WA Intrastate Air Services Review

[flyingfox]

Towns fear losing air services : thewest.com.au (http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=146&ContentID=136908)
A story by journalist KM in the West Australian newspaper (link above) has once again taken up the cudgel for Skywest Airlines in spelling out an opinionated version of what may happen if that airlines' monopoly on coastal routes of WA is not preserved. Once again an opinion piece in the West is being passed off as a news and journalism. The article is factually incorrect by the suggestion that the monopoly routes only extend northwards from Esperance to Geraldton and makes no mention of the route to Exmouth (Learmonth) which is also one of the routes which Skywest enjoys for itself. I have heard that certain exploration and production companies using Learmonth are paying through the nose for the tickets they are forced to buy from Skywest and that they may in fact be propping up the whole Skywest RPT network. The monopoly provided on this route prevents those companies from chartering aircraft for their own use, and they are not happy. A real journalist would know all these aspects and report them in his articles. Why doesn't KM do so? If Skywest could not be contacted for comment, it would likely be a first time. This is sloppy work for a journalist and the industry in WA deserves better.

[A1BUGSMASHER]

Looks like Skywest are trying to force the Intrastate review outcome with the new government by using GT and scaring local communities. I thought GT would have been smarter than this.

It was interesting to read the articles on deregulation in the states and the Austrailian domestic market the week before, buttering everyone up for this weeks stupidity. I guess that those at SkyWest are a little worried about competition...... And PD can see the writing on the wall and is bailing.

[Betwixt and Between]

I've heard that journos sometimes purposely report some detail incorrectly (the northern routes in this case) in order to make it appear that the piece is not just a regurgitation of comments direct from the subject (ie in this case, Skywest).
Several years ago, this journo wrote nothing but scathing, derogatory reports on NJS. NJS then took a very deliberate strategy to butter him up, tickets, dinners etc. This worked a treat and NJS started to get great press, and the crap press moved to Skywest and others "non-NJS". (Anyone who has been at NJS for some time will clearly remmeber this - It was a considered a coup for HD)
Then guess what, someone left NJS and moved to Skywest, and then lo and behold, NJS starts getting crap coverage again and Skywest gets the glowing reports.
It is so very blatant. What was that scandal with the east coast radio guys, "cash for comments"? I'm not suggesting this is cash, but certainly it is "perks for comments".

[avanti blade]

Flying fox, I went to the link you posted, it appears, (unless Im mistaken), that the article was not written by GT but Kim Macdonald.

Personalities and company politics aside, what do people think, should the W.A. market remain partially regulated, or should it become wholly deregulated?

[illusion]

As has been played out on the world financial markets complete deregulation and free markets do not work.

WA is a big place with a sparse population that requires a reasonable standard of airservice to support the mining, pastoral and tourism industries. Is it not better for one operator to monopolise some of these routes and make a reasonable buck rather than multiple cutting each others financial throats?

[dijon moutard]

i am quite open about my slant/view's on aviation but flyingfox your stated comments take the cake : your post start's with a lie and then bend's/twist's and distort's the truth !

you can't even get the journo correct and your other statement's are either false or half-truth's !


let's hear who you represent and where you get your supposed facts from !

cheers
mustard

[flyingfox]

I stand corrected in attributing this article to GT. His was the accompanying article about 'Open Skies' in WA on the same aviation page. I appologize for the incorrect attribution. However, I stand by my other remarks and now have a second WAN journalist to watch for poor reporting.

[topend3]

Believe the State Govt is going to fund the installation of screening equipment at GET, this to pave the way for a jet service, de-regulated i would presume.

[Wombat]

Illusion, IMHO you have hit the nail on the head

[OverRun]

I'm strongly for status quo - partially regulated. The current operation ensures good and reasonable sized aircraft to a number of towns that would otherwise only justify something small (and infrequent).

There is a good lesson from NSW about full deregulation and how to destroy your intra-state air service. Not a pretty story. The difference is that NSW is (a) small and (b) has a train service to many country towns. WA is (a) large, and (b) has no train service except to Kalgoorlie [7 hours trip] and Bunbury [too close to fly to]. The collapse of intrastate services in WA would be a much more serious problem than in NSW.

I liken this to a farmer's co-operative. If a group of farmers get together, they can buy a flour mill or a bulk handling facility, and run it as a co-op for all their benefit. Same for aircraft. If a group of towns get together, they can buy a large comfortable aircraft and run it as a co-op for all their benefit. In this case, it is the WA Gov'n that is forcing the "co-op" as a regulated single operator but it is still to everyone's benefit.

And before anyone jumps in about the F50 not being good and reasonable sized, I'll stake my years of experience of flying the QueenAir to Esperance (unpressurised, piston, no toilet), the Metro to Albany (nasty), the Chieftain to Monkey Mia . . .etc etc. Give me the F50 pressurised, turbo-prop, 4 abreast seats, toilet, hosties, meal, coffee and cold beer any day. And the current operator fares are reasonably priced.

I've got no connection to the present or any operator, but I'm going to be one of the people that suffer if deregulation goes ahead.

[flyingfox]

I don't think full deregulation will work either. However the layout of the routes and the opportunity for the 'Coastal Towns' routes to change hands at the end of each regulated period needs to be available to keep the incumbent/s on their toes and focused. Mixing the routes on RPT/charter, jet/turboprop, regulated/unregulated, tourist/industry grounds needs contrivance of great cleverness if the needs of the predominant users is to be served. History has shown that local operators who reach too far will inevitably ignore the needs of their original clients. Their aircraft mix will move to types not suited to their initial task and for which the regulation was created. This is not necessarily acceptable to the mining industry, RPT users or other aviation operators. This is a big state and the needs of industry and private passengers can be quite different.
In regard to my original post regarding a certain journalist, I believe we may now have a situation of the ventriloquist and a ventriloquists doll. To see what I mean, have a look at the newspaper page in question regarding it's layout and content. Only time will tell but the situation needs watching. In WA there is still only one newspaper outlet of any substance which is covering State aviation issues to the public. Good, unbiased reporting is desperately needed. Keep them honest here on Pprune by drawing attention to biased and misleading articles.

[Skystar320]

Be interesting: With Skyairworld crying they wanted deregulation in WA then went Tango Uniform means that hopefully they should sit up and see...

Fair enough - limit competetion, but give more routes out to different companies

[Cargo744]

Deregulation would have definitely not helped Sky or the WA community. Was just another CEO furfy to be honest. Depending on the route it can work either way with regulation or not. Each route should be taken on it's own merit.

[cunninglinguist]

Is it true the Skywest A320s will soon be servicing Esperance, Geraldton and Learmonth :}:}:}

Ahhh Dijon, you crack me up :E ( still )

[topend3]

prior to the current arrangement i am not sure kalbarri was on a regular RPT service. If it can't sustain 200 pax per month it's debatable whether it can sustain a regular air service of this type. Maybe the locals have to drive to Geraldton, happens in many other towns...

[Jetpipe2]

Why would deregulation hurt WA?

In the pre regulated environment Kalbarri, Shark bay and others all had services. In fact some towns had better servcies than now, its just that they have forgotten.

If the routes are to thin to support competition then if any did try someone would fail and the other would be OK.
Since when did we elect a governement to pick who is going to win?

If the RPT operators in WA were restricted to only RPT flights I woudn't mind so much but by both regulated companies have significant charter contracts.

So you cant have it both ways....either regulate and stick to RPT or compete for charter contracts and loose protection!

[topend3]

Does anyone know who serviced Kalbarri prior to XR on the current network? I am not so sure they had a better service than now...

[Pindan warrior]

Jetpipe talks sense

[ER_ZZZ]

Kalbarri, a search shows that S**pp*rs where doing that run.

[XRlent100]

Jetpipe does not make sense.

As i've stated before on this website these RPT contracts are just like any other contract. Wether it be for a mining contract a coastal survellance contract or any other contract, as long as a fair and equitable tender process is adhered too then the winner shouldn't be restricted to RPT alone. The best tender on the day wins the contract.

Should NJ be restricted from tendering for mining contracts because they've got the coastwatch contract? NO

Should Network be prevented from tendering for any other mining contracts because they've got the Nifty contract? NO

In fact the RPT contracts are a less attractive prospect because of the inherent risks of RPT and the fact they are not subsidised. Skywest or whoever wins takes all the risk.

Anyone can tender for the RPT networks and at the end of the day the most competative tender will win.

Cheers

[avanti blade]

Surely we are losing sight of the forest for the trees?

The aim of regulating RPT routes is to provide an good quality, reasonably priced service for a community whose population would not normally support/sustain such a service, at no direct cost to the taxpayer, in the form of subsidies to the operator etc....
How many profiable routes are needed to be serviced by the operator to compensate for the loss made on an unprofitable route such as Kalbarri? (bearing in mind that geraldton is open to limited competion)
Could the system work if the profitable routes were diluted to a greater extent and shared out amoungst local operators?
Is the state government putting enough restrictions/requirements on the current operators re aircraft type, fare structure, and frequency

[illusion]

Another advantage of partial regulation is for the government to requirement cross subsidisation of routes eg We will give you a free run on Geraldton IF you maintain a service to Leonora.

[XRlent100]

Avanti,

From what I've heard the government puts quite alot of restrictions on Skywest re fare structures and frequency. Basically any change of schedule or an increase in fares has to be approved by the government.

[Dash L8]

You can't win.

When Skippers did the run to Kalbarri/Monkey Mia via Geraldton, the plane was too small, it didn't run often enough and you couldn't fit surfboards/scuba gear/fishing rods in the hold. Then they put the Dash on the route and everyone said the fares were too expensive ($99 one way on the net... not too bad I would have thought, beats driving?)

Then XR give it a crack, now everyone's supposedly bribing each other with trips and dinners... maybe it's just a reflection of what the public prefer. As someone who has in the past worked for both operators, the majority of comments by the punters seems to support the fact that they prefer XR hands down. Maybe that's just because of the alternative they used to have.

Would be interesting to see what would happen if Virgin ran E-jets in there. Too expensive again I suppose!

[Jetpipe2]

XRLent 100..

Whilst I can agree that all should be fair in each tender the core issue I have is that the Govt tendered RPT routes are not held to account like a normal mining contract.
This is because the contract is not let by the customer.

After all do both incumbent operators operate as per their tenders from over three years ago? I think not.
What hapened to Geraldton being serviced by both carriers, why is Learmonth a regulated turboprop route but servcied with a jet etc.

So if this was a normal contract and the customer didnt like it or they decided to change equipement they may go back to the market and see.

On another point how much does it cost to get press like in the West yesterday? That has got to be the most biased view on regulation I have seen in a while.:eek:

You must be worried that your all going to end up flying Navajos to Albany again, or even worse Metros

[topend3]

Jetpipe, I think you will find that the reason two operators are not servicing Geraldton is that Skippers pulled out due to it not being sustainable. If Geraldton is totally de-regulated, as appears possible, you can only imagine how two jet operators, DJ and XR for example, could make it viable.

At present I believe Geraldton is still open to limited competition.

I would have thought Skywest got approval to introduce F100's to Learmonth, plus the punters would have no doubt supported this move. In any future network I would not be surprised if Learmonth went the way of the other jet routes in WA and was totally de-regulated. This may allow some tourism boost if Virgin wanted to fly there, for example, with E-Jets.

The outcome of all this should be fascinating, with the Government sitting on the report and needing to make a decision sooner rather than later to provide some certainty moving forward.

The larger turboprop ports such as Albany could surely support something larger than a Navajo or a Metro I would have thought.

[flyingfox]

As per my original post, Learmonth is a regulated turboprop route with a captive audience of mining company traffic. The mining users don't like being forced onto RPT jets at RPT ticket costs and timing when the route protection is for turboprops. They want to charter aircraft when required and can't do so.

[poteroo]

All this talk of deregulation just prompts the uninformed to expect 5* service for a marginal location. Take our 'leaders' down here - demanding a pure jet service, as well as deregulation - on a run which seems a good fit for the F50.

I like the old Fokker - it's solid, and reasonably roomy. Plus - it does 2, sometimes 3, services per day. I'm all for an 'affordable' service - not wishlist stuff!

It must be something in the good old Aussie psyche - always wanting more 'competition' so the prices will be driven lower. Inevitably, it becomes unprofitable for everyone - and soon there's no RPT service at all.

happy days,

[OverRun]

I pulled out the report on the Review and Assessment of the Effectiveness of Air Services in Western Australia done in 2002 by TFI in preparation for the last round of regulation (it’s a very good report) to see if there were any gems that could be applied to this round of regulation. I found a classic at the start of section 7.3 of the technical report:
Internationally, the airline system is in turmoil and from section 1 of the main report Aviation worldwide is experiencing volatility. This is obvious in depressed travel figures and distressed airlines. Sounds pretty familiar stuff to us in 2009.

Back in 2002, the report noted There is limited scope for competition on regional routes other than those serviced by jet aircraft. Even there, current operations are likely to be under some financial stress and any foreseeable pick-up in demand is unlikely to be sufficient to encourage or sustain competition.

And I don't think anything has changed since 2002 in terms of our market conditions:
Three features stand out when considering the nature of demand.
1. The absence of large regional centres and the focus on Perth.
2. The significance of mining as the foundation for air services development in WA.
3. The large seasonal variations in the major tourism routes within WA

It makes me wonder why choose to go for deregulation now? What has now emerged to justify it? Has the airline system suddenly become less in turmoil?

[barrybeebone]

I don't know why people automatically assume that just because you open a route up to competition that it will make it unsustainable for everyone and services will cease. If the market is allowed to open up then you will most likely see on some (but not all) routes a second airline.

In economics they call this a duopoly and so long as the market can sustain two players then both players will charge the same price for the service. If one increases the price, then the other will also as they want to maximise profit. If one lowers price then the will also as they also want to maximise profit.

Both airlines can be profitable in a duopoly. If there is 2 airlines on some of these routes then isn't that better for the consumer? I like to think so as it means we will get a choice in terms of schedules and other services. Not to mention that with greater capacity, the smaller towns of WA will be more accessible to tourists.

I am not sure how long WA Govt has protected these routes for but if they have never opened them up to competition, now is the time to do it. Give it a try. Governments have never been good in the past at running monoploy's, why is this one any different?

[topend3]

I don't know why people automatically assume that just because you open a route up to competition that it will make it unsustainable for everyone and services will cease.

What people are saying is that a turboprop route that generates 50-60,000 pax a year (e.g. - Albany) will likely not support 2 viable operators. A reasonable assumption to make. Hence regulation to ensure one stable operator can service the market. Not to say, of course, that de-regulation could not achieve similar, but might result in some pain along the way.

[Hoofharted]

No doubt SkyWest will remain the sheltered workshop that it has always been. Funny how they cry foul over the possibility of deregulation, but are happy to cut the guts out of the FIFO sector.

It must be great for these hypocrites to have the state government as a sugar daddy!!! :yuk:

[pianokeys]

Hoofharted

Iam with you Sky West can cut the bottom out of the FIFO market. and then get the RPT market to support it and then cry foul when the government want to deregulate the services to make it more cost effective and the burden for tax payers.

[Long John Silver]

Anyone think that in this current climate there will be any amalgamations amongst the WA players? ie Skywest, NJS, Alliance, Network, Skippers, Maroomba?

[greybeard]

In the larger scheme of things, 40million people is the world requirement for a sustainable airline system to stand alone.
So where does that leave WA?
In 1968, MMA was subsidised to the tune of $1000.00 per day to operate DC-3s in the so called station runs in the Murcheson, Pilbara, Kimberly and NT. End of subsidy, end of DC-3s and in my case my job for a while.
The years of the "Two Airline Policy" saw many places get a service above and beyond the sustainability of that port in real terms, being subsidised by the Trunk Routs.
As far as WA is concerned, the change is too many on the trunk routes, limited revenue from the Kalbarri's and Shark Bays so a "subsidised/solo operator" is in real terms one of the ways to give a service that is perceived to be needed. Better roads, FIFO and smaller workforces than in the earlier times have reduced the RPT revenue base of WA operators.
There are probably too many in the Aviation pie of WA, we realy are a flyspec on the map in a strictly aviation term of reference, but if you are a player it is a world you work in regardless.
Skywest have as good a service as most, a cost effective even if old F-50s and has pulled itself up from the Ansett disaster by a lot of hard yards, the replacement of the equipment is of course another matter, Jets are not the answer in all ports they service, forbidden in some so????? crystal ball dept I feel.

:ok:

[ER_ZZZ]

How much of a subsidy do they really get??

Surely it can't be that much.

And is a air service a must have or just a want?

Hopefully nobody loses their service but one has to wonder with the current economic climate will the subsidy be juicy enough to keep things going if travel falls. Surley you need at least a 50% load?

[XRlent100]

There is no subsidy and that's the point, whoever wins the contract takes all the risk.

You guys/gals are missing the point. This is a tender that any one can apply for. Skywest were just the most competative last time round.

Skywest would be stupid to have undercut themselves to win the mining contracts based purely on having the RPT contract. As any company would be. The same applies for any other charter airline. If they win one major contract that makes good money and then decide to use the profits to subsidise another less profitable one then they take the risk.

[ER_ZZZ]

Ah OK then XRlent100

Well thats fine, no subsidy, that seems fair.

I would think that the saying cheapest is NOT always best applies here.

ie surley a long established operator like skyw**t that has provided a good service over a long period would take some beating.

There is no point cherry picking the best routes and leaving the others to rot. That is why the routes are packaged together in one tender.

[Xeptu]

You guys/gals are missing the point. This is a tender that any one can apply for. Skywest were just the most competative last time round.

Not strictly correct! Last time around there wasnt really much of a choice, it came down to A full service F50 or a Brazillia, there was significant Political and Industrial pressure on the then Labor Government over that at the time.
The two issues which clinched it for Skywest was that Skippers didnt operate from the main terminal which made seamless checkin doubtful and the Braz had issue with wheelchairs.

Today however the playing field is very different, it's the F50 up against the E-Jet and the Q-400.

The best outcome for XR today is no route protection at all, since Geraldton, Albany and possibly Esperance are the only ones worth having. At least XR will be able to compete over those routes, where if route protection were to remain and XR didnt have those routes exclusively, then that would probably make the F50 operation unviable anyway.

[P51D]

Barrybeebone, Hoofharted, Pianokeys and Xeptu. None of you have any idea what you are talking about and thank god the policy makers weren't listening to your types. Greybeard and others speak a lot of sense and the extent of your knowledge Xeptu, as to why XR were successful, is just laughable. Long distances, few alternative transport options, small town populations, a precarious industry at the best of times and the chance for multiple ports to have a service of some sort on a regular basis to overcome the tyranny of distance, connecting to a capital city airport, where the profitable and semi-profitable ports support loss making ports, is sensible. The alternatives will bear testimony if deregulation is applied. How old are the Navajos??

[Xeptu]

P51D

Is that right, as laughable as you might think that is, that's how it was.

No-one would argue with your logic, makes perfect sense for WA, unfortunately in practice it doesnt work and the reason is simply because an operator cannot rely on the next government of the day to support that policy.

Happened as far back as I can remember. AN had WA to itself, losses, losses, losses. Then come dry season, QF would run a 73 over the broome route and deny AN the opportunity to recover those losses. Today QF has replaced AN as will another operator when one of them falls over.

The RPT market today wants shiny new jets, yes I agree "laughable" but thats what they want, and they will have them one way or another, albeit possibly for a very limited time.

Operators today don't work on the theory, we'll use profits from one route to support losses on another. If it's a loss making route, it's rationalised or axed unless someone else is paying for it.

[barrybeebone]

P51D

Since the monopoly rights were last allocated to XR, has the market grown? If so, perhaps there is now enough room for a second player in the market?

I would be surprised if the market had not grown but I also suspect that with the recent slowdown the government will play it safe and say the slowdown is too dangerous and we need to ensure these routes have a regular service. therefore XR have it again!

[XRlent100]

Xeptu said

"Operators today don't work on the theory, we'll use profits from one route to support losses on another. If it's a loss making route, it's rationalised or axed unless someone else is paying for it."

How long does that give Virgin on KTA and ZNE?

Yes I wouldn't be surprised if VB are trying to get the Embraers on the GEL and ABA route but haven't heard of the Q400's. Is Qlink having a crack too?

[barrybeebone]

Didn't Qantas also recently admit that their Mumbai route was always loss making, meaning they were using profits from other routes to maintain this one?

[topend3]

How long does that give Virgin on KTA and ZNE?

XRlent, you may remember that Virgin got a contract off Skywest to launch the ZNE services, as XR could not provide a reliable service and deliver on the client's needs.

KTA appears to be running around 50% loads, though I notice Virgin Blue are now codesharing on the XR services to KTA.

I think they are going to hang around in both these places, they need to build a presence in WA, and in the case of KTA, with 450,000 passengers a year it should be able to support 2 and a half airlines.

[P51D]

Xeptu, that is not how it was and it was not a determining factor. Skippers operated out of their own terminal but could not make GN work. Your last para speaks volumes for regulation - "If it's a loss making route, it's rationalised or axed unless someone else is paying for it". Well, none of the routes are subsidised, nothing is axed, all the towns get a service and a tender process decides the winner. Look at the mess of NSW and the QLD Govt is following WA's lead. These communities are not bursting at the seams with growing populations and those lucky to have a support industry e.g. mining or Oil and Gas can count themselves lucky, but their luck should be shared with others who don't have the same or have to rely on seasonal tourism. Don't forget the cherry-picking that will occur in deregulation - yep, Geraldton will get a level of competition with cherry-picking, Exmouth may get QF 3 times a week for Oil and Gas crew changes , Albany (god's waiting room) unlikely, but only cherry-picking, Esperance the same. Get my drift - if the Govt cares for these communities they'll leave it alone but put it out to competitive tender again. Last comment - we are not inundated with regional RPT operators, and the tender process will show this, as it did last time!

[avanti blade]

The majority of posters seem to think regulation is the best scenario for the local communities.
Is XR providing a good RPT service?
Are the fares reasonably priced? (bearing in mind the the regulator bears some responsibilty also).
Who else is in a position to provide a similar or better service?
What is the best equipment (or combination of equipment) for the job?
Is the length of "contract" long enough to encourage investment in new equipment?

[XRlent100]

Topend,

VB codeshare with Skywest on BME, KTA, KNX, KG and maybe a few others. I believe this all started before VB began WA services.

The ZNE contract for Skywest only supported 2 x F100 services per week. VB are running to ZNE daily so unless the contract expanded considerably I can't see that one contract supporting the VB services.

Cheers

[avanti blade]

The majority of posters seem to agree that the local communitires will be best served by the continued regulation of RPT routes.
Do XR and skippers currently provide good service with reasonble fares? (bearing in mind that the regulator bears some responsblility)
Are there any others companies that have the equipment and expertise to service these routes?
What is the best equipment for the route?
Is the "contract" long enough to encourage operators to invest in new equipment?

[AU-501]

Hi Guys,

Some really interesting points raised (P51, et al) which seem to be made by people having experience with the big picture and impartial views. The entertaining stuff is from "Professional Pilots" that think they are astute with business views. Stick to aviation kids, the office has a great view.

Back to the thread. There is great benefit listening to direct and indirect end users of any air services. Comments reflecting Performance and Service afforded to individuals and discussions from the community. Salacious and gratuitous rumoring discarded.

The metric of time a good starting point. Time Performance relates to breakdowns, incidents (or accidents), experience levels of the crews etc etc I.E the Performance of time is usually manifested by Performance of getting the job done correctly(first time). Separately, Service levels are measured with self loading type passengers and non self loading types. Proper service from the moment of booking and along the processing chain will ensure a safe embarkation and safe and correct disembarkation. Cabin crew the face of the operation offers the visible service of hospitality. Primarily the most important service they offer is invisible to their guests. They must champion and be the face of safety to the walk on cargo that is now seated and completely in the hands of the crew. The service proffered by the guys on the ramp correctly loading DG's and letting the tech crew know about it will usually be the ones that pick up the FOD or notice some other U/S.

All sorts of stuff is talked about in country pubs and camp wet messes around the state. Some of the stuff that CEO's and Managers think have been swept under the carpet is still common chit chat and can be a metric of Service and Performance

WA Intrastate destinations, be they about to receive todays service or when they drop down to a service of alternate days in the future all need and deserve transportation to function within the modern society. Transportation can be provided using 40 ton wooden sail boats, 18 wheel trucks OR multi carriage autobahn style roads. Whatever transport system is employed it should reflect the best delivery of Performance and Service . Transportation system using an Air Service is a great modern utility.

The WA intrastate ASR will deliver a very important economic indicator. It will provide an addition to the State and National Economic Capacity.

Whatever the outcome of the Review it will be accounting for many public and industry needs and issues. The ASR should also have been sympathetic to the careful plans that have been forged by Industry and Government agencies the fruition of these plans will deliver prosperity for the State and Country. The review will be devoid of need,ideal and favor of an individual nor should it be resultant political process.

Who ever has hold of the rubber stamp better get it right and not be afraid to keep some of these outfits looking sharp and doing it right.

The End.