Gold Airways
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Temptation
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gold Airways
19 April 2005
Gold Airways plans may upset Ozjet dream.
There is no gap in the airline passenger business market in Australia, if there was there would be more demand for business class seats out there. Business Australia is not complaining; it's happy to fly with well behaved tourists at row 20, even with lap top in tow. And the current airlines, VirginBlue, JetStar and Qantas in the main are doing a reasonable job. If they weren't they wouldn't have had such healthy growth rates. These airlines are not stupid, there is good reason for them not going where Ozjet seems to think it has a niche.
The fact is Ozjet may have been better sticking to its original plan as an LCC rather that make assumptions that it will attract 30 x $598 fares between Melbourne and Sydney. And that is because it will ultimately be forced into the LCC market anyway - if it can stomach the pressure. An all-business niche with a market share of 10% would signal an extraordinary shift in historical business class travel statistics in Australia.
Gold Airways plans to make Ozjet's life miserable. Not only will it compete where its hurts but it can compete on price, product, frequency and speed. And the timing. Well let's just say that's Gold Airways' best kept secret.
hahahahaaahaahaahaahhahahahahah
<<<< Dont yah just love good competition >>>>
Gold Airways plans may upset Ozjet dream.
There is no gap in the airline passenger business market in Australia, if there was there would be more demand for business class seats out there. Business Australia is not complaining; it's happy to fly with well behaved tourists at row 20, even with lap top in tow. And the current airlines, VirginBlue, JetStar and Qantas in the main are doing a reasonable job. If they weren't they wouldn't have had such healthy growth rates. These airlines are not stupid, there is good reason for them not going where Ozjet seems to think it has a niche.
The fact is Ozjet may have been better sticking to its original plan as an LCC rather that make assumptions that it will attract 30 x $598 fares between Melbourne and Sydney. And that is because it will ultimately be forced into the LCC market anyway - if it can stomach the pressure. An all-business niche with a market share of 10% would signal an extraordinary shift in historical business class travel statistics in Australia.
Gold Airways plans to make Ozjet's life miserable. Not only will it compete where its hurts but it can compete on price, product, frequency and speed. And the timing. Well let's just say that's Gold Airways' best kept secret.
hahahahaaahaahaahaahhahahahahah
<<<< Dont yah just love good competition >>>>
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..that would have to go down as one of the most ill-informed, ignorant comments I have yet seen on PPRUNE. You have obviously no awareness of the domestic market drivers and one of the most significant issues in the market place since Ansett's collapse. Virgin is experiencing it now and trying to do something about it. Both QF and VB have targetted the lower end of the market spectrum since the collapse and the inevitable outcome has been to the corporate market.
I don't believe OZJet will work, but that isn't because there isn't a market - its because that market wants a whole lot more than a comfy seat; and even then a comfy seat on a 35 year old 737-200 or a much-loathed 146 regional-jet made up to look like a mainline jet won't cut the mustard either.
The reason you keep prattling on about Gold Airways (what's it been - 3 years now?), causing a lot of heartache for some very niave ex-Ansett people, and never getting anywhere is explained by your post - you just don't understand the market-place.
I suggest you focus on fixing aircraft rather than trying to fly them; and even then I understand you're pretty stretched.
I don't believe OZJet will work, but that isn't because there isn't a market - its because that market wants a whole lot more than a comfy seat; and even then a comfy seat on a 35 year old 737-200 or a much-loathed 146 regional-jet made up to look like a mainline jet won't cut the mustard either.
The reason you keep prattling on about Gold Airways (what's it been - 3 years now?), causing a lot of heartache for some very niave ex-Ansett people, and never getting anywhere is explained by your post - you just don't understand the market-place.
I suggest you focus on fixing aircraft rather than trying to fly them; and even then I understand you're pretty stretched.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONSULTING OPPORTUNITIES
Only limited opportunities currently still exist in the Gold Airways venture for highly skilled and committed aviation individuals with a flare for innovation and change. Conditions apply.
Consultants are engaged on a Venture Consulting Agreement without remuneration and must bear their own minor expenses.
In return, whilst it is not without risk, Consultants can participate in the equity of the venture, be offered employment in their area of expertise and obtain attractive travel benefits.
Opportunities are currently available in our business, engineering and flight operations areas and you should have current financial support and adequate free time if you wish to participate.
Applicants may be required to submit to security background checks and sign a non-disclosure agreement before interview.
Only limited opportunities currently still exist in the Gold Airways venture for highly skilled and committed aviation individuals with a flare for innovation and change. Conditions apply.
Consultants are engaged on a Venture Consulting Agreement without remuneration and must bear their own minor expenses.
In return, whilst it is not without risk, Consultants can participate in the equity of the venture, be offered employment in their area of expertise and obtain attractive travel benefits.
Opportunities are currently available in our business, engineering and flight operations areas and you should have current financial support and adequate free time if you wish to participate.
Applicants may be required to submit to security background checks and sign a non-disclosure agreement before interview.
Anyone know what happened to "VentureExecutive"?
He and his logo have gone very quiet of late but the logo reappears in that second link provided by Woomera.
Wonder if he's reivented himself?
He and his logo have gone very quiet of late but the logo reappears in that second link provided by Woomera.
Wonder if he's reivented himself?
Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 22nd Apr 2005 at 02:44.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LAME
I found this thread quite intruiging as a newcomer. From my legal understanding this is a common practice in firms who develop from a founding member group though I must confess I have not seen it as explicitly advertised as that site has.
My guess is that this is a typical arrangement where the contributors receive founding shares in the airline once it is launched. This would ensure that sufficient momentum is maintained up to launch.
What usually happens is that founders shares are issued. Not worthless but for nearly nil consideration. If the company floats on the stock exchange at say $5 per share, and a member has 5,000,000 founders shares, this would result in a networth of $25M. Technically, the shares could be converted to ordinary shares and traded for that amount. Founders shares are the most valuable shares you can have in a company at the outset.
I am a bit confused about the relevance of the last two posts but presume it is from some earlier thread?
Pardon my ignorance but I am presuming LAME is some sort of engineering position at Avalon.
In law, if an employer dismisses a person for a conflict of interest, it would have to be established on the balance of probability that a genuine conflict of interest existed between the current position and the position that person took which appeared to be in conflict. There are no hard and fast rules on conflict of interest and what may be perceived as a conflict may in fact not be. In fact there needs to almost be a one to one relationship between the interests. In the case of LAME, he would have to have compromised the position of his employer for a personal gain. It is not sufficient for the employer to assume a conflict of interest if LAME runs his own engineering business, even if that business is developing an airline (from Woomera's links). Apologies if I am associating LAME with this site - I am using it to illustrate my point.
A major problem in this area is whether an employer can demand a duty of disclosure from an employee if the lines of demarcation are unclear and not defined. In such cases, common-sense is often relied upon by the employer. My experience in NSW is that these cases make excellent fodder for the legal profession!
Anyway, whether dismissed or resigned, it appears the guy is doing something productive to create jobs and I can only encourage that.
My guess is that this is a typical arrangement where the contributors receive founding shares in the airline once it is launched. This would ensure that sufficient momentum is maintained up to launch.
What usually happens is that founders shares are issued. Not worthless but for nearly nil consideration. If the company floats on the stock exchange at say $5 per share, and a member has 5,000,000 founders shares, this would result in a networth of $25M. Technically, the shares could be converted to ordinary shares and traded for that amount. Founders shares are the most valuable shares you can have in a company at the outset.
I am a bit confused about the relevance of the last two posts but presume it is from some earlier thread?
Pardon my ignorance but I am presuming LAME is some sort of engineering position at Avalon.
In law, if an employer dismisses a person for a conflict of interest, it would have to be established on the balance of probability that a genuine conflict of interest existed between the current position and the position that person took which appeared to be in conflict. There are no hard and fast rules on conflict of interest and what may be perceived as a conflict may in fact not be. In fact there needs to almost be a one to one relationship between the interests. In the case of LAME, he would have to have compromised the position of his employer for a personal gain. It is not sufficient for the employer to assume a conflict of interest if LAME runs his own engineering business, even if that business is developing an airline (from Woomera's links). Apologies if I am associating LAME with this site - I am using it to illustrate my point.
A major problem in this area is whether an employer can demand a duty of disclosure from an employee if the lines of demarcation are unclear and not defined. In such cases, common-sense is often relied upon by the employer. My experience in NSW is that these cases make excellent fodder for the legal profession!
Anyway, whether dismissed or resigned, it appears the guy is doing something productive to create jobs and I can only encourage that.
Unfortunately Legal_Counsel, and it's not restricted to this industry but appears to be particularly rampant, there are plenty of people who appear to be doing "something productive to create jobs" who are merely interested in screwing as much money out of as many people as possible and suddenly disappearing in to the night.
That said, it's refreshing to see some positive, intelligent and reasoned contributions. Welcome aboard!!
That said, it's refreshing to see some positive, intelligent and reasoned contributions. Welcome aboard!!
Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 23rd Apr 2005 at 00:30.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal_Counsel quite so:
The rub is;
who gets to decide what value each member will contribute at the get go or has contributed. And who subsequently "owns" the intelectual property generated by the combination of their individual efforts and can they recover their individual rights should it all turn to tears. Someone or many will wind up with a mouthfull of feathers.
I am sure you would agree that a good part of a lawyers work is spent deconstructing failed dreams or expectations and the equitable distribution of the remains.
It's trite I know but the road to hell in these particular situations is always paved with good intentions, it's when it fails or suceeds that the real trouble starts.
Personally, in this industry given the personalities that seem to populate it, I can't think of any way there could be an equitable distribution perceived or otherwise of founding shares v input
Of course you could always start a regular company with a proper prospectus defined share capital issued at whatever $'s and employ people on a cash basis or issue shares at par in exchange. Then the fight starts about who gets to run it who's on the board and who gets employed.
The rub is;
My guess is that this is a typical arrangement where the contributors receive founding shares in the airline once it is launched. This would ensure that sufficient momentum is maintained up to launch.
I am sure you would agree that a good part of a lawyers work is spent deconstructing failed dreams or expectations and the equitable distribution of the remains.
It's trite I know but the road to hell in these particular situations is always paved with good intentions, it's when it fails or suceeds that the real trouble starts.
Personally, in this industry given the personalities that seem to populate it, I can't think of any way there could be an equitable distribution perceived or otherwise of founding shares v input
Of course you could always start a regular company with a proper prospectus defined share capital issued at whatever $'s and employ people on a cash basis or issue shares at par in exchange. Then the fight starts about who gets to run it who's on the board and who gets employed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Starting Up with a Prospectus
The issue of a public company seeking an investment to start has long been one of credibility. Just as today we seek to explore who is behind a mining company, what expertise they have and what they are dealing with and how they are dealing with it, before we buy the mining shares, investors must be savvy about the airline's business plan and who is lending credibility to it.
Thus to simply make a prospectus and put it into the market may not be enough to realistically attract interest. You need to have a person of some respect and notoriety behind it. However, without a thoroughly researched business plan, having a person of notoriety is not enough.
In the case of Ozjet, for example, both aspects are not particularly strong in my view and it will be an uphill battle for that proposed airline to succeed with that legacy even if it does initially fly. Based on what I can see from press reports, the company's owners have no firm business plans and their credibility must be in doubt when you see the company has employed 60 people and yet their website provides no access. I find this quite strange sort of behaviour.
In respect of the contribution founders make, I think generally the intellectual property is exchanged for founders interest in shares which will usually realise with an initial public offering (IPO). I still believe that founders shares are the best share to have. These can be distributed on the basis of responsibility, period of contribution and intellectual value. However, it is rare for founders to complain about "equitable distribution" as that is usually negotiable.
Just going back a step to the Ozjet situation, the problem this entrant will create for Australian aviation investment will be predicated on its failure. If the airline fails before start up then investors generally may not judge the industry by it. If it fails after start up, investors may think twice about further investment in the industry as the Compass I & II and Impulse had failed before and the stigma of a 2/3 airline Australia remains.
Ozjet does have the option of going public (requires change of company type), requiring it to be reasonably successful within the first couple of years. Having now pitted itself against the golden triangle market leaders (Virgin Blue and Qantas) I would think investors would be rather coy.
I was wondering when this Gold Airways was starting up. Their website is still not allowing access but judging by its presence, it looks like it is still going ahead. I think it will be the grand new challenger when it finally gets up. Not sure if they need a lawyer though Gaunty.
Thus to simply make a prospectus and put it into the market may not be enough to realistically attract interest. You need to have a person of some respect and notoriety behind it. However, without a thoroughly researched business plan, having a person of notoriety is not enough.
In the case of Ozjet, for example, both aspects are not particularly strong in my view and it will be an uphill battle for that proposed airline to succeed with that legacy even if it does initially fly. Based on what I can see from press reports, the company's owners have no firm business plans and their credibility must be in doubt when you see the company has employed 60 people and yet their website provides no access. I find this quite strange sort of behaviour.
In respect of the contribution founders make, I think generally the intellectual property is exchanged for founders interest in shares which will usually realise with an initial public offering (IPO). I still believe that founders shares are the best share to have. These can be distributed on the basis of responsibility, period of contribution and intellectual value. However, it is rare for founders to complain about "equitable distribution" as that is usually negotiable.
Just going back a step to the Ozjet situation, the problem this entrant will create for Australian aviation investment will be predicated on its failure. If the airline fails before start up then investors generally may not judge the industry by it. If it fails after start up, investors may think twice about further investment in the industry as the Compass I & II and Impulse had failed before and the stigma of a 2/3 airline Australia remains.
Ozjet does have the option of going public (requires change of company type), requiring it to be reasonably successful within the first couple of years. Having now pitted itself against the golden triangle market leaders (Virgin Blue and Qantas) I would think investors would be rather coy.
I was wondering when this Gold Airways was starting up. Their website is still not allowing access but judging by its presence, it looks like it is still going ahead. I think it will be the grand new challenger when it finally gets up. Not sure if they need a lawyer though Gaunty.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry I don't get it.
Your replies are a bit confusing but if I were investing in Australian aviation I would regard that as an emerging market. If 5% of my time could achieve a share portfolio of say 1M founders shares I might seriously invest another 5% of my own money in a airline competitor or within a aviation portolio managed by a hedge fund manager and then work my butt off to get the newstart underway (I hope my boss doesn't read these threads). The disturbance this would cause would surely be a great two way bet.
I think pilots tend to lend great support to start ups but mainly because of the chief pilot status, I guess, and the quick rewards these things can bring. However, you can do it all in vain too but that is often just a diversion. Unfortunately I do see a lot of start up cases coming through in all areas of business and aviation is not unique to the same probelems (but I cannot comment on these as my boss would kill me) and I am sadenned that they serve to undo good friendships and in fact good plans!
I think pilots tend to lend great support to start ups but mainly because of the chief pilot status, I guess, and the quick rewards these things can bring. However, you can do it all in vain too but that is often just a diversion. Unfortunately I do see a lot of start up cases coming through in all areas of business and aviation is not unique to the same probelems (but I cannot comment on these as my boss would kill me) and I am sadenned that they serve to undo good friendships and in fact good plans!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had heard rumours that this mob were looking for people - and thanks to pprune I found the website straight away.
With the number of people they're looking for their goal of 0.06/ASK - tell 'em their dreamin son!
With the number of people they're looking for their goal of 0.06/ASK - tell 'em their dreamin son!
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the press.
Noticed SMH carried an article about Gold Air in the paper this morning. Looks like they are looking for backers or are not telling.
Wonder who this European interest is?
At least they are upfront about the competition and are not afraid to say so.
Wonder who this European interest is?
At least they are upfront about the competition and are not afraid to say so.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: BNE
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still a good investment Legal_Counsel?
From the SMH
Gold Air has vision but not the planes
By Scott Rochfort
September 21, 2005
The planned launch of Australia's fourth domestic airline, OzJet, and the surge in fuel prices have not dampened the enthusiasm of one former Ansett employee to establish his own carrier.
So enthusiastic is Jens Buche that his airline, RMA Gold Airways, already has a booking engine on its website with a list of 50 destinations ranging from Sydney and Geelong's Avalon Airport to more exotic locations such as the West Australian mining town of Paraburdoo. He also has dreams of flying internationally.
Only a few problems stand in the way. Gold Air has no aircraft, no air operator's certificate, no launch date and no major financial backers. But Mr Buche has claimed this is all about to change as he attempts to lease a fleet of Airbus A320s.
From his home in the Melbourne suburb of Doncaster, the 54-year-old Mr Buche declined to go into detail. "I guess we're being very coy," he said, noting the media blackout on Gold Air's plans to attack Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin Blue and possibly OzJet.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
Gold Air has started advertising for staff - from flight attendants, pilots, tug drivers, public relations advisers to Workcover claims assessors - on its website and Mr Buche said he was not far from letting the public know about his venture.
"We've got 65 consultants working on this and it's very much a full-time job for most of them," he said.
"It's a challenge. We have got international consultants. We've got a huge player involved with us on the European front."
Mr Buche declined to say who the major player was. But according to documents filed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the former Ansett engineer is Gold Air's only key shareholder.
But it is clear Mr Buche wants investors and people to offer their expertise in return for a slice of his dream. On his website he invites people to "share in the equity of an exciting new Australasian domestic and international airline venture by contributing your talent under a venture consulting agreement".
The RMA in front of Gold Air's name is in honour of Ansett founder Reg Miles Ansett.
Mr Buche declined to say how he came up with the name Gold Air. He said he would get his "fingers cut off by his marketing department" if he divulged such information.
From the SMH
Gold Air has vision but not the planes
By Scott Rochfort
September 21, 2005
The planned launch of Australia's fourth domestic airline, OzJet, and the surge in fuel prices have not dampened the enthusiasm of one former Ansett employee to establish his own carrier.
So enthusiastic is Jens Buche that his airline, RMA Gold Airways, already has a booking engine on its website with a list of 50 destinations ranging from Sydney and Geelong's Avalon Airport to more exotic locations such as the West Australian mining town of Paraburdoo. He also has dreams of flying internationally.
Only a few problems stand in the way. Gold Air has no aircraft, no air operator's certificate, no launch date and no major financial backers. But Mr Buche has claimed this is all about to change as he attempts to lease a fleet of Airbus A320s.
From his home in the Melbourne suburb of Doncaster, the 54-year-old Mr Buche declined to go into detail. "I guess we're being very coy," he said, noting the media blackout on Gold Air's plans to attack Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin Blue and possibly OzJet.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
Gold Air has started advertising for staff - from flight attendants, pilots, tug drivers, public relations advisers to Workcover claims assessors - on its website and Mr Buche said he was not far from letting the public know about his venture.
"We've got 65 consultants working on this and it's very much a full-time job for most of them," he said.
"It's a challenge. We have got international consultants. We've got a huge player involved with us on the European front."
Mr Buche declined to say who the major player was. But according to documents filed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the former Ansett engineer is Gold Air's only key shareholder.
But it is clear Mr Buche wants investors and people to offer their expertise in return for a slice of his dream. On his website he invites people to "share in the equity of an exciting new Australasian domestic and international airline venture by contributing your talent under a venture consulting agreement".
The RMA in front of Gold Air's name is in honour of Ansett founder Reg Miles Ansett.
Mr Buche declined to say how he came up with the name Gold Air. He said he would get his "fingers cut off by his marketing department" if he divulged such information.