Again, the facts need to be considered.....
1. The Victorian Health Department does have another option, and has taken it in contracting LifeFlight since April 2004 to provide helicopter transfers for the Newborn Emergency Transportation Service.
2. LifeFlight is a charity with core objectives to improve PUBLIC safety by helping to ensure Aeromedical, Rescue, and Fire Fighting helicopters are available when they're needed. You will note these are the only contracts we have entered into a competitive process.
3. Any surplus from our contracts goes directly into providing our dedicated "Children’s Helicopter", ....not into individual pockets, or share dividends, or swimming pools, or superannuation funds! The principle behind a not-for-profit is to support the community rather than an individual.
The fundamental purpose of a "for profit" company is to provide returns for their share holders, ...you appear to have taken upon yourself to defend this capitalism - MPT & Talk Limited. Capitalism is a strong and necessary foundation within our economy, and should be encouraged to succeed within the various markets.
LifeFlight believes strongly in the protection of key public services from capitalist positioning. In Australia, you will not see private ambulances or rescue services undertaking public safety roles, there is a reason for this, and we don’t see helicopters as exempt from this principle.
There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding about charities. What legally (and morally) defines a charity is not where we gain our funding, but where and how the profits are expended, ...and I would have thought that investing ours into a dedicated children’s helicopter to transport critically ill and/or injured babies and children from throughout Victoria to the Royal Children’s Hospital (for and on behalf of the Air Ambulance Service) was a pretty good gesture?
4. Talk limited - not sure you have ever wished us well, in fact your comments have been nothing but derogatory which makes it difficult for me to identify any real substance within your opinions. You have taken it upon yourself to publish a list of names claiming them to be all ex employees of LifeFlight. While we do have records of employing the first six (and circumstances surrounding their departure has already been outlined within this stream). The final two are names we are unfamiliar with?? Perhaps you should seek the facts before judging?
I have little respect for a man who hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice his opinion.....
5. MPT - Greg remains on the books as a Casual IFR Captain, in fact he remains upon our roster in this capacity (not that this is anyone’s business other than Greg’s and ours), ...again the facts need to be considered.
6. Id like to think the reason why you don’t see "ex employees weighing in to defend the organisation" is due to the integrity of the individuals we have employed. These are all good people, some of which found our operation did not suit them..... and we have agreed with this.
7. Talk limited.... I hope this attack hasn’t been motivated by our recent rejection of youself as an IFR captain for our organisation?? Its difficult for me not to think this, as the timing is too close. No doubt you'll defend your position by denying this. You are from all accounts a good pilot, ....if you drop the assumption and aggression you'll find people will once again seek to have you work for them...
I am always happy to talk to constructive contributors who are genuine in their desire to advance the industry. I can be contacted most days at work on +61 3 9614 1700.
Again, I thank all readers for taking the time to view the information I've laid out above, and I hope this helps clarify LifeFlight’s role, intentions and our history here in Victoria.
Brett Rankin.
What defines a charity gentlemen, is not where we gain our funding, but where and how the profits are utilised...