It's always a worry what goes behind the scenes in A/C engineering, That's the heart of the whole aviation business!
I feel for the guys on the spanners handling the planes I fly & under such duress, it ought to be illegal!

I believe there a single answer (when you filter all the BS out of it) to why this important section of aviation has turned into a bit of a mess..................$39............yep that's the selling price of a ticket sometimes & that combined with other ridiculous ultra low fares means somethings gotta give so the pigs at the trough (management) can still get their high end $$$$'s:ugh:The Airlines are their worst own enemies, they continue to undercut each other with the only area that's flexible in the cost of running this dirty business................the employee!!
Good luck to those that find themselves seeking a decent job elsewhere

Wmk2

Virgin Australia has told JHAS that they do not need any heavy maintenance from them.
So JHAS is closing the heavy maintenance team in the hangar, its about 40 person crew right now.
So JHAS is laying off 40 guys.
The layoffs will be taken from the two pernament line nightshift crews and the heavy crew.
So the guys on the pernament line nights see this as JHAS protecting the heavy maintenance guys, by laying off some of the pernament line night guys.
Now this has yet again been another kick in the guts for the boys/girls on nights,as the heavy maintenance day crew works nice and slow, refuses to work nights and now they are being disbanded, so the layoffs will be taken from the line nightshift crews. Nice one JHAS.

Virgin Australia, Jetstar and Tiger all want to pay as close to zero for maintenance but they all demand the Rolls Royce treatment at the Hyundai price. They want AOG support and hangar space at the drop of a hat, and get all bent out of shape when there is no maintenance guys available to fix their broken ,lightening strike riddled aircraft. They deliver their aircraft at midnight, demand an 140hour check to be done, and schedule an 0600 hr departure, then they get all bent out of shape when we ask to defer tasks that cannot be done. Dont forget to add the constant issue of no parts being ordered or even just recently, the completely wrong parts being issued by the customer. And thats JHAS fault according to the customer.

So Virgin Australia, Jetstar and Tiger all want their costs to be at zero or less, so maintenance providers have to reduce and reduce, which is "layoff the workers who earn you the money" way of thinking.

So here at JHAS, there are layoffs every 6 months now. So xmas 2013 is the next one, then July 2014 and by Xmas 2014 there should only be 5 or 6 maintenance guys left to layoff, but I'm sure the car park will be chocka-block during the day shift.

Fair point Romulus but in response I will point out that in Qantas, the 737 heavy maintenance facility that is now closed had world record turn times for C checks. The 747 facility in Avalon has accomplished 30 day D checks. The base maintenance facility in Sydney has accomplished 18 hour A checks. The Brisbane facility has accomplished 30 day C4 checks on the A330's. The 'lean' manufacturing policies have been well implemented in Qantas over the years and are probably about as far as they can go in a 'maintenance' environment not a 'manufacturing' environment.

My point is though, none of it ever good enough. Tulla is closed, Avalon has been foreshadowed to close, hundreds will be sacked soon in Sydney on top of those who have left. The response by the company who set the above challenges after they were met and exceeded has been to offshore.

You have Qantas 'group' aircraft namely the A330's that have 2 entirely separate structured groups doing the maintenance on them independent of each other, why on Earth would you employ contractors and full time staff at Jetstar when across the tarmac you have guys standing by idly being told they're going to lose their job because there's no work available for them. It almost seems like it is being done on purpose. It's an extremely poor utilisation of manpower created by the powers that be up in offices.

Line maintenance will be decimated soon enough with fresh faced 18 year old grads coming out of worlds best practice MTO's - 'A' licence fresh in hand and a sparkly AWU agreement to pay them $20/hour. We all know its the wrong path because as tradesmen we all remember how little we then knew at the end of the apprenticeship tenure.

edit: apologies for interjecting with Qantas in a JHAS thread.

imperial shifter

Both hangars each bay have been cleaned up with allocated spots for stands, etc. Looks better yes, but bigger picture, each bay is going to be "rented" out to the airlines as and when they require it.
So that means more layoffs to come at JHAS and more rented out bays to airlines.
So JHAS will just rent out its bays and parking spots and conduct no maintenance, thus no LAME's and AME's.
So yes Leighton holdings owning a big piece of real estate on prime location is true.

600ftlb - no real arguments from me.

With my limited direct experience of Qantas the biggest issue seemed to come from the system of maintenance. What was received as a pack from QF was massive when compared to everyone else. It may be that some of the additional works were necessary and critical, but the general word from the technically aware guys (LAMEs, engineers etc) was that QF did a whole lot of unnecessary works.

One of the things JHAS often gets criticised for was the early freighter checks and that they were done too slowly. When you bear in mind the contract called for spares from QF that were often "accidentally delayed", or thrust reversers that were supplied out of shape, or the on the spot determination that the fuselage had to be scaffolded it becomes very obvious where the additional costs came from. That is where the vast majority of the inefficiency comes from.

There's a whole lot more but that's history now. As has been pointed out JHAS has had their chance, and barring a miracle that's about all they are going to get. Which is a real shame because that base is a fantastic facility. There should be a future for both it and also the QF Tulla facilities.

Imp Shift - absolutely. Everything in engineering efficiency comes down to preparation and planning. The bloke at the end of the line, whilst possessing good skills and all the rest is hostage to what he (or she as the case may be) has to work with. We never could get QF to lock down a check pack 2 weeks ahead of the aircraft coming in, nor could we get them to commit to spares ahead of schedule etc. The carousel in the store, the distributed consumables, none of that mattered when ultimately compared to the issues that just weren't dealt with.

Key problem JHAS now has is whenever they talk to QF senior people the old arguments of "you stuffed the freighter check" have grown such strong roots in the QF mindset and they simply don't have the rebuttal arguments to hand.

Combined with the open manner in which key clients refer to the "snake oil salesman" the prognosis for the future is particularly dire.

Romulus, I don't disagree, however there has to be co-operation between the parties and a clear understanding how the structure works. It's this lack of understanding that generates the animosity from either side.
As for the JHAS teething problems, these are mirrored in overseas MRO's. The difference there is that they become "inventive" in more ways than one.
Delivery of the aircraft on time supersedes many other considerations and the price paid later in reworked jobs and extra maintenance doesn't seem to play a part in customer decision making on future work.

Maybe JHAS can perform a Lazarus miracle.

Romulus
 

To imply that;
... is a bit disingenuous as it's only the first half of the 'efficiency cycle'.

Once that logic is bedded-down and the efficiencies found, the next management move becomes one of two options:
1. We have too many employees knocking off early so we need fewer workers for the services we so efficiently provide, or
2. We have the capacity to do more work with the employees we have because they're currently under utilised.

Either way, it's NEVER about some egalitarian ideal where pay is preserved for less hours at work. Care to comment? :hmm:

And then the 'game' starts over.... :ugh:

......and that's the crux of the matter isn't it?

The view of the employees is that no matter what lean practices achieve, the management will look for more savings to maximize profit (and bonuses).
It doesn't have to be true of course, but the damage a single manager can do can completely undo any goodwill established over years. There are managers in the industry that should never have been hired. Good managers are hard to come by....but that's another story.

The mindset of both parties has to change before change for the better can take place.

The answer to part 1 was that the redundancy payouts were made significant and were based on salary so they are greater than just basic time with no overtime.

Once you have an efficient set of practices you could of course reduce numbers. Or, more likely, you would go out and win more work on the back of those efficiencies.

Is it an egalitarian ideal? Well. I would argue that's not a valid usage of the word, egalitarian is equality for all. I do not and have not advocated such, there is always a need for differing salaries. Egalitarian principles would state AMEs and LAMEs get paid the same, so I don't think you're using the word you are looking for.

If you mean utopian, as in idealistic, then the answer is, as all real world answers are, complicated. Is it utopian to provide a workplace where people earn a decent living without huge amounts of overtime? What about significant overtime? Moderate overtime etc? It comes down to where you draw the line.

But what is certain is that having employment if your field of expertise is vastly superior to not having such employment. In order to do that a company needs to be profitable. Provided both sides of the equation are treated with respect then it works to the advantage of all. Keeping people validly occupied for their agreed salaried hours isn't a loss of the utopian ideal, it is the realisation of a genuinely effective workplace and therefore a workplace that should survive.

That's why it is complicated, what value do you place on a direct contribution to making your own future employment more secure?

And yes, the game keeps going over and over, that's just the way the world is. Every time you make improvements you can be pretty much certain some competitor somewhere is also making improvements. As soon as you stop they will get the advantage over you and it is their workplace that will survive at the expense of your own.

So yes, you can rest on your laurels if you like, but all that will do is crush them and make you vulnerable. Like it or not, that's the way it is. It is why SIAEC, built with the assistance of Qantas, is now in a position they are a superior value offering to QF engineering. You can yell and scream and hate it all you like, but the simple fact is they deliver what is required with a better value proposition in many instances.

You are obsessed with these mythical bonuses. Yes in some workplaces they exist, usually for people much higher than those who were ever on site at JHAS. There were never any bonuses tied to profitability at JHAS when it was set up.

And yes, management will and SHOULD look for more savings. Genuine savings. Savings that do not hinder future growth and performance. That is their job. And it is a tough one, as you point out it takes only one bad manager to wreck all sorts of relationships built up over time.

If and when both sides realise that their futures are inextricably linked, only then will we get to a point where genuine productivity is achieved.

Having seen what I have seen over many years with regards to Asian MROs, there is no doubt, they offer, in the eyes of an accountant, superior 'value'. In money terms, they do it cheaper. This is not only achieved by lower wage costs but also their advantage of (lack of) ancillary costs of infrastructure (compliant stands, lighting, PPE etc), regulation (approved data and procedures, materials etc), cultural and commercial pressures.

I will argue that there is only one way to rig a cable system properly, to inspect a fuselage crown properly, to seal the floors underneath a galley or lavatory properly, to remove and install a MEC properly, identify and repair corrosion properly and etc etc. Those procedures are stipulated in approved data and when adhered to, offer vary little in deviation. The approach to maintenance, historically, has been a way that an Australian maintenance engineer has learned from day one.

On the other hand, if you watched the approach of an Asian MRO personnel to any of the above examples, I can assure you, there is a vastly different view and execution.

Yes, they just shortcut. I may immediately be branded a racist, a counter that management favour, but if you have ever been involved on the hangar floor with these organisations and cannot see this - you are blind, ignorant, stupid or all.

This approach, coupled with these MROs fine tuning their sales pitch - D check in 28 days at a fixed $$$$ then appears to bean counters an unbeatable financial advantage. Thus we have this dilemma of Oz maintenance facilities unable to compete.

There is no doubt that we can fine tune our processes here. We have tried, lean sigma, committees and all sorts of neo management catch phrases then to be thrown another road block, unusable IT, more OH&S, more regulation, by the same management. Have I even the mentioned the industrial agenda.

I could go on and on, it's complicated. My only wish was that there was a genuine attempt by management to address all these issues and move our industry forward with certainty. All buzz words that are thrown around without substance.

Romulus,

I didn't say bonuses existed at JHAS, rather that they do exist at other companies as you acknowledge. My point on that was that the employees believed that they do.

As to seeking further savings when things are running lean, any company should consider the cost/benefit when doing so, as much as we like to think it is, workplaces are not the same. It's a two-way street to make it work.
Your Qantas/SIAEC is an example where the same things work at one place but not at the other.

Clipped - for all the claims of superior quality of Australian work I have yet to see any SIA planes falling from the skies. Same for QF.

I have flown both SIA and QF on multiple occasions, I have yet to see either of their cabins looking overly tatty, although if you take in some of the older QF aircraft (most likely as a result of 787 delays) it would be said that SIA has an edge. The only issue I have seen on a recurring basis concerns QF A380 toilets. Have never had an issue on the SIA equivalent.

Yes I've heard a lot regarding the supposed inferiority of Asian MRO methodologies, but it doesn't seem that the top end Asian airlines that sell MRO services have a problem with maintenance at all.

Fair enough. I was making the point that at JHAS they don't, or at least didn't in the period when I have the knowledge to talk about directly.

If you accept that then you are accepting that all work can be performed more effectively by SIAEC and that logically it will be offshored. Even more scarily the new term of "nearshoring" which refers to sending stuff to NZ for an immediate 30% cost advantage kicks in.

That is where management comes in. Their job is not to be liked, it is to do what has to be done for the good of the company and by extension the good of the employees (themselves included). If they don't achieve that then more senior people than them will shut a company down. If everyone doesn't want to get on board then they run the risk of other people putting them out of work.

It's not pretty but it is a fact. If you are not continually looking for a more cost effective way of doing things then somebody else will build an advantage and you will suffer accordingly.

I'm going to refrain in a tit for tat. Romulus, you must be happier when you pick up your car when it's serviced and they throw in the 'complimentary' vacuum and car wash.

Below the aircraft furnishings is the matrix of engineered components, wiring and structure that makes up a modern airliner and hidden from pax view. The stuff we care about.

There is no doubt the offerings from SIA, MAS and CX make up a formidable marketing product. The IFE, mood lighting, seats, menu's etc all add up to a great air travel experience, oh, and the girls.

But back to the aircraft, if you only had seen some actions and heard some conversations that I have had to endure and undo over the years, it would make you cringe at what might be happening under your plush seat at 38000'. Hey but what the hell, you left on time and arrived on time, ate well and watched a nice movie. Served by a delightful young lady and all this was cheaper than the Qantas fare. You didn't even come close to falling out of the sky.

From a purely engineering point of view, it's not that 'fair' playing field.

Agreed, but "Clipped" has a point too about quality. My engineering contacts have long complained about quality from other MRO's and not without good reason as photos in the past have shown. This may or may not have improved since and I do try to keep in touch with those at the "pointy end". I still have have slight reservations when flying these days.

Again agreed, however, good relations with my staff are better than poor as I'm sure you know.