and when the 1 avionics LAME per crew are CR'ed out, that will leave 0 avionic licences to cove 3 or more aircraft. There are not enough B2 licences to cover each super crew as it is and there is no training in the future. It just won't work! :ugh:

This is when licence holders HAVE to make sure they are checking each and every job for which they are signing.
The blame stops with him/her and there will be no company support, even though the company will push to get the documents signed to met schedules.

No chair......just pressure.

These are the uncontrolled situations and responsibility for work carried out are borne by the B2 signatory.

Problem with guys coming up from the south none will be Snr LAME when they arrive in BNE. I'm sure most will struggle with this concept and may have to bring their tools in from home and learn how to use them again .

As far as I am aware the chap that returned to MEL struggled with the family side of things as both his children were not prepared to move to Brisbane as they are in last years of high school.

Hopefully most guys can get past the uncertainty of moving BNE .... We all did it many years ago and haven't looked back.

There is a massive network of people willing to help all those that do move up.

From what I am hearing, some LAMEs will make anything work. The other day we received a report that LAME started shift, was asked to certify for all the AMEs on the previous shift because they didn't have any 330 licences. He did. Work unsighted and carried out while he was not there. Highly illegal and costing him his own job. He earnt some nice overtime though. Should be able to buy his kid a new ipod touch for crissy with it.

Steve,

I hope that you have enough to go on to at least counsel those B2 LAME's doing this sort of thing.
The request and compliance contravenes all aspects of safety and underpins "schedule before safety".

I am not telling you what to do, but I think that this kind of thing needs a firm response from the ALAEA.

As disturbing is the fact that people were willing to carry out maintenance knowing there was no certifier on shift, wake up guys! This needs to be reported to casa if true fedsec.

This is the problem with us LAMES. Sh%t all over our brothers. It will get to a point where we some people obviously will not get the hint so we need, as sad as I think it is to do so, report these people directly to CASA. they have been warned.

Seems crazy that a LAME would sign for that and an AME would carry out the work without a LAME around in the first place. Be interesting to hear how much pressure the AME was put under to carry out the work without an appropriate LAME there and how much pressure the LAME was under to sign it.

Is this still the definition of "Supervision of Maintenance" ? or has it changed ?

A person (the supervisor) is supervising the carrying out of maintenance
done by another person if the supervisor:
• is physically present at the place that the maintenance is being carried out;
and
• is observing the maintenance being carried out to the extent necessary to
enable the supervisor to form an opinion as to whether the maintenance is
being carried out properly; and
• is available to give advice to, and answer questions about the maintenance
from, the person carrying it out.

Middleman, are you serious? AME's have been carrying out work unsupervised for years. CASA's definition seems to be grey when it suits them. I would trust most QF AME's long before most LAMEs from asia.

That said empire4, this is the perfect opportunity for the company to wheel out its own policies, together with the regulations of CASA, sit the LAME down and read him/her the riot act for not following policies, procedures and CASA regulations within the confines of LAME responsibilites.

There is no legal comeback from either the LAME, AME or any union. This won't earn the LAME or AME a redundancy, but termination of employment coupled with some hefty fines against the LAME.

If the said LAME wasn't on shift, he'she should have the intestinal fortitude to say NO! If the work hasn't been supervised whilst being carried out, or can't be inspected after the work has been completed (due to being paneled up, or requires installation inspections along the way) then say NO! It's the LAME who owns the licence, not QANTAS or any other company.

LAME's, exercise your rights as one. If you don't get made redundant now, don't fear, we will all get a turn. I'd rather be made redundant than sacked for not complying with my responsibilites as a LAME.

QF94, I totally agree with you. I was merely trying to point out what actually happens. To think a LAME would sign off work for someone on another shift is totally illegal and something that needs to stop. It should never happen.

Very true but Lets get real its been going on for years there is always someone who will sign anything to try and impress management and climb the ladder .

We know it's true, so be it on these clowns heads when they are in the firing line for acting illegally and with contempt. I wonder if management would back their star LAME at an inquest. A one word answer, NO!!!

Correct.

As I said ........ no chair.!!

unsupervised yes but still within the realm of "Supervision of Maintenance".

An AME agreeing to doing work without a LAME on type even being there is a whole different thing.

I disagree with you on BOTH counts.

If the LAME is snuggled up in bed when the task occurs then there is NO WAY that this would meet any definition of "supervision".

On the other hand, if "Qantas" says to an AME, "Go and change that component, in accordance with the AMM" I cannot see how it is an issue for the AME.

They remove the component they are told to, inspect the area as required and reinstall the new component and then sign as an AME that they have done the work as required and in accordance with the "approved data".

What happens after that is NOT the AMEs problem.

I am not aware that there is a requirement on an AME to get a LAME to supervise him, as I understand it is the LAMEs responsibility to ensure that they do the supervising.

ST

I have seen what happens to these clowns they get Promoted to a better position and anyone who points out what they were up to gets screwed .

Yes JG. These clowns become part of MOC, or end up in the news for screwing a LAME in BNE for asking for his entitlements when on an outstation posting in Japan.

These clowns that bend over for the company to get a promotion, end up becoming one of the twits that enforce the order.

It takes a certain breed to "climb" up the slippery ladder. The higher you go, the more you have to lube up for your position.

Spanner Twister,

There is a couple of issues here.

It's true that the LAME does not have to be standing over the AME's shoulder, but someone has to find a suitably endorsed LAME to certify anything an AME has done, and this could be the AME, supervisor, another LAME,etc.

The task itself and document procedures dictate who should be doing what and when if carried out IAW the approved data. The AME does not have to be there after completing the task. The crew leader or supervisor then delegates or carries out the certification process.
If the task is multi-stage, then it gets more complex.

Assuming that it is not the end of shift, it would be prudent for the AME to be around if required in the event of a discrepancy.

Getting back on track!

Now that the deadline for EOI has passed, has anyone heard/seen the numbers of people that want to accept VR? I is my thoughts that they will have to "tap" people to go.
Will there be any news before xmas, or will they drag this out for as long as they can! I am yet to hear how the company will select people for CR, the process in the EBA is as clear as mud.

No numbers yet. They are meeting with all the people who put an EOI in, to gather some more info on their preferences etc. Still some more people to see as there was a small flurry of EOI's at the end.

It is still possible to put an EOI in now after the closing date. See them up at H271/3, even if its just for a couple of questions.

The EOI for other ports is continuing at this stage. So firm numbers in these ports not known yet.

ALAEA to meet again on friday.

No CR before xmas.

operational requirements, then service.

A lot of guys up in 380 land are hitting the overtime hard. They must feel pretty safe?

Maybe the back up income they have from E BAY makes them feel more secure.

What the heck is operational requirement really ? It could be they need short people to work in the cargo or tall people to open the cowls ... It's bulls#%t if they say airbus or boeing licences when you only get trained if your a yes guy , yes I will sign the aircraft out ( even with a defect) , yes I will sign for work I have not even seen , yes I will do projects in my own time , yes I will work around workcover rules , yes I will do the job at any cost .. So if your the type of person that does the right thing you don't get trained and get retrenched.... Ok that felt better

Why is it that they do this?

Is it insurance or positioning to not get the tap on the shoulder?

No matter which way you look at it, it is unconscionable.

Naming and shaming?

I think they should be denied ALAEA membership and support FOREVER!!!

AMEs in BNE heavy why is that interesting,They did not get the EOI numbers so now they advertise outside simple.

Qantas Engineering redundances - Advice required!!!
 

12 month fixed term contract?? I wonder why they don't use ALG or Forstaff for that?? They have always said the work drops off on 2013 and picks back up more than it is at now in 2014.

Why not Forstaff once Avalon is gone so is Forstaff they will become there alias Chandler Mcleod Aviation CMA,s Graeme Sharman of Brisbane must have chocked on his corn flakes when he seen these adverts he has spent months sitting in his office waiting saying how well its all going all for nothing.

As for ALG they readvertised just before Qantas posted Advertisements so they are out of touch as well as disorganised .
As for Qantas who knows what will happen .
As for Avalon don't be shocked if there is more bad news This week maybe today .

Domo you are the only person who hasn't taken a shot at people doing overtime.
Aeromedic you need to pull your head in.

You don't know what anyone's financial circumstances are, and if you think you might be getting the boot then any extra money is going to help.

There are a lot of young LAMEs in 380 as well as a few young 330 tickets as well, and if the older but LAMEs have their way it will be last on first off, so when the old farts are saying this to you everyday you start to doubt your position.

If it is last in first off, then 20 380 tickets could be out the door not to mention all the initial 330s as well. You would hope the company isn't that stupid but history says otherwise.

And the another thing about the O/T is the short memories that people have, did you forget when the LAMEs smashed the O/T in 2000\2001 when the AMEs were fighting for an EBA and had bans in place.
Then the AMEs smashed it when the LAMEs were fighting in 2008.

This time everyone is in the same boat, no-one knows what is around their corner so if someone decides to earn an extra dollar so be it.
If these people worked O/T normally and they are doing it now nothing has changed.
If it is someone who doesn't normally do it and they are smashing it now, good on them too. Working it or not is not going to change the outcome.

Just remember not everyone is a Level 10 pre 96 with extra payments for higher duties.

Bootstrap,

You're right, I don't know what other people's financial circumstances are, but this is a matter of principle.

People working overtime helps the Qantas managers manpower model that requires fewer engineers. Thus, it follows that you or your mates prove that the manpower model is correct.

After all the redundancies have been completed, those that are left will have to continue to work OT or else. In a couple of years, it's realized that the model is wrong, so the managers rehire or contract the work out. Rehiring is limited because most of those made redundant have found something else and are reluctant to come back to a bad situation. This means that outsourcing is the best option and those left holding the fort get the chop as well. There is no separation between AME's and LAME's as you are ALL in the same boat.

As I said on an earlier post, I have seen this happen twice before and it won't be any different this time.

As for 330 and 380 ticket holders, there is no place to hide when outsourcing occurs and it will. Qantas just have to say "The needs of business require it".

The bottom line is that working overtime at a time like this undermines the employment of others.
If you say that the money will help boost the family coffers to last a bit longer after retrenchment, then think about those that have lost their jobs when they might otherwise have kept it.

I'm certainly not that excited about my prospects of a future in Qantas and I too maybe heading out the door quicker than some but if you're in the position where you need a couple of O/T shifts to make ends meet then you need to reevaluate your financial commitments you morons. Grow a backbone and some f..ing morals and stand as one with the middle finger proudly raised at management.

There's a key issue. Longer service guys tend to make the shorter termers feel insecure and then turn around and hammer the short guys when they work the OT.

It's very easy to say it's principle when you know you're the last one out the door and thus have not only a job but also the most security. If everyone was in the same boat with respect to redundancy then you have a better chance of united action. As it is having different classes of employees due to nothing more than time served is a divisive mechanism that the unscrupulous will seek to manipulate.

With all due respect, the company isn't considering reducing the working hours by 3 hours/week. This is simply not in the equation. It is purely a head numbers game. They want 204 engineers gone from SYD. Not 204 engineers on 35 hours/week.

Just exactly doing how much overtime is considered greedy? 4 hours at S.I.T? 12 hours SDT/Base? Remember, these are the minimum hours for each section, and generally the only hours you get if you can get them. Is doing a couple of hour O/T shifts considered as greedy as one 12 hour O/T shift?

For all the ones riding high on their moral horses, it really is none of your concern. QANTAS employees have always been fractured between sections, and the company has more often than not used this to their adavantage.

How many of you would have stood as one if the lockout took place October 2011, and you were denied entry into work, therefore denying you a paypacket? I bet there would have been a queue knocking on the door to sign any contract to get back into work on much reduced conditions.

Forget 2000/01 and 2008. Those days are dead and buried, and looking back, very shallow victories for LAME's/AME's. October 2011 was the tipping point for industrial relations at QANTAS. There is no going back.

I consider myself possibly one of the ones first out the door. Anyone who doesn't, needs a wake up call. So, any extra money coming in is more than welcome.

Fedsec, has the company had discussions with you yet? When they do, it will be on THEIR terms. They're not interested in 35 hour weeks. They want a cull of head numbers. Once this cull is done, there will be another one right behind it.

As they usher you out the door and say "Thanks for your time". Who would feel better? You or them?

How so? Heaps of O/T makes for a good manpower model? Then getting rid of people creating more O/T? The system at QANTAS at the moment is reducing the number of aircraft, leaving exposed a greater number of engineers not needed. Sure there's some O/T around, but for every 747 and 767 that leaves, there'll be more redundant engineers.

Going postal.....you said it better and more eloquently than most. 100% spot on. The attitude of "f#ck you Jack...I'm Alright" is a cancer in our ranks and a major reason why we are where we are.

The air of moral superiority on this thread is fairly hard to stomach.
200 odd guys are going out the gate regardless of how much or little overtime anyone works. Namecalling of those that choose to put a few extra dollars into the bank account is pretty childish, and disappointing to hear from our representatives.

QF94 and Dunnocks, nice work.

If it is frowned upon by some to do this OT, where do those same people stand on higher duties and overseas postings.
Normally when an OT ban is on, the other extra-curricular activities also get reigned in. Or is that the elephant in the room?

A lot of the guys are scared, worried for the future, concerned that their age will count against them in the shrinking job market. I know a couple of 767 only LAME's that I reckon have aged noticeably in the last couple of weeks. I can't criticize these kinds of people if they want to make a bit of hay, against the gloomy future...
Being told to grow a spine (by a kid) or called a greedy pr1ck by the guy whose wages I pay makes me about as angry as I can get. I'm going to give this place a miss for a while. It's bad for my health.