and has widespread coverage of LAMEs and AMEs in General Aviation. Also currently membership extends to Technical Officers, Maintenance Planners Instructors, Librarians, Trades Assistants, Aircraft Tradespersons Sheetmetal workers and other aircraft maintenance personnel and support staff. Current membership is in excess of 4,000.

The Association is non-political. There are no affiliations with any political party and members are not permitted to use the Association for political purposes.

A liaison is maintained, where necessary, with all political parties and, if the need arises, the Association will lobby either Government or Opposition members to further the interests of all the ALAEA?s members.

The ALAEA is a pre-eminent aviation industry organisation that is actively involved in civil aviation regulatory issues and liases actively with Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) including participating as a member of the Standards Consultative Committee (SCC).

Thanks to Google I just found out that ALAEA covers a lot more than I realised it did. ;) :ok:

---------------

ALAEA HAWAIIAN SEA SALT

Alaea is the traditional Hawaiian table salt used to season and preserve. It is non-processed and rich in trace minerals, all of which are found in sea water. A small amount of harvested reddish volcanic baked clay enriches the salt with iron oxide. Used as a rub on red meat, the clay seals in the moisture while roasting.

---------------

Sorry Mods a little off topic, but a little humour is surely way better than Politics. :ok:

Thanks for the explanation talkwrench. It seems to me that there are two issues at play here - the ALAEA rules and the CASA regulations

From the ALAEA rules



The interpretation of those rules may be what's in dispute between the "rival unions", in particular 3.1.

Again my understanding is that the CASA stuff relates to the changes brought in last year as outlined on this link
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...t66booklet.pdf

ACT Crusader,

I had a look at the link you provided and it confirms to me that the Category A Licence is indeed a Licence issued by CASA, therefore making the recipient of a Category A Licence a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME).

The LAME should then be covered by the union that covers LAMEs - The ALAEA.

Is that not a reasonable position to take?

Certainly is, provided you are not one of the craft unions looking to keep a foothold in an industry you care nothing about.

From the ACTU point of view it may simply be a matter of supporting one of their major benefactors.

It all depends on your point of view but as a LAME I know what I believe should happen.

Craft unions represent the AME's and those who certify are represented by the ALAEA.

Lets see what the courts say.

I think sunfish is very correct likely about the world changing, and us the serfs rising up against our masters . Like i said somewhere else here. Capitalism is about the trickle down process. The rich "tinkle" all over us the working class, and we should thank them and be grateful.

If labor and some union leaders would stop acting like a bunch of spoilt brat bully children and support one another , who knows what could happen? Crazy idea.

I'm just trying to understand the issues better before I could say if it's reasonable or not. I'm an IR tragic and over a number of years have found union coverage disputes intriguing.

While i was looking at one of the union websites recently I found a link to the QF engineers Alliance and questioned why ALAEA was not involved when many of the "principles" at least we're akin to the ALAEA arguments during last years bargaining. And my first thought was that there was an issue boiling under the surface.

But this issue of coverage isn't new. Back in 2010 ALAEA applied to Fair Work to get its rules changed but nothing occurred according to the ALAEA rules (no changes since 2005). I'm not claiming to know all the facts but something seems amiss with this whole issue.

http://www.alaea.asn.au/attachments/article/106/20100527_Notice_All_Members__ALAEA_Rule_Change.pdf

http://www.e-airc.gov.au/107n/rules

I can make it easier for you and your search. Our rules can be interpretted in various ways. The AME unions are trying to grab additional members and they particulalrly think they will become more "powerful" if they have certification rights. The contentious part of the rules is this bit -


The AME unions are reading this as you must do all 3 things to qualify to join the ALAEA. That is, undertake, supervise and certify all at once. The Cat A can only sign for his own work and they say this means they cannot Supervise.

The ALAEA claims that the rules should not be read that way and certainly were not designed as such in 1960 becasue there was no such thing as a LAME who could not sign for others. I won't state our whole case here but essentially we say that the words mean that you must do one of the 3. That is Supervise, certify or be licenced to undertake. The "and" in the rules should be read or considered as an "or".

Similar to Painters and Dockers. You didn't need to be a painter as well as a docker, just one of them. We have LAMEs at Qantas today that do not undertake maintenance, they just Supervise. We have those that do not certify, they work in Maintenance watch. We have those that do not Supervise others, they work in outstations.

All LAMEs who certify, supervise. LAMEs self supervise a task much the same way as an accountant will supervise the books of a business. The matter is a complicated one but at the end of the day, if Engineers want to join a better union, nothing should prevent them doing it.

Cheers Fed Sec. I'm guessing it's a sensitive period now, but as the Hannan article said the unions are taking you to FWA to get orders against ALAEA. Will anything actually come or can I suspect that the ACTU 'nipped that in the bud', not wanting a blue with all the HSU drama and Congress up in less than a fortnight.

The silence from Qantas on this is somewhat deafening also....

I wonder if it could be successfully argued that an "A licence" person would be required to "supervise" the refuelling during a normal transit. Engineers have not been actually doing the switching at the refuel panel for some time now.

The "switching" has not been part of our job for years now. We get a pre-fuel/provisional and give the figure to the refueller. Once we get a final fuel figure, we then give that to the refueller. The refueller then advises us when the fuelling has stopped at the final figure. We then contact the cockpit and see if they're happy with the fuel. Once we get the OK from the cockpit, we tell the refueller and they print off a receipt. We calculate the fuel uplift and give the flight crew a receipt and a copy of the fuel calculations.

We, as engineers do not and are not required to supervise the refuelling during transits. This task belongs to the refueller. Our job is to ensure the correct figure is given to the refueller, and that we have put enough fuel on board. We touch no switches on QANTAS aircraft.

In short aveng, I can't see how it would be possible to argue that a Cat A licence would be required to supervise the refuelling during normal transits. But, I am no legal expert, and it could be interpreted differently.

Interesting discussion on the fuelling. I note that you have naturally characterised it the way we interpret it.

The reference here is about the refuelling not the refueller so your words relate to the task not the person. Simple question that goes back to the manuals. Who supervises the refuelling if there is a defect in the refuelling system?

The way the manufacturer intended, the crew. The AMM is for Maint activity not aircraft operation.

Okay, I know, I am a Dinosaur :rolleyes:, I just can NOT believe how much things have changed since my time as a LAME. :(

NO refueller would EVER touch any switches on an aircraft I was looking after, unless I asked them to.

And this A Licence, well if I tell you what I really think of that I would be banned from PPRuNe. ;)

IF as has just been pointed out the A Licence holder can NOT certify for work done by others then it is basically just an MA, IF they still call them that, however to hold an MA in the Good Olde days you had to be a (full) LAME anyway. :confused:

@ Fedsec

If the refuelling becomes a maintenance task that requires troubleshooting, we as LAME's then take over the switching and transferring. The refueller's task is to control the ON/OFF switch at the fuelling truck. Also, if we have to transfer fuel from tail to centre tanks or centre to wing tanks due to fuel loading for a particular flight, we then control the fuelling panel on the aircraft.

I guess you could draw a parallel to the upcoming MoD. AME/LAME doesn't arrive aircraft. Baggage handler does. If there's a problem, then LAME is called out to rectify it, then baggage handler departs aircraft.

To summarise, you could say we have introduced a middle-man to do a job that was already being done quite efficiently and without misinterpretation of a pending problem.

@ airsupport

I don't know how long you've been out of the game, but this is how it's been for a number of years now. Unfortunately, we have more than willing "colleagues" who will do whatever it takes to make a name for themselves by making things work, then get a spot in the offices behind H271 or Admin1. A recent Federal Court case that QANTAS has lost, is proof in the pudding of the QANTAS of today.

Yes it has been a few years now, actually more than a few, and I was never with Qantas so I am not sure how things work now or in the past there.

It is just so sad to see the way the Industry has gone now, these ridiculous lower standard Licences, not supervising refuelling, and even NOT doing turnrounds and even meeting Aircraft, NEVER happened in my day anywhere in Australia that had LAMEs based there, and even many other parts of the World with Aussie registered Aircraft. :{

Well except for a couple of times back in the early 1970s when I slept in for an 0300 start, luckily the Porters and Fuellers looked after the freighter those mornings. ;)

Sooooooo, you're the one responsible for what we have now. See, that's all it takes. One person to sleep in and the whole industry goes to the packs.;)

That's right, blame the Old Guy. :(

Actually it was well covered up, and ONLY you and I know about it here now, so do NOT tell anyone else. ;)

I too am a LAME @ Qantas. I was indeed refering to the supervising the task not the refueller. I always supervise the refuelling (old school), seen too many f@#k ups over the years. Perhaps referring to the refuel manual wording would clear this up. The refueller is suppose to get clearance from the transit engineer before fuelling commences ie. if there are defects - this could be regarded as some sort of supervision.

As I recall, a lame still certifies that the refueling was carried out as per QF procedures... Covering water drain requirements etc.
I believe the refuel agent is only permitted to use the auto function of the system. If any defect arises or is known with the system, it's engineerings responsibility to take over.

As for CAT A.. Supervise or not, if a cat A certifies a document with a licence number , he assumes full responsibility as would any LAME.
The only ones who are issued a cat A at the moment are LAMES. I know of no AME that has one.. Therefore if it appears on a licence, it's ALAEA TERRITORY.

Is there an AULAEA- Australian unlicensed aircraft engineers association ?

To clarify my earlier posts. The refueller does NOT start fuelling until given a pre-fuel/provisional fuel load, and does NOT disconnect until we give him/her the OK to do so. Yes, the refueller is only allowed to refuel in AUTO mode. No individual tank can be selected for refuelling purposes.

To use the definition of "supervise" would be to stand with the refueller the whole time during fuelling operations. In a normal transit, this would be next to impossible.

For example, a 1 1/2 hour turnaround on a 747 with two engineers doing the transit couldn't be done, particularly on LAX or JNB sectors. What with arriving the aircraft, connecting ground power and external air as required, doing walkaround inspections, engine oils, going upstairs checking cabin and flight logs and doing a cabin check. Should there be a wheel change, how many people are you going to get so you can supervise the refuelling which can take up to an hour if there's only one truck to refuel?

There is a difference between checking the fuel panel at the end of refuelling to ensure the switches are off, fuelling connector covers refitted and fuel panel cover closed, and to supervise the refuelling operation in its entirety. A bit like AME supervision if carried out as it is intended. 1 LAME to 1 AME.