Whilst last on first off is traditional and easy to work out it does have some downside.

Firstly the younger guys get to the top of the list no matter how good at the job they are. :(

Then you get the relative newcomers, a good number of who will be ex Ansett guys getting it up the rear again. :sad:

Seniority through time served should count for something though not sure what weighting it should attract. Young guys would say none, old timers would say lots.

Hence the vote in favour of last on first off.

Nearly every Engineer thinks they are better than the other bloke (or occassional Lady).

EBA doesn't talk about interviews. It does talk about years of service also experience. Talks about retaining mix of age and also skills.

No but they may interview for vacancies in other ports.

They have like half a dozen or so from Sydney. Still open around other parts of country. We meet them on 20th to find out.

No. We think a component should be based on years as LAME and other part as years with company.

We will talk about all of the above at meetings. Keep the questions coming.

However it is worked out it needs to be better than the farcical system used for 380 training.
Being assessed by a peer who is applying for the same position as yourself was never going to be a fair system.

Surely the people who were made redundant from heavy and have come back would be worried, as their "years of service and experience" etc is not going to reflect their previous employment.

Redundancy twice in 6 years. What a great company.

mahatmacoat
I'm sorry. Did I speak off script? Didn't follow the flock? Remember, no one is above or beyond question or challenge.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Your above post is THE definition of BS!

rtv
Angle of Attack
The obvious just isn't obvious to some.

rtv, if you hadn't already picked up from many previous posts, I'm a LAME at S.I.T. Pop round next Monday morning when I'm on shift, and ask for QF94. I'll know who you're asking for, then we can meet and have that chat you so dearly want. Don't ask others to do your dirty work for you.

AoA, the only thing clear is that you are clueless as to your surrounds. Do you read posts, or just follow rants?

I'm glad I don't align myself with buffoons like yourselves above. It's the likes of you guys that bring companies down. No wonder QANTAS has a field day with us and wins every fight against us in the end.

Qf94 ......I'm surprised that you continue to champion your cause but as you say "everyone is entitled to their opinion".
Lets just agree to to disagree..... I can see your well written rebuttles /justification and I disagee whole heartedly, but thats life.
Either way I'm willing to share a beer with you at centrelink in the new year.

Although since your the one doing all the overtime it'll have to be your shout!!!!!!!!!! :-P ......lol

Its going to be a tough new year for all of us who ever goes they will still be 204 less of us, looking forward to the alaea meetings lets all get on the same page

+1!!!!!!!!

How about they give 204 employees the week off to attend meetings and see if the place can run without them ?

My input,

I think all licenses should be treated as equal wether its a380 or 767. Manager needed people for a course so he asked his 2 mates who do you think. 1 puts himself on and then chooses another mate. Next course the other mates on it. Thats the selection used for courses that may now give me the bullet because I'm out there doing their job whilst their in there putting themselves on courses. Isn't there a 330 course running now with 3 people on it. Give me a break.
Its not like there has been endless training either and I'm sure there are guys with credits out there not being used, so they can't say they haven't got enough of each type.
Last in first off removes any hint of discrimination at the hands of poor managers and not being in the niche' and over the years, and there's been a lot.

FED SEC... our manager GH has put out a recent email in regards to bullying and intimidation. I hope he shows the same leniency afforded PC. Since he (manager of business improvement LMCE) was the first person/manager charged by FWA for bullying/Intimidtion.

You can't possibly think that treating a 767 licence, soon to be obsolete is the same as a full B1.1 guy with a A380?

The only people who will want "last in first off" are the old timers, hoping they will not be low on the list. I bet the attitude changes when the 200+ go and its time for round 2.

You can't possibly think that treating a 767 licence, soon to be obsolete is the same as a full B1.1 guy with a A380?

Probably more valuable actually. There are twice as many 767's than a380's in the fleet aren't there.

Duderanch, either you only have a 767 or you have no idea about how to run a business. The company will NOT KEEP A 767 only guy and CR an A380 or A330 only guy. That is why they are making you REDUNDANT......the aircraft is being made REDUNDANT.

Let the knifing and internal bickering begin,
Deadset worst part of working for Qantas is the almost clockwork like way this starts every time we need to stick together.

That is your clause guys. Service with the company is a new part of the clause only recently added. I suppose now you can all argue over what it means. I think you will all learn very quickly how easy it is to interperet our language in ways to suit your situation.

Quote:
Fedsec there is a rumour going around that you guys have pushed the company hard for "last on first off"

Is this true?


Yes it is. Prefered by members as opposed to interviews. Required by EBA. Company want it to compose 1% of your total score. ALAEA want it to be 99%. Not settled yet but it will definately make up part of the decision but not all.

Company want other things that we find highly offensive such as an OHS Rep getting as many points for holding that position as a person would get for holding a 767 licence.[QUOTE]


Well that makes it as clear as mud, which is probably to each individual's advantage. You have to say, if a score system is adopted to be fair, an even weight needs to be given to "last on first off". I think 99% one way or the other is a bit crook.

I agree. Sorry to be confusing. Remember we are dealing with idiots in management. We have to request 99% so we are in a position to negotiate any value at all for your years of service.

To put it a different way. To be somewhat realistic and comply with the EA I reckon half your score should be based on years as LAME/service with company and the other half based on licences you hold. In an Engineers world, I would pick up the phone to the manager Harris and say - Hey mate this is what I reckon is fair. He would most likely agree.

In the Qantas world it is more like this. We have meetings, they turn up with 10 Lawyers and argue that LOFO is discrimination against younger people. We say wtf did you agree to it in the EA then. They get offended that someone swore and remind us that their are ladies present. Then one of the managers will swear. They show some Ppt presentations about the word "regard" trying to pretend that the entire clause is meaningless because regard is not the same as obligate. We say, we will see you in FWA. They say hold on, we are willing to negotiate and put a starting bid of 1% value to LOFO. Its like a circus.

I know why the company can't make any profit.

55.7.1 says it all.

The "needs of business" will have precedence over the others.

Always does, always will.....

I just hope it's fairer than previous selection processes.