"Operation No-Control"

[Patriot One]

Let’s leave the Pilots alone for a while and focus on an even bigger issue - the integrity of technical and engineering standards. For years Australian domestic airlines have maintained higher standards (and so, higher costs) in these areas than many of their overseas counterparts. Yes, cuts could have been made, efficiencies gained, but the reality no-one did it because it was a stalemate that the big players didn't want to risk breaking - because you don't know what is going to fall out the other side. This may sound ironic given the debacle over Ansett's collapse, but if you read the detail it was never that Ansett was unsafe, or that it compromised its integrity. It made a mistake, a mistake that it openly declared to the regulator, as it was required to do in the self-audit philosophy that underwrites our regulatory control. That's the whole point of self-audit - to create an environment whereby a company doesn't cover up its mistakes for fear of retribution, but openly declares them and the intended recovery so that everything is treated with 100% clarity - but enough of Ansett.

What you see happening at VB (and QF to a lesser extent) is the lesson that everyone knows about but no one learns (Ansett and Air New Zealand certainly didn't) - that is, do not overstretch your capability. Like a rubber band, you stretch it too far and there are only 2 likely results - 1 it either snaps back and hurts like hell (grounding aircraft for maintenance), or it breaks altogether (CASA grounds your aircraft). Either way the costs are increasing and once you've started you can't simply back- off...commercial airlines are a continuous cycle of perpetual motion, more akin to a big oil tanker than a sleek new aircraft. Once the commercial demands become so high it takes a hell of a lot to slow them down, and to improve your capability (resources) to enable you to operate at the higher demand involves nothing but cost, without a guarantee of reward. It's commonly known in the airline industry as the spiral of death.

There is no doubt in my mind that VB is stretching its aircraft to the limit and it is no secret that it is not on top of its maintenance through bad scheduling, inefficient maintenance control, and poor operational management. One look at their schedule and anyone can see what I am saying. (How are your rosters fella’s?) One must ask, given that VB just made a profit of $A158m, and have not added any more aircraft for the past 6 months or so, how can they keep adding more and more flights? The profit in itself is perverse, given the model as a low-cost/low-fare airline, the huge investment required for their expansion to 30 aircraft (remember only 3 years ago it had only 4 aircraft and no plans for 20 let alone 30 aircraft - where did the money come from?), and of course the rhetoric about "keeping the air fare", particularly given the fact that it is the worst kept secret that it is cheaper to fly QF than VB.

So VB, and to a similar extent QF, have taken advantage of the huge opportunity that followed from the collapse of Ansett. QF was faced with blocking the market from a new entrant, and VB was faced with grabbing far more market share than they ever anticipated when they started. Both have extended themselves extraordinarily, without an appropriate expansion in capability and you will note without much expenditure. Something is being missed along the way - infrastructure and capability. In an ordinary business in an ordinary competitive market you would respond to growth by improving capability - because of course growth is not a free ride. Growth costs money. Growth can be efficient and if done correctly growth can be very, very profitable, whilst remaining competitive and un-exposed. But growth without investment in capability and infrastructure does nothing but increase your tactical costs - i.e. the machinations of delivery caused by the higher output. Of course these 2 airlines (and let's not fool ourselves, VB has taken Ansett's place in the cosy duopoly that it complained so vehemently about when it first entered the market) have had the luxury of putting up their fares to cover the costs of expansion, after all it suits them both and they have no competition. No worries you might say, this is a capitalist market, and the supply vs. demand equation (shortage) is a commercial dream. That's true to a point, but what happens if a 3rd airline comes along? What happens if the rubber band breaks? It's an awful long and costly way back to your capability level. Let's say a 3rd carrier comes along (and believe me many, many people would have noticed the profits of both VB and QF and realised that there's a gap in this market). What does VB do to face the challenge? Cut fares? Highly unlikely, after all it needs those yields to offset its costs of operating at high output. And yet, fares would be its only differential - after all the aircraft is uncomfortable and there is no service.

But far worse is at risk. Commercial demands, if not supported by growth in infrastructure and capability, increase the risks. Sadly, these risks are very discreet. Not providing sufficient time and management of aircraft maintenance will eventually catch up with you one day. If the costs don't get you, the aircraft most certainly will.

Australian aviation looks very different today than it did 5 years ago but for the most part the public doesn't notice - after all there is still 2 airlines. But underneath it all something has been lost and the risks have gone up. It is a far less safe place to travel than it used to be. Whether you can prove it or not is another matter. But it has always been that way in aviation. I have been in the industry long enough to know that aviation incidents nowadays are, on the whole, not random events but indicative of a greater insidiousness. However,
inexperience and commercial priorities overlook all of the discreet indicators of risk.

You may consider much of this as negative ramblings, but ask yourself this. How can VB make such a profit with such a small operation, with every decreasing yield? This was not some small return on investment - this was a huge profit for any airline, let alone one that is still in its infancy. Mr. Godfrey will claim that it is because he keeps his costs down. But how does he do that? His cockpit crews’ salaries have gone up. His engineers are on award rates. He pays the same fees for using airports and terminals as QF. His costs may be cheaper than QF's but not to the extent of that profit. I assure you that profit was made off the back of a very cheap infrastructure, with no skills and no experience. Sadly, like all things, you only notice the things that aren't there when something goes wrong. Unfortunately this business is unforgiving when something goes wrong. And putting the safety issue aside, the only other manner in which such profits can be made is through large yields. Why does the media never challenge the claims of VB that they are the cheapest airline in Aus?

Many of you have much to say on incompetent management in the airline industry. Conversely you also praise VB for having the guts and the initiative to challenge the Australian market duopoly. Having had the luxury of a honeymoon period for over 2 years now, do you really think your airline is ready to face true competition? Do you think your management is smart enough to be prepared? When it all comes tumbling down to reality and once again the industry is stuffed by a pretender, I wonder who you will blame? Your management? Will you remember that they were the same people that managed you today?

The problem is that when things are going good people praise management. When they are going bad they blame management. The reality is that we often see them as 2 different people because good times cover the incompetence.

[Servo]

OoooooooooooooKkkkkkkkkkkkkkk then.:confused:

WTF was that all about?

Ok so i'll bight.......... So what do you care. Distance yourself so you don't get hurt.

As for new aircraft, supposedly another four coming next month.

Otherwise who gives a ****. Go play with Dixon and his train set if it's so perfect.

:ok:

[Spotlight]

I said to Amos and I said to Wilbur, Its a Ringer.

[HGW]

Geez, Patriot One. You have a real bone to pick with VB.
You are the most anti VB person on the net. Get a life for gods sake.
At VB if they are not supposed to fly, they don't fly. Safety is first, staff are second, profit third.
You say that it far less safer to fly now than before. What a load of crock. The worst plane in VB's fleet is that heap of crap, previously under maintained, flying testimony to Ansett management and engineering CZQ.
It is safer to fly now because the aircraft are new and don't require the rubber bands that were used previously.

[bitter balance]

"Safety is first, staff are second, profit third" - HGW; Do you seriously believe that VB was setup by an English entrepreneur to provide a fun place for Australians to work? Your ranking of profit I think reflects more corporate spin than substance. I don't believe VB is unsafe. I also don't believe they are in Oz for a fun time.

[SkyBronco]

HGW, airlines exist simply to make a profit for their shareholders. Admittedly, there are examples overseas where this is not the case due to government involvement. Here in oz, however, QF and VB exist to make a profit. Safety and HRM (staff) are simply a means by which to achieve that profit.

I don't mean to imply that safety or staff aren't essential to an airline. It is clear that without a safe operation or without proficient staff, an airline cannot survive in the long term, and hence is unable to continue to make a profit. Safety, staff, service and anything else is simply a means to that end.

[Patriot One]

Kinda make you wonder what is the point of PPRUNE - some of you guys turn it into a modern day dunny-wall where you get to write nasty things about each other without having to express an intelligent opinion.

"Safety first"? - don't make me laugh. That phrase is about as overused as "have a nice day". Easy to put up the rhetoric, much harder to back it up.

"We fly brand new planes so we must be safe". That's is the VB mentality. The fact is that many airlines who have been around for a very long time do have legacy aircraft. The fact is that with the complexities and age of its fleet Ansett's OTP was better than QF and VB, and certainly better than both of them now.

The skill and safety level of an airline is determined by how they operate in adversity, not how big their mouth is.

[prospector]

HGW
The way I read the posts of Patriot One is not to give VB a hammering, but to point out the effect that the lack of integrity is having on this industry. Many of us who have a goodly proportion of grey hair can see it, experience in the form of "Been There, Done That", cannot be lightly discarded. The build up of accumulated experience by very dedicated people is likely the main reason that the industry has come as far as it has in one lifetime. To have all the Corporate Knowledge sacrificed for the sake of the almighty dollar, given that the originators of this make a buck at any cost cattle class travel have no interest in the Soul of what used to be a well respected profession is something that in the modern world is necessary perhaps, but it does not mean that many of us have to like it. Maybe a dated view, but in the days when airline management was generally looked after by experienced aircrew, rather than PR people, it was a much better place to be. However, not easy to convince people what they have never experienced that it was a better way.

Prospector

[HGW]

To all that have replied to my comments.
I stand corrected. I thought you all felt the same as I do that safety is first and foremost before profit. Profit is the ultimate aim but after safety and has to be otherwise we end up like all the other fallen airlines.

The aviation world has changed but is still regulated by the same rules as before.

Patriot One: OTP is not a measure to be used for safety as some of those planes should not have flown. VB sacrifices OTP for the sake of safety regularly.

[Kaptin M]

Not saying that I disagree with all that you've stated, P1, however you do appear to have used quite a bit of "poetic licence" to support - or pad out - your post, eg.
"...but if you read the detail it was never that Ansett was unsafe"
My recollection is one of the Ansett B767 fleet being grounded - not once, but twice, for maintenance that was in excess of 6 months overdue, that maintenance (or lack of) included failing to replace critical parts!

"There is no doubt in my mind that VB is stretching its aircraft to the limit..."
Unless YOU are in fact actually working for, or contracted to VB, on what grounds are you basing this accusation?

"One must ask, given that VB just made a profit of $A158m, and have not added any more aircraft for the past 6 months or so, how can they keep adding more and more flights?"
Better utilisation, and by increasing crew numbers per aircraft, I would guess. Would you be surprised to learn that MANY international operators have their aircraft working continously, some flying 18+ hours out of 24, with the only time spent on the ground for loading/unloading, refuelling, and crew changes.
An idle aircraft is LOSING $$$'s.

"Both have extended themselves extraordinarily, without an appropriate expansion in capability and you will note without much expenditure."
Really?! How about the terminals that VB have signed up for, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney - and to quote YOU, P1 from your previous paragraph, "the huge investment required for their expansion to 30 aircraft (remember only 3 years ago it had only 4 aircraft " Ooops. :uhoh:

Gotta love you for this one, P1, "Australian aviation looks very different today than it did 5 years ago.... It is a far less safe place to travel than it used to be. Whether you can prove it or not is another matter."
Well you made that statement, P1, so how about producing some proof to back it up? Upon what basis have you formed your opinion?

As I said at the outset, I don't disagree with everything that you've raised, however you have intertwined a fair bit of questionable material with some of the possibly more pertinent points.

prospector, "..but in the days when airline management was generally looked after by experienced aircrew, rather than PR people, it was a much better place to be."
Erebus was the beginning of that for Air N.Z. wasn't it.
A sordid attempt at a cover-up. :\

[Lodown]

Patriot One, to add to KM's list, you state:

The skill and safety level of an airline is determined by how they operate in adversity, not how big their mouth is.

To rehash and rephrase that old aviation mantra, I would have thought the skill and safety level of an airline is determined by how they don't get into a situation where they have to operate in adversity - period.

?????????

Well said Servo.

[Patriot One]

Well said Prospector. Bloody well said.

HGW - nobody said Safety shouldn't come first - everybody said it doesn't come first. I didn't say OTP was a measure of safety, it was a measure of how reliable Ansett's aircraft were, despite their appearance and age. One wonders if VB is so focussed on safety, and CZQ is a "heap of crap", why then is it still in the fleet? Let me guess - you believe that VB maintenance looks after it better than Ansett did?

Lodown - that has to be the most niave comment a pilot could make. If Airlines avoided adversity then there would be no flying in any weather, no flying at night, no flying with MEL's, etc etc. The fact is that all of these things happen every day, and it is the skill of the airline (including its pilots) that gets them through successfully.

Ansett was not operationally rotten. It was a commercial basket case. Issues in the commercial world compromised the operational and engineering part of the business - and created adversity. The reverse is true of VB.

Kaptin M - in response to your post;
1. AN voluntarily grounded 4 of the 767's in Dec. These were the ones affected by the SB. An initial programe of inspection was put in place to get them back in the air, with full compliance with the SB to occur by April. The aircraft all passed inspection in Dec. They were grounded by CASA in April with the justification being that they were in non-compliance - yet the issue that grounded them was totally unrelated to the SB. Further, the SB only applied to 4 of the 9 B767-2's - so why did CASA ground all 9 aircraft? Further, it was an SB, not an AD, and CASA had not issued the SB to Australian operators as they were required to do. The BASI report makes an interesting read. Even Boeing have clearly stated, as have the FAA, that AN was not unsafe in overlooking this SB.

2. I understand that I can't just make a bold claim and assume everyone will believe me. Further I can't reveal how I know. So, I will withdraw the accusation. However, VB crews - ask youself if any of my claims ring true. If there are any VB or Jetcare Lame's reading this - does this ring true? It isn't all that hard to look at their network, no. of flights per day, fleet, etc to work it out yourself.

3. That's not my argument - I agree, utilisation is the key. But high utilisation requires resources to support. It's not a free ride. If you're going to fly your aircraft to the max then you had better be prepared to maintain them in short time frames, in various different bases, and engineering flexibility. VB is not keeping up with this. It is the commercial catch-cry "keep 'em flying, their costing me money to sit on the ground"....conversely "the more you fly 'em the more they need maintaining".

4. For a start VB didn't invest in terminals - it pays a user fee like any other user - their is no infra-structure investment here. Infra-structure includes the right people, the right engineering facilities, etc etc. Second part of this question is completely out of context - growth in aircraft from 4 to 30 - where was the growth in infrastructure? None!

5. Same as 2 I guess. If I revealed all I know Woomera would ban me from the site. You cant proove anything any more. Australia was once a proud aviation environment where the regulator was content with self-audit and disclosure. After the shocking treatment of Ansett (among others) by the regulator, and the entry of VB, this country's aviation policy has become less open.......well let's just withdraw my comment, if I say anything more about the regulator I will get banned.

[Kaptin M]

It appears to me, P1, that this thread is pretty much along the same lines as your other - Paradaise (sic) Lost - and going by your response to prospector, I believe that perhaps I might (really covering my ass here) see where you're coming from :confused:

As I wrote earlier on, I don't disagree with with some of your points, and in fact I tend to agree with prospector"s sentiment ! :uhoh:

Is it my imagination, or has there been a "dumbing down" of airlines over the past 10 - 15 years. I think that prospector more or less put his finger on the start of the rot - it was around the time PR/HR departments started to become separate departments..and kept growing and growING and GROWING.
Slowly they eased the aviation-experienced mangement out, and replaced them with non (aviation) experienced personnel. More departments grew within each other, requiring more "managers" - who in turn required more assistants.
Empire building began on a grand scale, and has continued.
Airline office employment has ballooned, whilst fleet sizes have remained pretty much unchanged, but front line staff - from the check-in, to the loaders, to the cockpit and cabin have been trimmed, to accomodate the salaries of those employed in BS Castle!

And now it SUDDENLY appears that airlines aren't the great profit makers they used to be.
The reason "increasing staff costs". Damned RIGHT on that one, because of increased staff HIRING, to shore up the positions of this "manager" and that one.

And so we now have directives coming down from our many "managers", that make those (such as prospector) who have been around for a while, ask "WTF:mad:??!"
Decisions have been made that at the outset seem 180 degrees opposed to traditional aviation common sense - and which almost ALWAYS prove to be so after not such a long time.
Another failed "experiment". These people are having to learn it all over again, rather than utilising previous time-tested, proven methods.
Scrimp to save a penny in an area that does NOT justify reducing cost, but spend a pound elsewhere - probably to support another "department".

In my current employment, I'm seeing this "non-aviation experience" occasionally dripping through to the "front line". Stuff that private pilots (no offence intended) might THINK airline pilots SHOULD do, is coming down to us in the form of notices, or floated to the F/O's to incorporate as part of their daily flight operating procedures.

If you keep it general, P1, rather than trying to single VB out, you might get your point across better.
VB is still a new company, however in the Flight Ops area I believe they have a very strong foundation with a load of experience that they ARE utilising to my knowledge.

It's not JUST Australia - it has been a worldwide phenomenom. The growth of unnecessary "management" - the water lillies of aviation!

[Patriot One]

Kaptin - you're mellowing mate. But maybe we've discovered what I came to talk about..or maybe all I came to do was to mourn the loss of....of....of....operational excellence to commercial vulgarity?

I know it's not just Australia - but that's why it is so sad. I spent many years overseas watching the industry degenerate under the influence of bad airlines....I didn't really want to see that history repeated here. But it is, and all I came to say was basically "beware the pretender", because whilst they brought Pilot jobs to Australia, and other "benefits", it all comes at a very expensive and industry-changing price.

I couldn't care less about Virgin Blue. I don't need to fly them, and I don't need to work for them. But it is embarrassing for me to see my fellow Australians swoon around Branson and Godfrey as if they are the white knights of aviation. Ask your colleagues overseas who have experienced the real Branson, what they actually think of him - it's a very different perspective. The massive dislike for him is not because he breaks the establishment - it's because he's basically bent. For an industry where your flight attendants have spent so much industrial time and might to enforce their integrity and secure their value, the whole VB flight attendant program is a complete inversion. Sure everyone smiles and laughs at how pretty they are, etc. but isn't there a general disquiet about what the trend has now become? Something (paradise?) has been lost and none of you seem to mourn its passing.

As they say, better the devil you know....

There is much negative to say about QF. Most of it for their behaviour since Dixon has been in charge. But on the whole what Ansett was and what QANTAS has become started many years ago, and has now started to become overt in the eyes of all. I do not work for QF, and I have no love for them either, but damn if I ain't proud of them when I am overseas. Locally at home they are no better or worse than a domestic carrier in the USA. It is what it is. But what it affords the industry is a level of standard that remained unchallenged for many years. The pretender now comes on the scene and he does it all sooo cheaply by not including rigour, or quality, or experience in his structure - because that costs money. Nope - he puts "bright young things" in place and calls the industry mainstays as evil empires. And most people respond with "wow, the innovation!", when in fact it isn't innovation....its far worse..its out and out ignorance. What innovation there is was designed by those evil empires years ago, but they were all unable to implement them as industrial relations confused salaries, and manpower, with modernisation and standards.

Kaptin - I ask this with some trepidation - it is not meant to be inflammatory - could it be that your feelings regarding '89, and your friends, colleagues and leaders who were with you then, and who are now at VB, with the exclusion of those from the "other" side, are actually influencing your perceptions about Virgin Blue??

[Kaptin M]

Of course you can still prove things, P1 - there's no law against telling the truth, merely the fact that it mightn't sit right with some people.
It is against the law to slander, though.

[Whiskery]

Patriot 1 - you must have taken that rejection from VB to heart.

The massive dislike for him is not because he breaks the establishment - it's because he's basically bent.

He is liked in many circles and admired for his ability and entrepreneurial skill to beat not break the establishment. Take a look at the court stoushes he has had with British Airways. He is ahead 5 : 1 and has £12M of BA's to prove it! Let's face it, if it wasn't for Sir Richard, we would still have that dinosaur Ansett and public service mentality Qantas ruling the airwaves and Mr Joe Public paying through the nose for domestic air travel in this fine country.

Keep the faith :] and keep the air fare !

[dingo084]

My experience with VB tends to support those posting here along the lines that VB are a 'lightweight' organisation.

I wonder just how robust the CERP or even the QA program actually is. I hope they never get to test (in reality) the former. I'm not even game to contemplate the latter.

I'm surprised the habitual (head) bleater hasn't blamed QF, the Moon, the Minister, Fels or whoever for missing curfew last night in Sydney. Poor organisation or just another case of they just don't know what they don't know.

ding

[luna landing]

The cost incurred by that VB aircraft last night missing curfew by 45 seconds - being 200ft from landing and taking all those PAX back to ML had nothing to do with safety. It was a major cock-up..

[Kaptin M]

could it be that your feelings regarding '89, and your friends, colleagues and leaders who were with you then, and who are now at VB......are actually influencing your perceptions about Virgin Blue??

That may well be some part of it, P1. But on the other hand, I got to know MANY more people - including ex-89'ers - after leaving Australia in October, 1990, and to renew friendships with several with whom I had lost contact during employment pre-89.
So knowing the pilot quality of the guys whom Virgin Blue took on - "pilot quality" being something that they proved they had, working for foreign airlines, who saw fit to appoint many of them to positions higher than line pilot eg. checker, instructor, upgrade, etc - in conjunction with their personal quality - leads me to believe that although VB might have "issues", the RIGHT people are there to act as checks and balances, to make sure that if something slighty sus were to get into the system, it will be picked up.
Yes, I have faith in those people who are NOW the "custodians" of Australian aviation. People who put Safety first, and who have the character to ensure that they don't compromise their standards.
The same cannot be said for those who usurped that title given by Hawke in that year. And history has proven that which we knew at the time was bs, to be exactly that.

"Mellowing", I don't think so - however I would like to think that my mind remains open.

And now to you, P1. Your posts - whether you realise it or not - come across as quite anti-VB, although you attempt to try to dilute this by throwing in a sprinkling of "Well, QF's not much better".
But it is a charade, I feel.

How well I recall standing on the ground at the warehouse where I had stored my, and my family's life's possessions, prior to leaving Australia, and looking up to see an Ansett aircraft fly overhead.
The company and industry that had been my past, and was to have been my future forever, was now in the hands of people whose word could not be trusted, and complete strangers. The company to which I, along with thousands of others, had taken a personal interest in making sure it succeeded, and the Australian domestic airline industry put into the hands of people hastily cobbled together with whatever unemployed jetsam and flotsam was available.

Do YOU get that same feeling when you see a Virgin Blue aircraft fly over, P1?
A feeling of loss. Loss of more than just an "employer".
I suspect so.

[Wizofoz]

I now fly for one of those ghastly low cost carriers in Europe.

All I can say is that, in my experience, the standards of operation are equivalent to or greater than that which I experienced in Ansett. I work hard, but I work productively. I am asked to save costs, but never at the expense of efficiency or safety (and, Patriot, much as you pay homage to AN, I would dispute whether that was always the case in my previous life).

What is missing is the layers of management and the constant expenditure on gilding what is a very plain lily. We fly people from A to B safely and (as much as possible) on time. We don't sell them club lounge memberships, or sponsor Olympic Games.

And guess what? Give people a good product at a reasonable price, and hey! Presto! High load factors, and, combined with frugal management and high aircraft and staff utilisation, PROFITS!! Year in and year out!!

This is not a flash in the pan. Southwest, Ryan, Jet blue. The list goes on. It is a simple formula that works and has done for a long time.

I'm sorry Patriot, but, though I have NO reason to love VB, they are simply applying a proven formula that works for some of the most successful and SAFEST airlines in history.

That was a QF aircraft on the fairway (and, in my opinion, this was not the potentially worst incident QF has had!), it was an AN Jumbo on its nose and, lets face it, it was your lamented big airline philosophy which has seen AN a part of history. Major accidents amongst the low costs mentioned above who, at a totally off the cuff count have been operating around 250 aircraft for the last ten years? Zip.

The idea that low cost means lower safety simply does not hold water. And the prime aim for ANY business is to STAY in business..

I'd be sinking a cold one at skiffies right now if the people who ran AN had understood that!!

[Lodown]

P1, perhaps your definition of adversity and my definition are different. I don't regard flying IFR or at night or in accordance with MEL's as adversities. As you said, it's an everyday part of an operation. It's part and parcel of doing the job.

Wizofoz, I'm just thinking Valujet was a low cost carrier.

[Wizofoz]

Lodown,

True but not of the Southwest model.

Old aircraft, dodgy practices and running on a shoestring certainly do add to risk. The type of operator I am talking about (and VB is modelled on) are usually well capitalised, use young fleets and attract competant staff.

Interestingly, those operating much more expensive, new aircraft seem consistantly more profitable than the operators trying to get a few more hours out of tired old heaps.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Wiz, Southwest put a 737 through an airport fence a couple of years ago.

Very similiar to the QF1 accident actually. No one killed but very embarrassing and expensive.

[Patriot One]

Kaptin - a sense of loss most certainly, but not of one particular airline, but simply of an industry - hey, I'm the first to admit that it's nostalgia to a certain degree. But I'm proud of the fact that I did know a better time.

Wizofoz - I do not claim that ALL budget carriers are unsafe or inefficient. There are many around the world that proove their quality in operation. However, it's easier to look like a budget carrier than it is to look like a full-service carrier. All you need do is have a big mouth and claim underdog status. Its the oldest marketing trick in the book - ask Freddie Laker, and Branson after him. VB is a pretender to the budget side of the industry. If Ansett hadn't collapsed VB would have already been dead for many months. And please dont tell me that AN's collapse was part of VB's strategy. Further, the fact that VB has any reliability at all is a testament to the aircraft manufacturer more than to the airline.

I'm not against the budget carrier philosophy per se, as I believe it fills a need in many markets. I believe that there is a market in Australia for it as well. But heed my warnings - VB is not doing it right. It's the most well documented statement amount budget carriers - "don't forget your business plan and philosophy". VB has. VB is operating well above its capability.

Your quote - "Old aircraft, dodgy practices and running on a shoestring certainly do add to risk. The type of operator I am talking about (and VB is modelled on) are usually well capitalised, use young fleets and attract competant staff."......

...VB wasn't well capitalised - and RB is not the sort to keep digging into his own pocket....attract competent staff?....exactly when are they supposed to show up?

[HGW]

P1

How do you know how VB operates unless you are on the inside.
Ansett were in trouble before VB came along. If it wasn't Virgin to benefit it would have been Impulse.

VB is well capitilised, do have the youngest fleet and have attracted competent staff. I am from an airline background as are many staff within VB. They purposely hired the minimum number of experienced people so as not to bring in the old culture such as you are proffessing to.

The only time VB was under capitilised was when there was four airlines and no one knew who would last the distance. Ansett was always going to be there and always figured in future plans.

The aviation world has changed and for many reasons. What you say is for all the wrong or bad reasons. I don't agree. It is a natural cycle. We ask for more and more money eventually pricing ourselves off the market, or allow start ups such as VB, Southwest, etc, to prosper.

You contradict yourself in your replies and it is very obvious that you have a dislike for VB and not the model (your words). What ever you say does not matter as VB is successful and keeps on growing. There is a place in Oz for budget and full service. This is better than what we had before. Now we have true, identifiable choice. The only things that are the same are the rules we play by. Regulations are not written for a VB - budget and a different set for QF - full service.

Please do not comment on safety standards of any airline without proof. You do not have access to anything to do with VB whereas I do. I take your comments as a personal attack on my integrity and competency to administer the rules laid down by the governing bodies. I can assure you VB are audited regularly by CASA, DOTARS and external companies with satff made up of ex AN people. If anything is wrong it is fixed as is in QF.

In my experince not much is done different to what Ansett did as they were a vibrant, innovative airline that was destroyed by bad management and union power. VB is how Ansett used to be a long time ago. The under dog. Do you remember those days?. I do and they are back again and it is exciting to be a part of it.

Ansett will be back or is it already.