A Thought!
I believe CHC and CareFlight are both outstanding, capable and safe
providers. I believe sandblaster has completely lost it and someone needs
to balance his opinion!! And seeing a how he is gaggin for it....
Let me say a wee bit of research from Ambulance Website may have helped here
sand sprayer. Sandy said
"it is not about money. This is about service provision."
Ok lets forget the $70million dollar difference for the moment.. We can
overlook that. Lets look at service provision.
* How many hours have each helicopter base in the greater Sydney area been
without helicopter services since the commencement of the current contract.
Lovely false argument. Why should anyone compare the availability of a 50%
(or less) funded operation to the fully funded future one? How does that
help anyone understand? Why are you so fixated on this irrelevant issue?
* How long did it take the NGO's to provide the services that they were
contracted to?
Um let me think. Try 10 to 15 years BEFORE they were contracted they were
providing a service! Anyone around the world got an example of a commercial
provider doing same?
So what is your point?
* How many times have missions been knocked back because of weather
constraints?
Lets hear the facts rhetorical one. Can CHC operate to better weather
limits than the NGOs?
You then replied that "This tender has been decided on the bases that
Service capability is not at a level that is required for a modern fleet.
The CEO Ambulance and I believe the Health minister have said that we need
biger faster helicopter with longer range and better weather capabilities."
Lets state this very clearly for sandy, the CEO and the Minister. ALL
BIDDERS HAD TO BID ON SAME SOLUTION. So the answer the CEO and Minister
provides answers the question about why a tender was run, not why CHC were
successful.
* How many times have each helicopter been without winch capabilities
Ah, fully funded apples Vs partially funded oranges again. Fixation or
obsession?
* How many times have missions been compromised because of payload issues?
Once upon a time there was a B412 in the partially funded system that became
impossible to run on funding levels. Ambulance did not see any capacity
issues and did not provide funding commensurate with payload. B412 was
replaced by BK117. The 0.12% (fat patients over 140kg) had to wait for the
Newcastle machine, and now Wollongong 412.
Maybe ambulance valued the superior reliability of the 117 over the capacity
and cost of the 412 given they had one not far away in Newcastle and now
Wollongong.
Bit harsh to use the lack of 412 as a reason to get rid of the NGOs when
they had to get rid of one because of the ambulance funding isn't it?
* What were the current tender bids?
No idea. You?
And what did each NGO offer?
Well, a compliant bid would be required to get you to the table. Based on
ambulance website, that would be 4 X 139 and 1 X 145. it would be safe to
assume any NGO in the game would have a bid that ticked the very same boxes
that the commercials had to wouldn't it?
And when would the greater capability be available to the community.
I think you need to qualify "capability" and what you want to know in this
garbled multi point question.
According to the website there is an interim solution (what now to provide
until 139s on line) leading to the final solution (139/145).
The winner is providing some 412s (classics and an EP) from may 1. The NGO
are already in place, thus win the interim solution by 5 months.
In terms of capacity, the 0.12% of missions involving obese patients that
you seem to want to increase operating costs by heaps more than 60% partial
funded Bk v full funded 412) to cover could still be done by the 412s. Are
you obese perhaps?
Based on a previous post now deleted, an NGO would have the first 139 in
service 7 months ahead of the winner.
So we have ruled out money (NGO is $70M cheaper), we have ruled out end
state (all bidders had same solution, NGO 7 months quicker) and we have
ruled out interim solution (NGO 5 months quicker). Next argument
sandsprayer?
Maybe it is because they are the largest helicopter company in the world.
Hugely resourced, buckets of track record and experience, Depth an NGO can
only dream about. And in 10 years time when it pops up for renewal, the
competition will be????? Reminds me of mc hammer. "You cant touch this!"
I don't think CHC are in anyway not up to the task but lets not bash the NGO
opposition with such subjective rubbish - CHC can win it without your
slander and have done so.