Qantas Frequent Flyer - Qantas Engineers say 2 planes unsafe?

Heard on news driving to work this morning.

Qantas Engineers claim that 2 aircraft are unsafe and they are challenging Qantas to deal with the issue.

Has anyone more info on which planes or any other details.

It's part of union action to stop Qantas sending planes overseas for maintenance. These two planes had their last certification O/S:

Engineers bid to ground Qantas aircraft (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/engineers-bid-to-ground-qantas-jets/2007/08/29/1188067148902.html)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/qantas-under-strike-cloud/2007/08/29/1188067148283.html

I hope they check for rags left around APUs.

I assume it refers to this story on news.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,22326886-31037,00.html)

QANTAS engineering staff could ground flights if the Australian Industrial Relations Commissions (IRC) accepts their bid for industrial action.

Licensed aircraft engineers began a legal process today to allow them to ground Qantas aircraft that have been sent offshore for maintenance.

Two Qantas 747 aircraft that were serviced offshore could be grounded until they have been inspected locally.

It's part of union action to stop Qantas sending planes overseas for maintenance.

How sad. Don't use aircraft safety as a negotiation tool.:td:

And they are still trying to blame Singapore maintenance for the wiring stapling problem. I thought that one was shown to have happened in Australia and not in Singapore.

"In our view Qantas would never compromise safety ... unless they can do it cheaper." said ALAEA federal secretary Steve Purvinas.

Why do I get the feeling he is right?

the Aussie engineers can staple them back together

an election that Labor looks like winning and the bully boys come out to play

"In our view Qantas would never compromise safety ... unless they can do it cheaper." said ALAEA federal secretary Steve Purvinas.

Why do I get the feeling he is right?

I dont know - do you have inside information? Have you assessed overseas maintenance crews to determine their quality processes? Are you just getting a feeling because it is good to bag QF?

I dont know - do you have inside information? Have you assessed overseas maintenance crews to determine their quality processes? Are you just getting a feeling because it is good to bag QF?
Or spending too much time listening to the media lately :confused:

QF gets a huge freebie from us in protection from competition, being the "national" carrier.

If QF goes down the path of airlines like UA and fires experienced English-speaking staff and replaces then with the lowest offshore bidder, why should it continue to get the subsidy ?

As to the reason to suggest the possibility that overzealous costcutting will compomise safety: firing your own staff and outsourcing engineering work overseas does often result in a dramatic drop in quality, plenty of examples there.

Would it be better if QF were plunged into real competition, providing competitive prices and a less stingy FF program from an overseas base and owner? Or do we want to keep the airline and its infrastructure in Australia?

The unions really should be careful.

There's only a certain number of times you can tease a snake until it actually bites!

I think neither the Union nor Qantas management will make a compromise if it comes to safety.
And having planes serviced in other facilities is not necessarily a bad thing. There are many good providers out there.
In the end the two parties will come back to the table and negotiate.

Same here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/NATIONAL/QantasLink-pilots-may-strike-over-AWAs/2007/08/27/1188066996567.html

QF gets a huge freebie from us in protection from competition, being the "national" carrier.


The only protection that is immediately obvious to me is the exclusion of SQ on the trans Pacific route.

The only protection that is immediately obvious to me is the exclusion of SQ on the trans Pacific route.

And if SQ wanted rights on the Pacific route all they have to do is find a partner to put in 50% equity, establish Australian ops, headquarters and register their planes with an Australian flag, and they will have access to the same air routes that "V Australia" has just applied for.

Surprisingly they haven't done so.

As to the reason to suggest the possibility that overzealous costcutting will compomise safety: firing your own staff and outsourcing engineering work overseas does often result in a dramatic drop in quality, plenty of examples there.

Umm - have you any examples of a top tier carrier ( the likes of QF, SQ, TG, BA) who have outsourced and then killed peple?

If this is such an important safety issue then why hasnt CASA stepped in, in the same way that CASA stepped in over the AN 767's that had issues? If the Union doesn't have faith in the regulator as well as the airline then they should be heading off to DOTARS and the ICAC not the IRC.

This would have to rate as one of the most poorly executed industrial relations negotiations I have seen and that is coming from someone that has been on the rough end of some heavy handed employer tactics.

The Union would be better served finding a way to show QF that it costs close to the same to have the work performed in Australia than o/s once the cost of fixing defects back home is taken into account. If the Union cannot demonstrate that then there isn't much hope for the members when faced with cheaper off shore labour. Personally if I was a LAME I would trade off some salary and conditions in return for a job and a profit sharing arrangement (big fat bonus) based on improving performance and/ or reducing costs.

... The Union would be better served finding a way to show QF that it costs close to the same to have the work performed in Australia than o/s once the cost of fixing defects back home is taken into account. If the Union cannot demonstrate that then there isn't much hope for the members when faced with cheaper off shore labour. Personally if I was a LAME I would trade off some salary and conditions in return for a job and a profit sharing arrangement (big fat bonus) based on improving performance and/ or reducing costs.That's not going to happen. The officials and there members have had it very good for a long time.

Qantas engineering staff generally have working conditions and pay rates far better and above those of engineering staff in similar industries.

It's a legacy of the old two-airline duopoly trough. Groups within the industry back then lobbied to get their snouts into that trough and ensure their place in the pecking order was high.

As a result, the airline companies made good profits while at the same time their employees enjoyed extremely favorable working conditions and pay rates, far better than those generally received outside the industry.

With the advent of LCC competition the trough is emptying and all in the industry need to adjust. To obtain services such as this for a lot less money is a necessary move for any carrier.

The complaining about the use of O/S labour and the "need" to be protecting Australian jobs is merely a smoke screen; they simply want to retain the inflated work conditions and rates they have enjoyed as a legacy of the heady days when Qantas and Ansett ruled the Oz skys.

And just to keep some perspective in the info reported, note that QF has agreed to keep 747 fleet heavy maintenance in Australia "for the time being". But in order to make it cost effective to do so, they have moved the capability to Avalon instead of continuing to do it at Sydney.

And in the process of moving the capability to AVV, there was a period where aircraft required maintenance work but the capability had not yet been transferred (it takes time to move equipment, parts, people etc), so 2 aircraft were sent to Singapore for maintenance during this transition period. It is these two 747s that the union is complaining about.

I also believe that a small number of QF engineers were sent to Singapore to oversee the work.

It has also been shown that the emergency wiring staple repair was not done in Singapore, but in Australia.

Note this only applies to 744 heavy maintenance. The A330s are being maintained by Lufthansa Technic in various locations (Germany, Phillipines etc). QF has never had this capability in Australia. A380 and 787 are unlikely to have heavy maintenance performed in Australia.

I also believe that a small number of QF engineers were sent to Singapore to oversee the work.


Yup - I know a couple of the guys ;)