Geoffrey Thomas awarded RAES "Journalist of the Year"

[FGD135]

Geoffrey Thomas has received the Royal Aeronautical Society "Journalist of the Year" (2009) award.

GT receives a lot of undeserved criticism on PPRUNE, but that would most likely be because those posters just don't understand journalism or media.

I have always regarded GT as a fine aviation journalist and will go out of my way to read anything he has written.

This is no minor award. The RAES also awarded him "Best Strategy or Financial Submission".

Aerospace Journalist Of The Year Award - Winners (http://www.ajoya.com/winners.vc)

Congratulations Geoff. You deserve it!

[neville_nobody]

I have always regarded GT as a fine aviation journalist and will go out of my way to read anything he has written.

Disagree whole heartedly, and the reason he gets hammered here is that he sucks up to the airlines for reasons only known to himself. (I could guess at what those reasons are however that would be speculation.)

I once heard him on ABC radio speaking as 'freelance aviation writer' about the Engineering standoff with QF and what he said was neither objective nor correct IMHO. He sounded like a spokesman for QF talking QF propaganda.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Surely the long-running and mischievous industrial campaign by ground engineers this year is a profound disappointment. Their tactics of throwing doubt in the public arena over Qantas's maintenance standards due to offshore work no doubt has damaged the brand in Australia?


This is a question he asked Geoff Dixon last year. It is leading, it is misleading and is not the kind of question an impartial journo would ask. No wonder many in the industry have no respect for him.

[lame1]

Do journos have to disclose if they receive perks from airlines ? ie upgrages/tickets to sports events etc

[Buster Hyman]

Journo's can sometimes polarise people & one article that displeases you categorises them, in your eyes, into a negative bucket.

I've always been interested in GT's articles & congratulate him as well.:ok:

Remember, he's one of the few Journo's (and people) that post under their own name & are very up front on Pprune, unlike other fishing Journo's!

[lowerlobe]

Hey Buster....
post under their own name & are very up front on Pprune, unlike other fishing Journo's!
I didn't know that Rex posted on PPrune....:E

[Buster Hyman]

Yes, tou know him as Tinpis.... :ooh:

[lowerlobe]

Buster...

I thought that he was the Townsville refueller......:E

[Buster Hyman]

Only on weekends ending in y.

[neville_nobody]

Journo's can sometimes polarise people & one article that displeases you categorises them, in your eyes, into a negative bucket

Here are 3 articles if you care to read them. My point is that they don't sound like they are objective. The reasons for this is that everything has a 'positive spin' put on it. The A380 article especially reads like a ad for Airbus.
You don't have to be overly negative however a balanced view without the positive spin might give Mr Thomas more creditability. Call a spade a spade not just repeat the company spin.

T-Rex (http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=2786)

Qantas ReJoyces (http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=2837)

A Pleasant Surprise (http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=2739)

[Mr. Hat]

Ha - I think he should get an award for the least objective jornalism. He's an absolute sell-out that favours the companies of his mates in "high" places. You can keep spruiking all you want but in the end the truth catches up with you GT and co.

The articles read like INFOMERCIALS.

[Trojan1981]

One reason for the 'positive spin' in every article (It annoys me too and is the main reason why don't subscribe to any australian aviation mags) is access.

If GT was to write an article that was highly critical of Qantas do you think they would invite him back next time they introduced a new aircraft type or product? No, they only want positive images of their brand in the news.

A journo who didn't tow the line would soon be on the outer- no invites, no press releases, no access and probably no job.
This is the reason why we only hear the fluffy stories of Aussie Soldiers doing good (never bad) in the 'ghan and why Qantas trimming staff and aircraft, without criticism, is the way AJ is returning the airline to "winning form".

[Buster Hyman]

Hi Neville. I briefly looked through them & noted they are all from ATW. I fully appreciate your point but you must bear in mind who he is writing for at the time. The following is from the ATW website...


For 45 years, Air Transport World has been the leading monthly magazine serving the needs of the global airline and commercial air transport manufacturing communities. Each month, more than 38,000 subscribers around the world look forward to reading up on the latest trends and developments affecting their businesses.


(My bold) In context, I don't read ATW for hard hitting, investigative journalism. I would be more likely take your point if you were quoting some articles from The Australian perhaps however, no need to go looking, as alluded to earlier, I'll concede that they probably exist.

Anyway, I think where GT differs from others is that you can PM him here or debate one of his articles on Pprune & probably engage him in conversation if you so desire.

[airtags]

anyone can produce a few cms by copying and pasting a media release or rehashing an email full of corporate B.S......... trouble is that people read it and believe it !

Aviation journalism is a little like travel writing and real estate .... the market is always about to rise and the sun is always shining even when it's p*_sing down.

The award means as much to aviation as a 'Home and Away' Y gen getting a logie is to Shakespere.


AT

[Going Boeing]

I used to think that GT was the best aviation Journo in Oz but his recent articles and appearances on Sunrise had revealed him to be a mouthpiece for management spin. In particular, his comments about QF schedule reliability throughout 2008 (in particular during the ALAEA's PIA ban on overtime) are purely management spin. Everybody who was involved in QF operations at the time, knows that Qantas management were trying to fly a schedule for which there were insufficient aircraft (essentially due to the late delivery of the A380s & management ineptitude wrt the grounding of EBU at Avalon). Even if the engineers were not conducting PIA, there would have been extensive delays/cancellations as aircraft unservicabilities routinely happened (exacerbated by the lack of any reserve aircraft capacity), but GT seems to not want to present this to the public. Alan Joyce is still telling the media about how bad the ALAEA's actions were and GT is meekly assisting him in delivering this erroneous message. It's about time that he started to get his independence back by doing more searching investigation & then telling the truth to the public.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

He has never made contact with or discussed any of the matters related to our PIA or Engineering problems with us. He only seeks one side of the story for any of his expert :yuk::yuk::yuk: comments and appears to believe anything he hears from management. He repeats many lines word for word from the Qantas PR machine. We consider him nothing other than a salesman.

[Howabout]

This is a general comment and not directed at the award or journalist concerned. However, I remain perplexed that material posted on this network never seems to be followed up by 'investigative journalists.'

While it's a rumour network, some of the stuff written (not all) IMHO is clearly facts-based; the journos read it (of course they do) and must (surely) ask themselves if there's a 'story' here. Yet nothing of any substance ever emerges.

Does TIBA still exist? Are there more aircraft holding outside GAAP than there were before? Is reducing FA numbers to 1:50 conducive to good safety outcomes? Has ASIC produced any positive results? How much money has been spent on 'securing' regional aerodromes, and at what cost? Have we benefited from 'more securely' locking our aircraft? Has the controller shortage been solved, as promised by the end of August last year? The list goes on and on; yet all I see is 'cut-and-paste-stuff' that I regard as lazy journalism, right across the board.

What inhibits these guys from asking the searching questions?

From where I stand, there's only one aviation writer with a skerrick of credibility; and that's Ben Sandilands - unfortunately, he 's not main stream.

[neville_nobody]

What inhibits these guys from asking the searching questions?

Refer to Mr Trojan '81's response and there you have your answer.

Another reason is advertising revenue. Imagine you worked for a major Australian newspaper and had some bullet proof story about a hypothetical CEO taking bribes to buy a hypothetical airliner. Now imagined you published that story and exposed the board and management etc etc

Do you think that the hypothetical airline would be paying big dollars to advertise with your paper? Do you think your editor will be getting a business class upgrade next time?? Of course not......so they allow puff pieces here and there but nothing of any substance gets printed.

Personally I am very worried at the state of journalism in this country and the financial pressures that are being brought onto newspapers due to lack of revenue. We are heading into very dangerous waters without even realising it.

[Hoofharted]

The subject of this years award demeans and reduces it's worth to that of dirt.

[stubby jumbo]

Strewth !

Tell us what you really think Hoof.:ouch:

[belowMDA]

This link is to an excellent article detailing how journalists' investigative stories are watered down or hampered by reliance upon advertising revenue in the publications they work for. It is a very frustrating read, in that it'll piss you off, but is enlightening with regard to the current vein of conversation. I do not intend this to be a criticism of GT as I do not know his history of articles.

The Broken Wall by Blake Fleetwood (http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/ml/broken_wall.html)

[Ken Borough]

This is a stale story: the awards were presented in Paris way back in June.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

From where I stand, there's only one aviation writer with a skerrick of credibility; and that's Ben Sandilands - unfortunately, he 's not main stream.

Ben Sandilands is just a cranky old bugger with a bug up his ar$e! :hmm:

GT is an honourable and accomplished writer, and does not mooch off airlines or anyone else as has been so subtly suggested on the previous page. Also, the point of writing an article or a news item is not always to expose something, but to also inform people.

And as for the suggestion that he was pissing in Airbus's pocket with that recent A380 article - I assure you there is NO love lost between GT and Airbus!

[Howabout]

FA18,

I don't think that I suggested that the gentleman mooches off airlines or anyone else as has been so subtly suggested on the previous page.

My question relates to aviation journalism in general. There seems to be no willingness to investigate stories where the smell is akin to a two-week-old dead fish.

Here's a really simple one for the journos: TIBA; does it exist or not?

[geoffrey thomas]

Hi All:
Many thanks for the few kind words and not so many thanks for the brickbats.
For the record I have not had a trip from Qantas in over five years. My relationship with that airline has been rock bottom for years because of Dixon and co.
YES I was invited on its A380 delivery BUT I paid my own way to Toulouse and was in fact invited by Airbus, much to my surprise.
I am also really no friend of Airbus which usually accuses me of being a Boeing stooge.
As far as Sunrise is concerned it is not and cannot be an in-depth aviation forum. I try to add some understanding for the public in the confines of one minute grabs but it is very hard.
I do not want to scare the living daylights out of passengers and am positive if possible. BUT TV is challenging. Quick grabs - ten word answers.
For the record I do it for nothing and living in Perth that means I get up at 3.30am in the morning. Stupid? Perhaps!
I strive to help in a small way develop understanding between the public and the industry but it is difficult to convey the complexity of the industry to a lay audience without putting them to sleep.
You all my be interested to know that the article that won that award that started this thread was all about how de-regulation has ruined the airline industry in the US - a message that I think most of you would agree.
Perhaps you should read it and then pass judgement.
May the debate on my stupidity and bias continue!!
Best Geoffrey T
0417936610

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

You feeling guilty for some reason Howabout?

...the reason he gets hammered here is that he sucks up to the airlines for reasons only known to himself. (I could guess at what those reasons are however that would be speculation.)
He's an absolute sell-out...

Very suggestive...anyway...:hmm:

He puts his name to all his work, so his credibility is constantly on the line out there...most of you guys hide behind psudonyms when you make your comments. Plus, those of you call for fair and balanced journalism, but where's the balance in most of your comments!?!? At least some of you know the difference.

[geoffrey thomas]

Just for the record, I resigned from my position as SE-Asian Editor at Aviation Week in 2000 over the magazine pulling an article that disputed Airbus claims on the A380's performance.

In 2004 I was shown the door at The West over a dispute relating to my coverage of Skywest and exposing the BS it was peddling at the time.
The Skywest PR hack was a friend of the then editor.

Both extremely costly to me.

Another aspect is that these days we have lawyers crawling all over our copy and the restrictions can be tough on what you can and can't say.

ALSO and please remember this...we report what people say. These articles you cite that I have written are NOT always my opinion but what I am told. Yes we strive to find another point of view but many people will make accusations but cannot or will not back them up.

In some cases, such as Rex, some issues are still in court so they are off limits.

How do we know they haven’t some axe to grind? A major part of our job is to try and sort the truth from fiction when we are not privy to the whole story.

Best GT

[Icarus2001]

Well Mr Thomas, you earn big brownie points from me for showing in the forum named in your honour.:D Shows some integrity.

Why oh why in the last few articles in the West about Perth airport, there is always a Skywest tail front and centre of the accompanying photograph? How is HD?

[geoffrey thomas]

Hi Icarus2001;

HD is well as are Peter N, Ian G, Stan Q, and Brett G et al.
In fact you raise an interesting issue.
While I write the story, I do not select the pictures, nor edit the story nor write the headline and have little or no input on cutting it to fit the space. That policy is newspaper wide across the globe, which is always a challenge, particularly when writing about technical issues.
Best GT

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Hi Mr Thomas,

I think it's tops that you are prepared to post on here as you have. I will assume that you would also be prepared to answer a couple of questions. Even if I don't like your answers, the credibility rating will go up.

I understand that grabs are short and they can be taken out of context, Sunrise however is live but you only get a couple of questions to answer and limited time. This role is completely different to the one at ATW where you can write whatever you like.

I think I've seen or heard you a couple of times on Sunrise or similar radio shows. You have given glowing reports on the overseas maintenance facilities and claim that Qantas only use worlds best facilities.

Q 1 - What overseas maintenance facilities have Qantas used in the past 5 years that you are refering to with your positive comments? (this is a general knowledge question to test if you understand the industry. I will assume the longer it takes to answer, the more calls you have had to make to get the answers. I will text you immediately to let you know these questions are here.)

You circulate in the Aviation industry in which most of us work. If you circulate in this area and claim to be an aviation expert, I am sure you would be aware of shonky maintenance that was exposed in the public from overseas facilities such as wiring that was stapled together and failed Qantas audit reports. It was our Association that put these things out there.

Q 2 - Why have you never contacted the ALAEA to discuss any maintenance issue?

Lawful Industrial Action was taken by LAMEs at Qantas after 18 months of negotiation where Qantas had not budged from their opening position. Engineers had waited 3 1/2 since any rise at all whilst Dixon and co. had recieved cumulative wage rises above 50%. After the engineers got a wage rise of about 4.8% pa, you asked Geoff Dixon this question -

Surely the long-running and mischievous industrial campaign by ground engineers this year..........

Q 3 - Why did you use the word mischievous to descride our lawfully conducted protected Industrial Action?

[The Mr Fixit]

I read an bio somewhere depicting GT's career in Aviation (btw kudos for having the balls to post as yourself not many do including moi)

(1) greatest excitement - inaugural flight of the B777

(2) greatest disappointment - missing Concorde flight due to son's birthday

Think that about says it all, I could be wrong but hey that's journalism

[geoffrey thomas]

Good questions I would agree.

My only issue with the stand taken by the union was simply that all maintenance done overseas was shonky and thus scaring the travelling public.

Qantas has had its work done overseas for decades at place like Manila, (Lufthansa) Singapore by SIA Engineering, Malaysia (MAS), New Zealand, Hong Kong and various places in China.

My point was the no-one would question the maintenance done to CX, SQ and LH aircraft.

SIA refute absolutely that they were responsible for the shonky wiring and claim its was from part of the aircraft they had nothing to do with.

Agree absolutely that the management of QF did the wrong thing by the engineers but that is another issue and I have covered off on that many times in my attacks on QF management both in print on radio and TV.

I was extremely critical of the Airline Partners Australia buyout and fought relentlessly for that to fail.

Sincerely hope that after the settling in period the new management embraces staff for the benefit of all at Qantas.

Hope that answers some of your queries.

And I am happy to look at the issue more closely perhaps for ATW or Australian AViation.

Best GT

[geoffrey thomas]

Q2: Why didn't I called the union?

Why didn't you call me? Everyone else does and I am not hard to find.

The issue that I was focused on was simply the relentless scare campaign, which is what I was asked about over and over again. Are Qantas aircraft safe etc etc.....

Q 3 - Why did you use the word mischievous to descride our lawfully conducted protected Industrial Action?

Again the word mischievous was used only to describe the scare campaign - nothing else.

Best GT

[Keg]

Geoff, if you can't see that the use of your word mischevious left a lasting impression in the minds of the public that the entire campaign was about overseas maintenance rather than it being 98% about QF's lack of engagement in meaningful enterprise bargaining then you've just gone down another two or three pegs in my opinion.

I generally don't mind most of your articles but it's your lack of care as evidenced in this one example that causes me to question your motives.

My point was the no-one would question the maintenance done to... SQ... aircraft.

Really? You need to talk to people like KT in SIN. You need to talk to some of the supervising LAMEs up there including one bloke that left QF to go to SAEC (I think) and then returned a few years later. You need to talk to some of the ICAO auditing teams that go through there from time to time. Find some engineers and pilots that worked on the former SQ 744s that were leased by Ansett and ask them about SQ maintenance. Like John Laws used to say, 'oils ain't oils'.

[ebt]

Gee Keg, it certainly seemed that ALAEA were playing the overseas maintenance card pretty hard, so that seems a little unfair.

Look, with any type of journalism, you cannot please everyone all the time. GT has a hard task as someone with a strong background in the industry writing primarily for a broad audience where to them it seems that there are very black and white issues which are one way or another very emotional. In that sense, some detail may get lost in the 'translation', but overall I think he does a good job. And to be fair, to have the sort of aviation coverage that we do in such a relatively small industry (and smaller still in WA) is not too bad, and a credit to the journos who specialise in the industry.

I know it was a whlie ago now, but congratulations GT on the award.Go for back to back!

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Good work Mr Thomas and I would agree that your answers have passed the test. The only facility not mentioned was ST Aerospace in Singapore.

I would agree that LH as an airline is highly regarded but surprisingly, LH Technik Manilla does not do any work on LH aircraft. I have also been informed that they are not even their preferred Asian supplier.

Would anyone question CX or SQ maintenance. I think so but that is for the players up there to discuss although there have been instances in Singapore of non Qf parts being fitted to Qf aircraft after the parts storage led to the mixing of components.

The facility that works on CX aircraft (HAECO) recently mounted all four engines on the same Qf aircraft incorrectly and they were unable to rig the flaps on a Qf 747-300 which was ferried back to Avalon for rectification.

The shonky wiring was EEL (floor path) on a 747-400 aircraft. All other Qantas aircraft were checked and the only other one found with the same problem (in dozens of locations) was the second aircraft that had been to the same facility. The facility claims it was not them because they didn't work in the areas of concern however the floorboards had been removed in those locations. Certainly the ALAEA doesn't accept their answers. We are disappointed that CASA appears to have.

We have attempted to work closely with the new Joyce team. We have quietly gone about our business until recently. We have been reporting our concerns directly to the airline but unfortunately their actions indicate that they are continuing to turn a blind eye to problems both within and outside our shores.

Qantas didn't build the best safety reputation by chance, it started from day one. Staff were sufficiently trained and held pride in what they did because they weren't threatened with loss of work to overseas facilities unless they did the job quicker and cheaper.

The situation was suitably summed up by a manager in Cairns recently when he said -

Qantas used to be 95% ability and 5% company. Now it is the other way around. 95% company and 5% ability.

[lowerlobe]

[QUOTE]Q2: Why didn't I called the union?

Why didn't you call me? Everyone else does and I am not hard to find. QUOTE]

That's fair enough GT but....

Whether there is any substance to the allegations or not there are always two sides to a story.

When commenting in the media on a topic such as this and for the story to be fair and balanced would it not have been prudent to contact one of the two parties which in this case is the union and get their side of the story?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Why didn't you call me? Everyone else does and I am not hard to find.

I concede that the distribution of our press releases does not extend to ATW. Usually the journos contact us after a press release is made to all newspaper, radio and television outlets. Again it was well known that the ALAEA were openly speaking about maintenance issues and it would have been easier to look us up than the ALAEA knowing which one of the hundreds of journos in this country was about to disagree with the matters we were placing on the public record.

I understand that it is beneficial for Australian journos or experts to praise an Australian airline and not scare the public without cause. Our process is simple. We take any matter of genuine concern to the airline, if they don't act we go to CASA, when they do nothing it is off to the press. Placing a maintenance issue in the public forum may not fix what has happened but it certainly puts the airline on guard to make sure it doesn't happen again.

If your goal is to water down the "scare campaign" by denouncing what we say, I would expect it to at least be based on fact after some investigation, not just general positive statements that appear to be paraphrased from a Qantas PR manual.

You have my number now and I look forward to working with you when the need arises.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Again the word mischievous was used only to describe the scare campaign - nothing else.

The word was used to describe our Industrial campaign of 2008. The legal protected industrial action that LAMEs took after attempting without progress to attain a fair wages and conditions package after 18 months of negotiation and 3 1/2 years without a wage rise.

The maintenance issues or "scare campaign" came nearly 12 months before our PIA had begun. Maintenance problems were rarely talked about during our Industrial campaign.

The ALAEA is a professional organisation of Engineers with a joint function. We are the industrial advocates for 3000 members around the country and also have a Technical Department with its own seperate committee to address maintenance concerns.

I think it was a little unfair to descibe our campaign as mischievous. Overall I think it was great that you have answered these questions and certainly the credibility has gone up a touch. Hopefully it continues to rise in the eyes of ALAEA members.

cheers
Steve

[Buster Hyman]

Get a room you guys!!!


;);):p

[Jetsbest]

To GT and the engineers..

I find it intriguing that, even in the recent results announcement, Mr Joyce made reference to the $130mil hit caused by the ALAEA dispute last year. Now, I'm not an engineer but they had my support then and still do;
"Lawful Industrial Action was taken by LAMEs at Qantas after 18 months of negotiation where Qantas had not budged from their opening position. Engineers had waited 3 1/2 since any rise at all whilst Dixon and co. had recieved cumulative wage rises above 50%."
This was, I believe, overwhelmingly the majority view in Qantas at the time.

In the end a solution was realised, and the engineers accepted it by secret ballot. I'm just confused that management's contribution to, and apparent (or possibly feigned) non-comprehension of the impasse have been allowed to go largely unacknowledged. It seems obvious to me that management tactics forced the dispute unnecessarily into 'expensive' territory and merely reinforced the perception among staff that, where enough disengagement, indignation and unity-of-purpose combine, managers were still prepared to cost Qantas serious coin over industrial point-scoring.

It achieved nothing other than to further harden the employee's attitudes to what was viewed as perpetual disingenuous spin and misrepresentation by upper echelons.

Are things changing? Time will tell. :rolleyes:

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I fully expected to see a bit of a crack at the LAMEs appear in the Qantas report. I did also expect that the fines paid for freight fixing would have been there as well though.

Maybe when we are finished with this room, my good friend GT can do an article about it.

cheers

[Howabout]

FA18,

I'm not sure where you're coming from:


You feeling guilty for some reason Howabout?

My questions always have been generic. And, no, I am not feeling guilty.

The whole point (spare me, do I have to do this again?), is there are real aviation stories out there that no one will touch.

This has absolutely nothing to do with individuals. What it does have to do with is the aviation journalists' 'coterie' that won't investigate and ask the hard questions.

So; to the original question, why?

[geoffrey thomas]

I have never written a story about the engineer's dispute. I wrote many critical ones on my views on Qantas management however - just see Australian Aviation.

My responses were to direct radio and TV questions...which were "is Qantas safe?"

And the answer for the lay public was yes. Short radio and TV forums are not the place for long winded discussion on the fine detail of disputes.

Did Qantas management at the time do the wrong - absolutely!! It caused heart break and grief for thousands and let's hope we have seen the end of it.

BTW I did a 45 minute program at 4am about six months ago on ABC Australia wide radio discussing the dispute where I praised the engineers and mentioned what QF management had done. Had quite deal of feedback and in particulay one engineer's wife from Geelong if my memory serves me well. She had just dropped her husband off at work.

I also spoke to many engineers who are freinds off record.

And yes I will do a story on the entire dispute for Australian Aviation - warts and all!! And for ATW!

Best GT

[geoffrey thomas]

It is just because I take mine and our profession seriously that I appear on and speak on a variety of programs to try and add some understanding -not always successfully - of our complex industry to the widest possible audience.

You would have to agree that the level of debate on this forum is not always stellar!

Best GT

[Buster Hyman]

And the Ansett collapse GT? Surely there's a Pulitzer prize in there somewhere.... ;)

[A. Le Rhone]

GT - again credit for posting in your own name. Aviation journalism in Aus is a tricky business, no big paycheques and always the temptation to simply roll-over and do exactly as the big corporates wish you to do in return for a few material pleasures. Without a decent regular wage it can therefore be a hard gig. There are typically the sell-outs with near zero credibility and the (sometimes slightly loopy) independent magazine publishers who are well-intentioned but often frustrated couddabeens! Finding a realistic medium can be difficult.

As a consequence of this situation few credible journos have had the balls to tackle some big issue items.

* I understand Chris Masters (ABC 4 Corners) had a brilliant piece about the very questionable dealings of an airline CEO in the early 1990's but this was never put to air as the lawyers stymied it.

* There is a fantastic story still waiting to be told about the demise of Compass Mk 1 and a pre-planned and rehearsed strategy (Operation Sewn-Up) created and implemented by a certain (still extant) aviation strategy organisation, using taxpayers money to assist Mr Abeles of Ansett. Ever wonder how so many mothballed 727's were available immediately with full CofA's to 'rescue' pax stranded by the collapse of Compass?

* More recently there is still one major question hanging over the APA bid for Qantas. Within days of the bid failing the CEO of Qantas published profound, extensive and very far-reaching plans for the future of the airline.
a) This information was published immediately after the bid failed and thus could only have had a few hours to have been formulated. Only an incompetent managerial structure could run an airline in such a knee-jerk reactionary fashion. Why hasn't this been highlighted? Such irresponsible corporate governance shouldn't go unpunished.
b) More realistically (given the complexity of the issues), perhaps the plan was already in place before the bid failed? If so, this is even more sinister. If this is the case, shareholders were never made aware of these plans and such information would have been absolutely fundamental to their decision as to whether to support the bid or not. Concealing such manifestly important information from shareholders must surely breach the Corporations Act (or at least morally reprehensible given the importance of QF to the Australian public)?

Whilst we like to deride other countries (like the UAE and the support Emirates receives), the industry in Australia is not as clean as we like to think.

It's about time a decent, articulate, independent and legally savvy journalist tackled some of these issues. The inevitable pressure that would then be applied to that journalist by the organisations reviewed would if well documented, also add to the gravitas of the story.

However given the realities of the issues in first paragraph I doubt such true investigative journalism will be seen any time soon.

[geoffrey thomas]

Hi A Le Rhone...

You make some excellent points and daily journalism in many areas has become 40cm - or 450 words - and that is it.

There are three great stories to tell - The Compass / de-regulation saga, The Ansett demise and the APA / Qantas story.

I have plans to tackle the first next year and am working with a number of people on that project.

The de-regulation saga also leads into the complex out sourcing which I also hope to tackle.

Best GT

[lame1]

GT you should sign up in one of our services.I hear they are always looking for Gunners.I still dont understand how commercial factors can alter the way news should be presented.

[Fantome]

There are three great stories to tell - The Compass / de-regulation saga, The Ansett demise and the APA / Qantas story.

I have plans to tackle the first next year and am working with a number of people on that project.


What a pity, GT, you cannot talk with Bryan Grey.

[A. Le Rhone]

Perhaps in relation to the Compass story, Mssrs John Singleton, Peter Harbi*** and one RL Hawke may be worthwhile interviewees. Bryan Grey unfortunately no longer with us - I guess he died a broken man.

[hewlett]

And yes I will do a story on the entire dispute for Australian Aviation - warts and all!! And for ATW!

Now that's got to to get the QF spin doctor scrambling!:ok:

[OverRun]

The award to Geoffrey Thomas is very well deserved IMHO. FGD135 started the thread with the very words I would like to have said, so let me echo his words with this quote:
I have always regarded GT as a fine aviation journalist and will go out of my way to read anything he has written.
This is no minor award. The RAES also awarded him "Best Strategy or Financial Submission".
………………..
Congratulations Geoff. You deserve it!
My view of Australian media generally is rather cynical and so I subscribe extensively to overseas media to get viewpoints of a range of journalists. In the context of my broader perspective, I really enjoy GT’s writing, with his in-depth knowledge of (what are) specialized subjects, and his ability to write readable articles. RAeS is a high level organisation, and this award is not given lightly.

Speaking of ATW, in the last year or so, they seem to have lifted their game to yet another level. Well done. I spend the thousand dollar subscriptions to the serious aviation trade press each year and read them, yet I get as much out of ATW (and GT) as I do out of the most expensive journals.

Congratulations again to GT for the award.

[Torres]

"What a pity, GT, you cannot talk with Bryan Grey."

I knew Byran very well, having worked with him in PNG and talking to him on a number of occasions during the Compass era. Bryan kept diaries all his life and kept diary notes on everything that occurred in his business life. I would be very surprised if his diaries and a few of his close business associates did not have a very interesting story to tell......

[geoffrey thomas]

Thanks for all the positive comments -appreciated.
With relationship to Bryan Grey we will do our best to source as much of the hard fact as we can and use this forum to gain insights etc etc.
However the orginal Compass prospectus does not make for good reading as many of the profit claims were a stretch.
I think we may find there was fault on all sides.
Best GT

[Al E. Vator]

GT don't go in with pre-conceived ideas:

Compass may have had a naieve business plan but had become so popular that it was seriously hurting Ansett, its CEO later admitting that Ansett was at that time within weeks of collapsing.

The Australian Government (PM close friends with Abeles of Ansett) had for months been in a dispute with Compass re the allaged under-payment of Air Nav Charges (a complex issue not settled for many years after the 'collapse').
Why then would the government wait until of all times December 20th to pull the pin on Compass? This was the peak Christmas travelling time for Aussies and if there had been issues with the financial performance of Compass then Christmas was surely the time for the airline to rake in $ and thus have more chance of repaying the disputed charges?

No, the real reason why they chose Dec 20th was to cause maximum havoc amongst the public in an attempt to make travellers revolt against low-fare carriers (given the success of the Ryanairs, Virgins and Tigers this was an eminently foolish concept Mr BDW).

Who were the 'they'? Seems the contacts listed in previous posts might be worth persuing.

The plan (Operation Sewn-Up) was swiftly executed. Ansett and Australian 727's were already re-commissioned and ready to roll to rescue stranded passengers (simultaneously hoping to improve the image of the incumbent airlines) and the government had already fast-tracked the removal of Compass aircraft to overseas lessors, thereby lessening any chance of resurrection.

This was an ultimately foolish act aimed at propping up the PM's friend the part-owner of Ansett, a financial basket-case which inevitably collapsed some time later.

The fact that such governmental bastadry has gone unquestioned is very sad for a country which prides itself on true democratic and capitalistic processes. Jsut like the QF/APA foolishness 16 years later it seems that the chief playes in these acts of bastardy get away scott-free (and often with big financial bonuses).

Its thuggery masquerading as free-enterprise.

There is little incentive for such stories to be told. Particularly if the 'independent' journalist relies directly or indirectly on some of of those involved in the Compass plot who are still active (or in Peter's case at the periphery of the aviation industry) for their income.

[rammel]

I must say that I was dismayed when I read Geoff's article about the LAME's, as I had previously (I think) read one praising QF's staff for making do with the crap management (GD and co) gave them. I was also surprised, because a jounalist he doesn't seem to copy and paste the company press releases.

Hopefully this was an oversight and next time he will do some more digging rather than trust what a company says. After all there is two sides to every story and the truth is normally somewhere in the middle.

Also perhaps Geoff could hightlight in the press somehow that the LAME's p.i.a was highlighted as a cause to lose money, but all the cargo cartel fines were not (or were they). These have the potential to dwarf overall anything that the LAME's did during the "protected" action.

Overall I'd say he writes more good articles than bad and I try to read what his written. Also alot of respect, no matter what you think of him as he posts under his own name.

[geoffrey thomas]

Not going in with pre-conceived ideas. Am looking forward to the challenge of getting to the borrom of the Compass story -the good the bad and the ugly.

With relationship to copy and pasting extracts from press releases I rarely do this and typically only when there is a good legal reason to do so.

Best GT