Australian Aviation Magazine - New Format

[Critical Reynolds No]

Noticed the latest edition of AA at the local newso today and it has gone through a make over.
The format reminds me of the way the US Science magazines are presented (How it Works etc). Looks like they are after Aero Australia with large photographs etc.

Have not received my copy yet to give a more thorough review.

[Hempy]

ah AA...all you ever wanted to know about Qantas and the RAAF

[Captain Dart]

I just have a quick squiz at the 'Warbirds' section in 'F18s and QANTAS Monthly', then put it back on the newsagent's shelf. I remember AA's shrill, one-sided reporting and editorials of events of 'that year', and I've never bought the magazine since.

[topdrop]

I remember they had a survey about 17 years ago about what the readers wanted changed. My comments were that there was too much on QFA and the RAAF - I did not renew my subscription when nothing changed. Seems it is still the same.

Saw a copy at work the other day and GT is a contributor - even more reason not to buy it.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

I bought my once-a-year copy at the airport the other day. Chief story appeared to be a holiday guide to Apollo Bay. Seriously!

Served it purpose of reminding me why I don't buy it more often...

UTR

[one25six]

That thing is still around? Who buys it?

[tgbgtgb]

The next generation of dreamers

[Aye Ess]

Who remembers the old 'Aust Aviation' mag from the 1980s. It took me a week to plough through all the articles. Now I borrow it from the library and it keeps me entertained for about 27 minutes.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

So, did any of you actually provide any constructive feedback to the publishers recently, or are you just having a winge?
Note, I said C O N S T R U C T I V E!

Funny that it should feature Qantas and the RAAF a lot...it is called AUSTRALIAN Aviation after all... :rolleyes:

For me, the jury's still out on the cover, but I find the new format and content excellent.

Now I borrow it from the library and it keeps me entertained for about 27 minutes.

I would suggest that's probably more a reflection on you than on the magazine...:hmm:

[Gerard Frawley]

Hi all,

I am happy to take criticism of Australian Aviation - if you have seen it. (A holiday guide to Apollo Bay - even though it is one of my favourite places on earth - is definitely not in Australian Aviation.)

If you have posted on this thread PM or email me ([email protected]) your address details and I will send you a copy of the new format magazine, and then I'd welcome your further constructive criticism (either on this thread again or directly).

Regards,

Gerard Frawley
Managing Editor & Publisher
Australian Aviation

[rjtjrt]

Gerard
As you are here, may I give you some feedback?
I bought the new edition.
The original Australian Aviation was a good read, as the articles were in depth.
The last few years, and in the current edition, it is very light weight, if you will excuse me being frank.
I read a few bits, but just lost interest and haven't gone back to it.
It is a pity, because I miss the Australian Aviation of old.
I hope you will take this as it is offered, as an attempt at constructive comment.
John

[RU/16]

I used to be an avid reader during the 90 s even had a subscription.
The magazine became more and more a QF magazine even though there were 2 airlines plying the sky's.
When the Concorde crashed in Paris there was extensive and professional coverage. Not long after QF1 overran in Bangkok a very close call and it received scant coverage.
It was then that I realised like the famous WA aviation reporter, upgrades free travel and lounge passes are more important than professional journalism.
I wrote to the editor and withdrew my subscription. They published my letter but it seems over a decade later nothing has changed.

[Capt Fathom]

The radio stations in Sydney were crucified over the cash-for-comments affair!

How does that fit with in with the man from WA?

[bentleg]

Chief story appeared to be a holiday guide to Apollo Bay


The Apollo Bay story was in Australian Flying

(Jan-Feb 2013 edition - it has a PC12NG on the cover)

[Dash 42]

I always enjoyed Jim Thorn's articles, I believe his regular used to be called "Reece" when he was the managing editor. Gerard, still love the magazine and have been reading it for over 20 years.

As for the new format, your not likely to get useful, balanced feedback from Pprune, however I think it looks great! :ok:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

The Apollo Bay story was in Australian Flying

Doh - my bad!

UTR

[Gerard Frawley]

@rjtjrt/John - fair enough. The idea for Jan/Feb issue is to have some lighter stories given it is on sale during the summer break (and there were one or two meatier stories that fell through for various reasons). But if we haven't kept your interest with it, I'm sorry about that, but thanks for the feedback. But do let me know what in-depth articles style of articles you would like to see? My email is in my earlier post.

@RU/16 - For my own benefit I have looked back through a few random issues from the 1990s (when I would say there was very little QF content). AA has changed - less historical articles, less GA, no Carlo Kopp. On the flipside we are more focused on contemporary Australian aviation issues and events - I guess hence others' criticisms of too much Qantas and RAAF coverage. I think that's an exaggeration, but noted. Our QF1 coverage - C'mon, that was in 1999! Judge us on our QF32 coverage instead. But this: "It was then that I realised like the famous WA aviation reporter, upgrades free travel and lounge passes are more important than professional journalism." - if we are being frank, that's BS.

@Aye Ess - the "old" AA of the 1980s was a quarterly and then a bi-monthly. Some were around 150 pages, most about 116. Jan/Feb 13 AA is 116 pages, and our standard size going forward will be 100.

@Capt Fathom - I don't mind if you say "I don't like AA because I don't like GT". That's legitimate. But smearing us with baseless "cash for comment" innuendo while hiding behind a pseudonym is gutless. You're wrong too.

@Dash 42 - thanks for the kudos.

I am really happy to have a conversation, whether on Pprune, or via Facebook, Twitter the AA website, email or face-to-face (we'll be at Avalon, come by) about what people do and don't like about AA. I really appreciate the kudos, and I will also take onboard and consider criticism, but I won't take the crap.

I've been at Australian Aviation more than 20 years now, and I have never been more engaged in and passionate about what we are doing than I am now. I hope that shows in the product.

Gerard Frawley

[gerry111]

Gerard,

I've been buying 'Australian Aviation' since the Jan/Feb 1988 edition. That was the one with ARDU Mirage A3-2 flying inverted at low level on the cover, as displayed within the current magazine. I've just had a quick look at that copy from 25 years ago. Jim Thorn's editorial was known as RECCE. One thing I always admired was that he quite often had very strong views. And he wrote many articles himself. That would be difficult to do today. I'd guess that anyone writing an article critical of say, A.J. would never be granted an interview again with anyone at QF. I must say that some articles about QF written by G.T. over the last couple of years could only be described as very soft. But I still maintain a subscription to 'AA' and find the magazine a good informative read. And as an ex RAAFie, I do enjoy the RAAF articles. One contributor I really miss from those days is Carlo Kopp who wrote a lot of very well researched defence material.

G.

[CPT733]

Guess i must be the 'the next generation of dreamers' .... I like it, its a decent read. Would be good if their was a few pages of more in-depth world airline news as well but i guess it defeats the purpose of its title


Anyhow thats my few cents

[SOPS]

I had a subscription for over 15 years, but after the very one sided reporting over events in that year, I cancelled it and have refused to by a copy ever sense.

[T28D]

Yup 15 years plus current is cr*p it can wither on the news stands no more of my money.

[RU/16]

So Mr Frawley, you back up your claim of bias with your coverage of the QF32 incident as compared to lack of caverage of the QF1 incident. Poor....since one was the manufacturers fault and quite well handled, the other a very lucky escape from what could have been a disaster mainly attributed to the crew.
Lastly can you out your hand on your heart and say that you haven't ever received an upgrade , invitation to the lounge or freebie from the flying roo?

[P51D]

Well done Gerald, nothing wrong with the change and your writers including That man from the West - the great GT!!! And I suppose RU/16 you'd knock back all the things you disgustingly asked Gerald if he'd accepted would you - yeah right!!!!

[bentleg]

can you out your hand on your heart and say that you haven't ever received an upgrade , invitation to the lounge or freebie from the flying roo?


I know where you are coming from but it is not a fair question.

You could ask the same question of each one of us and most of us would probably answer yes.

[Cap'n Bunghole]

Removing Carlo Kopp was the best thing the magazine has EVER done.
I love the new format and congratulate the team on an excellent publication.

Qantas and the RAAF make up a significant portion of aviation activities in this country so why are people surprised that they feature so heavily in the magazine?

The current issue has major articles on QF, RAAF, DJ, JQ, and GA - seems like a fair spread to me. I wonder if people reflect on the glory days (of the magazine) in the 80s and 90s because they were their own glory days. Now that you have all grown up, you know lots more about the subjects that the magazine is writing on and therefore find them less interesting?

GF has graciously opened the floor to criticism (not mindless bitching) but as yet nobody has stepped up and suggested any real improvements. Sure, some issues won't interest you as much as others but surely that means that the content is varied?

Bunkering down now - but let's at least keep the discussion balanced!

[Grogmonster]

Well I have read it and its OK in my books but not attention grabbing. I did like the register update section that has now disappeared.

Groggy

[john_tullamarine]

but after the very one sided reporting over events in that year

Several posts refer to similar matters.

Not expressing a personal view in my post .. however, the most cursory review of the major players in the dispute of that period should suggest the pressure which was applied to a number of third parties ...

[BPA]

It would be nice if they did some articles on the smaller regionals/ larger GA (Brindabella, Air North, GAM, Network etc).They started this a few years back then stopped and some of these companies have gone through some big changes. The could also do articles on specialist GA companies such as Aerorescue, Coastwatch and Survey companies. And when doing this articles cover all parts of these companies including pilots, engineers, backenders (for aerorescue etc).

Some articles/air tests on on new aircraft such as the D228NG, Twin otter and other new turboprops/ Biz jets would be could.

The title is Australan Aviation, so it would be nice if all Aviation in Australia was covered and not just the Majors or the RAAF.

[RenegadeMan]

What a hard bunch of knockers many on here are! There are just so many grumpy browned off folk hanging around on PPRuNe with that classic Ozzie take-down attitude to anyone putting their hand up to say how proud they are of what they've done. Honestly guys and girls, we all need to lighten up and remember to smile! :)

I have been an AA reader for many decades and I think we all should be a little more grateful that we even have an aviation business publication of such quality in this small market. Do any of you have any idea how hard it is to make it in magazine publishing these days? (Standing by to be bullet ridden....) The market here is hardly enormous and I can imagine just how challenging the balance is between journalism and maintaining good relationships with major sponsors and supporters (and until you've been in business and had to walk those fine lines you'll never understand the wisdom of Solomon required sometimes).

Gerard, I love the new format and congratulations; clearly a lot of work has gone into this. I think BPA's suggestion
could also do articles on specialist GA companies such as Aerorescue, Coastwatch and Survey companies
is valid too. You have a great article in the Jan/Feb issue on the challenge of GA being such an ill defined term and how tough it is for so many operators and sections of GA to continue on. Well if AA needs anything it is to have a major section on GA that can highlight successful operators and key community service providers. A story in each issue on a well run operation that's delivering fundamental services and investing for the future would be a great. It will help us all see the positive and provide great material to highlight to our pollies.

That the public has so little understanding of why airports like Bankstown are so very important is because way too many of us spend more time complaining and bitching than doing anything to help fix it. AA has a tremendous role to play but we all need to support it too.

C'mon guys and girls, AA may spend a lot of time focussed on QF and the RAAF, but like Cap'n Bunghole pointed out, if they didn't they'd be ignoring a major part of our industry. But they also put a lot of effort into other areas too and what we all need here is unity, not never ending jibes about previously perceived bias or lack of coverage. The alternative is we don't have an aviation business publication like this and that would be a travesty. so let's support it.

Ren

[one25six]

Gerard stands up for his magazine, as he should. But it is a bit rich pretending GT is not an apologist for QF and Joyce! Cmon! Gerard?

[Critical Reynolds No]

I loved on the Airbands (Bob Bell?). Maybe a return of something similar?

[Gerard Frawley]

@RU/16 - I was with Australian Aviation in 1999, and I can tell you our relations with Qantas PR at the time were at rock bottom. Our coverage of QF1 had nothing to do with 'bias' or being influenced by the non-existent Qantas upgrades and 'freebies'. Instead the decision on QF1 coverage was to wait for the BASI report to come out and report on that, in fairness to the crew and the airline. I raise QF32 to say we would likely cover a big accident/incident differently today, and to ask that you judge Australian Aviation on what we do today, and not what we did in 1999 (or 1989 for that matter).

Re upgrades and freebies - You're asking a guy who last time he interviewed Alan Joyce flew up to Sydney on a paid ticket on Virgin whether he receives free airline travel/upgrades/lounge access?

@Grogmonster - thanks, a fair appraisal is all I ask for if you have seen AA recently. The Register Update commentary is still in the mag, but the listing itself is online.

@BPA - noted. We do have a piece on Skytrans coming soon, and we do want to do more on regional and larger GA operators. Incidentally we have approached both Airnorth and Brindabella in recent months but they'd prefer not to be profiled at the moment.

@P51D, @Cap'n Bunghole, @RenegadeMan - I sincerely appreciate the feedback and support. I do think we have an important role in advocating for the industry, and highlighting its success stories.

@one25six - I think it's legitimate that GT's 30 plus years of covering the industry can inform his writing, particularly in his Contrails column. Further, his is not the only voice in AA. But as I've said previously, if you don't like his writing that is a legitimate view. I'm not here to convert anyone, just to ask for a fair hearing.

@Critical Reynolds No - I haven't worked out how to bring a bit more humour into AA, but I agree, On the Airbands is missed.

In general, thanks for the feedback all, I do take onboard the good and the bad.

Gerard Frawley

[megle2]

Profiling a GA company in the AA, great idea but with CASA's present attitude to all, the report would be filed for use in the next audit. The slightest comment / statement would be mirrored against the AOC for error or contradiction and multiple NCN's raised and goodness knows what accusations made. A wise move by AN and BA.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Great to see you answering for the mag Gerard (or is it "Gerald"? :}).

May the new design and new online innovations take AA from strength to strength. :ok:

[Bonniciwah]

God forbid anyone say anything positive on this forum, so I'll put my two cents worth in.

The AA redesign looks great, making it a much more pleasant read. It was starting to look a little like a bland trade mag.
I hadn't purchased recent issues because it all seemed same/same but I enjoyed this month cover to cover. Hope they keep it up.

I'd like to see more GA/Private news and features beyond the usual doom and gloom stuff.

Glad to see that despite struggling media and aviation industries there are some good locally produced aviation publications. Some editions will be better than others, but aviation is a broad church and it's difficult to appeal to everyone's interest within a limited set of pages.

[Trent 972]

I have read AA from its inception (Quarterly) and been a subscriber for the vast majority of that.
(I miss Bob Bell's 'airbands').
I wonder how many of the 14K+ monthly readership are pilots.
As one of those, the one thing I detest is GT's articles fawning over QF industrial policies.
Over the last couple of years, QF has been running a campaign of real wage reduction for all but its upper management employees, and it sticks in my throat that I'm paying money for a mag that has GT running with the QF company line. I know what QF is doing, but I don't need GT to rub it in!
Until I hear of a change, I will still look forward to the mag but continue to flick past 'Contrails'.

[Gerard Frawley]

@Dr Oakenfold - The app download problem has been fixed, but let me know if you're still having issues?

[The Green Goblin]

+5

GT leaves me breathless at how naive he is, or how much he is a mouthpiece for QF. I'd love to know what he receives in return.

Get rid of him and I'll buy the mag again. I'm assuming most professional aviators feel the same.

[donderwolkje]

Capt Dart and others, I cannot but agree, the one sided, bias b......t that AA produced in that year marked it as a compete rag. It remain so....
Regards.

'You must have a plan'