Adagold Aviation

[VR-HFX]

These guys seem to be doing OK out of the new "high frequency" charter market that now joins Cocos, Xmas Is, Curtin, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Manus and Nauru.

"Our Airline" indeed...well I guess it is true because we are all paying for it.

Apart from their MOD charters the following is the list of contracts with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

Adagold, I believe is the primary contractor for DIAC in sourcing aircraft for moving the pegs around the board.

There may well be others, including the RAAF who are doing some of this work, especially when it comes to supplies.

The annual billings from Adagold to DIAC are as follows:

2007 - $734,160
2008 - $742,880
2009 - $ 5,363,203.86
2010 - $ 9,802,316.83
2011 - $ 9,013,289.26
2012 - $ 24,988,852.78
2013 - $ 29,543,000 ( for Jan-Jun)

TOTAL $ 80 million and counting. The second half of 2013 should be at least double the first half.

[601]

Has anyone ever seen their AOC?

[Going Boeing]

With such a significant increase in revenue, you'd have to think that the larger operators will now be having a close look at getting a slice of the action. The obvious projection for 2013 is over $50m of tax payers money being spent on this operation (thanks Juliar/ALP) so it's something that the bigger operators "may" be able to do at a lower price due to economy of scale - not personally advocating this as we need the smaller operators around to "keep the b@stards honest".

[Cargo744]

601... Why do they need an AOC? They are a charter / brokering agent.

[fl610]

601... Why do they need an AOC? They are a charter / brokering agent.

Interesting point! Can a charter broker make money out of chartering aircraft without an AOC? If they can, why should they?

They directly compete with and undercut those of us who have gone through the pain and expense of acquiring an AOC. :=

Before you start with the "They only arrange charters for aircraft that are on an AOC etc."!

I don't mind, (so much :sad:) competing with the clowns that charter out their aircraft below cost. :ugh: However I do mind trying to compete with third party charter/brokering agents who use said clowns to further their own needs without incurring any of the costs and responsibilities that go with having an AOC.

[falconx]

WHY USE A BROKER?

Finance – Insurance – Mortgage – Property & Real Estate – Cars – Stocks...

Brokers are specialists in their chosen fields all with an intimate knowledge of their industry and all well versed to provide a solution to meet your needs.

Adagold don’t own or have any financial interest in anything that flies so we focus on the best result for you – unbiased and fast!

You could call each and every aircraft owner / operator in the book and still not find an effective solution.


In other words if you know nothing about aircraft, call them and get stitched up

[outnabout]

Why should Adagold have an AOC? I would've thought this might have something to do with it...

CAR 1998:

210 Restriction of advertising of commercial operations

(1) A person must not give a public notice, by newspaper advertisement, broadcast statement or any other means of public announcement, to the effect that a person is willing to undertake by use of an Australian aircraft any commercial operations if the last‑mentioned person has not obtained an Air Operator’s Certificate authorising the conduct of those operations.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

[megle2]

CASA doesn't seem to to have any problems with the arrangement
Adagold probably now make more profit than any aviation outfit in Aus and you have to hand it to them, even they must be amazed with their own success

[601]

Had a few dealings with them in the past.

I gave them a quote for a flight stating in the quote that we could only carry x pax.

Arrived to be met by a "representative" to find out that the pax were clients of ours who were surprised that I had turned up as they had more pax that we could carry. They had already established that fact in correspondence with us.

Representative requested that we carry one extra pax on a jump seat and one on a toilet seat.

Extra paxs went by airline.

During the 2004 ski season, Adagold successfully operated charter services for and on the behalf of Mt Hotham Ski Company, into Mt Hotham airport.

Where does this sit with the latest decisions regarding "charters"

[ga_trojan]

I would image the $29 million figure would be their revenue which would include the cost of the charters. Even if they made 1% on that it's not a bad business to be in and that's only one client!

Also had dealings with them only to figure who they were and then call the client directly and cut them out of the action:E

I too fail to see how they are allowed to exist given that CASA have shut down operators in Darwin over the whole Tiwi Travel business which is basically the same thing. (travel agent sells tickets then charters aircraft but CASA were arguing it was RPT which this isn't.)

I can only guess they send you a letter when you sign the contract saying they are only a broker and you are flying under XYZ's AOC and insurance policy.

What I do not understand is how they can advertise aircraft they don't own. Obviously it is all legal as they have been going a while now.

[Mick Stuped]

Obviously it is all legal as they have been going a while now.

Nope, I am told its only illegal if you get caught, isn't that how it all works, the bold prosper.

But as you say they must be completely legal to get awarded such big government contracts:suspect:

So long as any seats aren't available generally to the public(CASA v CAPER) it must also be all closed charter work or the AOC holder that they use would also be in big trouble as well unless they are RPT AOC holders.

[Horatio Leafblower]

...the AOC holder that they use would also be in big trouble as well unless they are RPT AOC holders.

Ahhhh. I think someone is onto it.

Incidentally, how many operators have applied for a K-mart RPT AOC now that Johnny Mac has said anyone can apply and get exemptions against the requirements? :ugh:

I thought the idea was to bring CHTR up to RPT standard, not send RPT down to CHTR standard? :confused:

[Mick Stuped]

HL

Incidentally, how many operators have applied for a K-mart RPT AOC

Yep, Muggins thought is was worth a cheeky go:ok: went in waving my letter and was laughed at by the local office, exemptions don't and wont be given unless you are have a RPT AOC application in the system:= and are at RPT level with check and training and basically all aspects of operations.

Then good luck with the maintenance if you haven't gone over to CASR Part 42 CAMO and found a Part 145 AMO.:ugh:

[falconx]

Subversive, completely agree

One thing that now gets brokers is BARS accreditation.

I know the mining is now starting to head in this direction (only using those approved) especially with the corporate charters in which I do.

[Copythisnumberdown]

News Flash.. Falcon X reveals his identity with a simple slip of the "WE" word

Adagold don’t own or have any financial interest in anything that flies so we

Explains a LOT of other posts as well!:O

[falconx]

Read it and think about it

[601]

But as you say they must be completely legal to get awarded such big government contracts

Judging by the many and varied interpretations proffered by CAsA, how would a bureaucrat in a non-aviation related department know what the difference is between RPT, "closed charter", "private charter?" and charter and the requirements for such endeavors.

About the only thing missing from their web site is a copy of an AOC. A layman reading it would surmise that this company chartered aircraft.

[VR-HFX]

Subversive

So you are saying Adagold only has a portion of the charter work done for the Dept of Immigration?

No personal axe to grind but find it very interesting that these guys are spending zillions of dollars of taxpayers money with only limited transparency.

Surely a fleet of tired QF 734's could do the job and be good for QF bottomline at the same time:ugh:

[Mick Stuped]

601

Not suggesting collusion are you?

As I would have thought that to get such a big government contract worth so much that due diligence would have been done on the departments side and a copy of the AOC sighted and certificate of currency for all insurances would have to be also kept on file.

Thought that should have been part of the original tender process and a box ticking exercise unless, like you say the public servant has no experience in Aviation.

If so what are they doing in charge of assessing such a large air transport tender, that's if it all even went to tender.

If it didn't go to tender and was just handed out then for such a large expenditure of public funds that's also a bit naughty.

[004wercras]

If it didn't go to tender and was just handed out then for such a large expenditure of public funds that's also a bit naughty

Correct. Just ask Strategic and Mr James about that :=

It would not surprise me in the least that with Rudds knee jerk asylum seeker policy to quickly start virtually overnight that they would be scrambling to shove those naughty boaties on any operators aircraft to get them off AUS soil ASAP.
As for 'due diligence', that is a stumbling block this day and age to getting the job done, and when politicians asses and votes are at stake that 'due diligence' is the furtherest thing on their minds.

[TWOTBAGS]

A little insight for you guys.

There is a thing known as the defence panel, this little group has representation form operators and brokers and you can "bid" of sorts to get onto it.

Now it was originally devised so that the ADF could rapidly acquire airlift outside of "tender" with competitive bids from industry in order to satisfy short term and one off logistic requirements outside of adf capabilities.

Now what has happened every federal (feral) govt dept that could has jumped on the band wagon.

Next was when the Snowbird saga turned out to be the flop it was destined to be.... how many times did they actually make it to the ice? v what was planned. So the Feds have a 319 on a cubic dollar standing fee not doing its job.

Changes of policy and now the "Rudd Route" is almost the second busiest RPT route in the country out side of SYD-MEL.....

Miraculously Snowbird get so busy that they can afford to get a second 319, our airline are doing better than they ever did in the pacific......

and none of us ever saw a tender....... FFS this is the tax dollars that we all pay and yes there are both operators and brokers making a killing.

Is it a club, yes.
Is it legal, yes.
Is it effective for its purposes, yes.
Is there anything we can do about it, NO, simply because it erases layers of BS in the feral govt bureaucracy.

Anyone that has ever had anything to do with a Fed Govt tender will know the onerous process that one must go through, the defence panel cuts that out and delivers a "charter" at a price.

Chin up boys and girls, dont get mad get even and make sure you and everyone you know, vote this Rudd-erless ship out of office when the time comes.

[outnabout]

TwoBags:

On their website, Adagold announce they have been operating since 1992, when they started under Paul Keating. Since then, they've been operating "under" John Howard, KRudd, Julia, and now back to KRudd.

You can't pin this one solely on KRudd.

[Horatio Leafblower]

One thing that now gets brokers is BARS accreditation.

Why would you pay an American Non-profit organisation $20,000 just for them to audit your Australian GA non-profit charter company and verify you (effectively) meet the Australian regulatory standard?

I'm not in the Jet world but I would be surprised if any Australian jet charter mobs couldn't meet BARS standing on their ear.

Judging by the many and varied interpretations proffered by CAsA, how would a bureaucrat in a non-aviation related department know what the difference is between RPT, "closed charter", "private charter?" and charter and the requirements for such endeavors.

Surely it is the operators obligation to ensure they are working within the bounds of the permissions given to them by the regulator?

I know we regularly turn down jobs or work with the client at length to ensure the arrangements meet this week's definition of "Charter" :ugh:

[Cactusjack]

Horatio, spot on. BARS is nothing more than a money churning business scheme. Do you need it? Nope. Is it worth the outlay in terms of real safety? Nope. It is simply something that the mining companies have decided is a safe system to have in place and are placing subtle pressure on operators to have in place. Remember one size doesn't fit all, that is a downside to the BARS methodology.
I know of RPT/Charter operators who have succumbed to BARS and introduced it. For them it is unnecessary as they get audited by CASA, have their own internal audit program, are audited almost monthly by external third parties and the list goes on. So do they need BARS, heck no. However those operators who are somewhat how do I put it nicely - ****e, then BARS is a god send.

Behind the scenes the BARS vs Hart Aviation is also interesting viewing entertainment, watching them duke it out for a slice of the audit pie!! Cha Ching $$$$$. At the end of the day the main value in BARS to an operator is to simply tick a box so that you get a mining contract. Is an operator any less safe if they don't use BARS? NO. If you think BARS is the be all and end all in systems safety then it shows you don't have a good grasp on what safety is.

[megle2]

I don't see any suggestion of collusion there Mick

What I do see is none of the Pprune experts ( except twobags to a degree) have any idea how it all works and cannot figure out whether its cosha or not

Pity no one at CASA has the knowledge to explain it

Adagold are just one of a number of brokers (with no AOC required) but obviously do their job better than the rest

[601]

Adagold does not own, operate or have any financial interest in any aircraft. This decision has been designed to uphold Adagold’s status as an independent air charter service company.

This sentence from their web site and the extensive use of the term "charter" troubles me. If they had "independent aviation broker service company" and used the term "broker" I would not have any problem.



Liabilities for aircraft, crew and related matters are covered by the operator’s Air Operator’s Certificate. Adagold ensures that all operators have appropriate licences, insurances and a high standard of maintenance, safety, pilot check and training procedures.

About the only reference as to the holder of the AOC is in the above paragraph.

[Animalclub]

I don't understand the "beef" with Adagold. I've known them for years and chartered aircraft to them on many occasion. Is it the tall poppy syndrome?

[GADRIVR]

Seems to me that Adagold and other brokers are fulfilling a need. They tend to get the work because they LOOK for the work and are experienced at managing the work. What could be simpler?
Greedy brokers?!?!?........ Can think of a lot of greedy grubby operators as well!!!
For the record, we don't have any association with them, and don't do any work for them....don't really want to or need to to.
Having said that, we do a fair bit of work through other brokers and they plug gaps in our marketing program. Not all bad I would think. I think the regulation is aimed aimed squarely at the naughty boys who advertise and fly their own aircraft without an AOC.
There's a ******** out at Forbes and another in a single turbo prop in the Hunter doing exactly that!! Frightening really.
Grab the money boys and girls...if Adagold and the other brokers are handing out cash...don't see the problem with that!!!

[Mick Stuped]

From my experience brokers become gods they give work to the favourites. Don't dare take work from them even if you are approached by the client direct without solicitation or you will be black banned.

I thought CASA was there to keep every one in line, just as there is bad operators there are also bad brokers. Rules and Regs are there to protect everyone.

I don't have it in for Adagold specially, just the industry of those making money in aviation that are not accountable in any way. The majority of GA operators are good hard working people that love the industry and abide by rules and regs to safely stay in business. This compliance costs in time and money. Those that are doing it tough tend to bend to the whims of requests, just to get the work and then it becomes an issue.

Some Brokers I have dealt with like 601 seem to be fixed on pleasing their clients and expecting us to comply with a request for seats not W&B and safety and don't like the word NO!! They will go and find someone that will take a chance.

I have never heard of a code of conduct or a licence for Aviation Brokers like is mandated and law for any other broker for insurance, home loans etc so why is it allowed in our industry?

[VR-HFX]

Just to reiterate, I have nothing at all against Adagold making a good living out of the Australian Government.

My personal concern is that the Australian Government is spending our money at ever increasing logarithmic rates supporting a nonsensical policy.

The thing with Government expenditure is that it never has an accountability factor...which is income. They assume that we mugs will always be there to pick up the tab.

Until every Adagold charter has a destination called Canberra...then I refuse to believe they are in the real world.

[megle2]

Mick, agree, that is a reasonable summation
When booked by a broker the operator is not able to run the normal checks and balances as they very often were not given the real details. If a noise was made then the broker would try to apply pressure or simply bypass you next time
They definitely played favourites at the customers expense
That's how it used to be but maybe things have improved these days

[LeadSled]

My personal concern is that the Australian Government is spending our money at ever increasing logarithmic rates supporting a nonsensical policy.

Folks,
The answer is to change the big spending government --- it is naught to do with any charter broker.

Twobags has just about got it right, it is an annual "tender" of sorts, so there is an annual opportunity to join the panel.

Adagold is a very successful business because they are very good at what they do. This ratbag government and the way they have mishandled the boat people policy ( remember it was Rudd who started the boat race, do you really believe he now has the answer) has been a bonanza for a number of operators from a number of companies from a number of countries ---- but lay the blame for this huge flow of taxpayers dollars where it belongs, with the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Labor government.

After all, we are talking billions of taxpayers or borrowed (remember the current deficit) $$$$$, not just mere millions. And now the AUD is slipping, the interest cost of servicing the borrowings to pay the federal government's bills/defecit goes through the roof.

As for those of you sounding off about BARS, grow up. It is the (mostly) mining industry that demands this, and anybody who is a BARS accredited auditor can perform an audit --- and there are quite a few around. There is no need to import anybody. BARS is an excellent idea, generally being well handled.

BARS has become the non-scheduled equivalent of the IOSA audits for all members of IATA. If you think "compliance with CASA rules" is good enough, you really don't know much about what happens with a BARS or IOSA audit, or the intent of such audits.

As a very wise former CEO of CASA ( and there ain't too many of them) said:
" A [CASA] compliant operator is not necessarily a safe operator, a non-compliant operator is not necessarily an unsafe operator".

I thought CASA was there to keep every one in line, just as there is bad operators there are also bad brokers. Rules and Regs are there to protect everyone.

Well, Mick, you thunk wrong.

CASA is NOT a commercial regulator, indeed its Act and Regulations specifically bars CASA from making decisions on other than air safety grounds ---- CASA cannot (legally) intervene in aviation commercial matters. Could I suggest you spend a little time familiarizing yourself with said Act and Regulations, so you at least have a glimmer of what they actually say.




Tootle pip!!

[megle2]

Leadsled, in respect to Mick's comments of problems between brokers and GA operators he is correct. Its nothing to do with commercial activities, its about staying within the law eg 601's comment re pax numbers
Casa know about it but can't do much except to get the brokers to reword their websites, some brokers have done so making it clear they are brokers

To return to the initial thread of the boat charters ( before we drifted off thread ) Twobags and your comments explain the basics

[Mick Stuped]

LeadSled, shall we start by just having a little peek at CAR 206 and CAR 210 and tell me the difference between a unlicensed operator and a broker. I do know of Brokers that have been shut down by 210 alone.

Obviously you are a man that studies law where I am only one that tries to work within it.

Maybe you can enlighten me as to where in the CAR's and REG's that it states that CASA can only enforce the rules to AOC holders and licenced pilots only.

Quick review of 210 states A person must not give a public notice, by newspaper advertisement, broadcast statement or any other means of public announcement, to the effect that a person is willing to undertake by use of an Australian aircraft any commercial operations if the last-mentioned person has not obtained an Air Operator's Certificate authorising the conduct of those operations. Can you tell how a broker doesn't come under this reg?

Nope, foolish me - I forgot level playing fields don't exist in Australia as the umpire is out the back arguing semantics with the crowds.

I also fail to understand how a government tender for public transport can be given to a broker who then goes and chooses who can do the work and throws the odd breadcrumbs to all and sundry according to their whim whilst the operators have to jostle and compete for the work.

Wasn't this simular to what used to happen at the docks and work houses during the depression. Meanwhile the brokers get richer as the operators cut the bottom line to get work to survive. Tell me that's in the interest of safety.

[Animalclub]

Mick
Where does this put the travel agent? He/she buys part of an aircraft for a flight for a passenger... isn't he a broker?
"Broker" is just another word for "Agent".

[LeadSled]

Mick,

No.1, Re-read TWOBAGS post, or go and do some reading elsewhere, including how the panel works.Google is your friend.

No.2, Develop a more nuanced understanding of CAR 206, and its history, AAT decisions etc., brokers like Adagold are advertising services as brokers, not as operators. You haven't really made a case as to why CAR 210 is relevant. You have made an assertion.

No.3 CASA has no role in commercial relations between brokers and the operators, whom they contract to carry out work. It's all in the Act and Regulations.

Indeed, in many cases, CASA has no role at all, beyond its normal role involving any foreign operator flying in and out of Australia, be it scheduled or non-scheduled. In many ( possibly most, where international non-scheduled operations are concerned) cases, no Australian AOC is involved.

Tootle pip!!

[A Squared]

I don't understand the "beef" with Adagold. I've known them for years and chartered aircraft to them on many occasion. Is it the tall poppy syndrome?

Kinda what it looks like from here. All this talk about *greedy* brokers. Well, they're providing a service. Apparently a needed service, or thye wouldn't exist. And for that, seems like they're due a slice of the pie.

My employer works with brokers quite frequently. Personally, my preference would be that my company dealt directly with the client thus getting the whole pie, but the reality is that for whatever reason, the brokers have access to clients that our sales department doesn't, and we want those clients. And on the other end of the deal the brokers offer a service to the client. Imagine being someone in industry with no particular knowledge of the air cargo business who suddenly finds themselves with a time critical cargo shipment. How much time would you spend, finding out what type of aircraft is appropriate for the load and destination, finding operators of appropriate aircraft, and contacting them individually to find out which one had aircraft availability for the charter? You might spend a couple of days on the phone spinning your wheels. Remember, this is a time critical shipment (otherwise you'd be trucking it, or sending it by barge) A broker starts to look pretty attractive to a client like that.

As far as those sniffing that Adagold doesn't have an AOC; So what? Do you have any reason at all to believe that any the charters they broker are not being operated someone's AOC?

[Animalclub]

Subversive1
Are you saying that anyone that does business with the government (this lot don't deserve a capital G) shouldn't drive a big car? Crikey, look at the contractors like Qantas, Holland and the road building crew executives drive!!!
Crazy.

[A Squared]

I use the term greedy, because company staff are driving brand new Jaguars and Aston Martins purchased with public money.

Hmmmm, The Green Monster raises it's ugly head. So by your definition anyone who is sucessful at a business is "greedy" ?


Seems to me that if you're dissatisfied with the way in which charter work is contracted, your beef is with your government, not those who are apparently fulfilling a need.

[601]

brokers like Adagold are advertising services as brokers, not as operators.

Do they explicitly state on their web site that they are a broker, do not hold an AOC and that they do not hold any compulsory Passenger Liability insurance.

[dodo whirlygig]

Do they need to?

Do they explicitly state on their web site that they are a broker, do not hold an AOC and that they do not hold any compulsory Passenger Liability insurance.

[A Squared]

Do they explicitly state on their web site that they are a broker, do not hold an AOC and that they do not hold any compulsory Passenger Liability insurance.

Ahhh, yes, the false accusation, disguised as a question you already know the answer to, but wish to imply the opposite anyway, giving the excuse that you were "only asking" when caught out.

Adagold does not own, operate or have any financial interest in any aircraft. This decision has been designed to uphold Adagold’s status as an independent air charter service company.

In commercial terms, Adagold’s primary roles include the planning of the best logistical solutions, aircraft management and task organisation. The client contracts directly with Adagold and this is their only commercial transaction.

An important factor is our position as an independent broker in both charter and FBO operations. This ensures a no bias, nil allegiance or restriction scenario when selecting aircraft for operational capabilities.

Liabilities for aircraft, crew and related matters are covered by the operator’s Air Operator’s Certificate. Adagold ensures that all operators have appropriate licences, insurances and a high standard of maintenance, safety, pilot check and training procedures.

In addition, Adagold carries public liability insurance. These commercial arrangements are intended to give maximum protection and assurance to the client.

All that on my first visit to their website. It wasn't hidden.

Any other "questions" ?

As for having positioned themselves as a broker of Australian Government Charters: My own company does a fair amount of business with an arm of the US government. It is all through a broker. Initially we had explored a direct contract, but found that this organization preferred to do the contracting thru a broker. *shrug* If the terms aren't favorable, nobody's twisting our arm to take the work. Apparently they are, as we do.

[VR-HFX]

Well Skytraders are also doing OK by the look of things and won't need the Antarctic gig. Unlike "Our Airline" they have however blocked their flights from being shown on any of the flight tracking websites.

According to the AusTender website they have about $51m in contracts with the Dept of Immigration and Citizenship to move pieces around the Refugee Monopoly board.

The two big contracts are $20m on 18 Jan 2013 and $30m on 31 May 2013.

But all of these aircraft charter contracts are small beer compared to SERCO Pty Ltd who have a total of $6.5 BILLION since December 2009. $6 BILLION of this is since mid 2011. This is only for the Dept of Immigration and Citizenship and does not include other contracts with Defence etc. Guessing they will be sending KRudd a big hamper at Xmas.

[megle2]

Squared, on your first site visit you found the latest version which I suspect meets with Casa's approval
Previous web info could be read as implying they were the operator
This was the problem many had for a long time and were frustrated that Casa took no notice

[MartinCh]

So this is where my PR application fee to DIAC goes..

[witwiw]

.... Our Airline's aircraft, who in turn have exclusive access to Nauru.


Wrong!!!!

Recent operators into INU include: Skytraders (repeat Skytraders), Alliance, Toll, Solomon Airlines, Airwork NZ, RAAF.

That's hardly exclusivity, except where it obviously suits your argument!!!!!

[down3gr33ns]

The Our Airline deal is a bit dodgy, with Adagold being the prime contractor (Post 50)


I would be very interested to see where the funding for Skytraders originates, as both A319s are under permanent contract to WOAG. At least most Adagold's (with partners OA and Alliance) contracts are visible as being conducted with DIAC funds. (Post42)


So, Sub1, it's either "dodgy" or "visible".


Further:

I would be very interested to see where the funding for Skytraders originates

however, you appear to answer that in Post 14 where you state:

DIAC have also booked with Skytraders


You seem to be having a bit each way.