Strategic Airlines
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it interesting that they continue to use brokers for these given the mess that this practice has got them in already.
The Adagold and Strategic mess is one thing and now just 3 weeks after using one during the election to provide transport for our senior politicians and the press that followed them, that the overseas operator brought in by the broker has had its AOC pulled. Another disgraceful situation.
The Adagold and Strategic mess is one thing and now just 3 weeks after using one during the election to provide transport for our senior politicians and the press that followed them, that the overseas operator brought in by the broker has had its AOC pulled. Another disgraceful situation.
Last edited by d_concord; 22nd Sep 2010 at 05:34.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's what they may do with those spare Airbuses
We'll go to Bali too - maybe- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au
We'll go to Bali too - maybe- Local Cairns News | cairns.com.au
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dazed and Confused
Been watching this; and previous thread long enough; and would like some input from others more for a general consensus rather than a text bashing.
Is anyone actually asking why in gods name an Australian Defence Force with the interests of its Australian troops and its own security let a tender out to third party and brokers? I will add some of which do fantastic jobs as GSA's and Charter brokers.
My view on this is that the tender should have been publically released to the market face asking for current Australian Operators of Aircraft, with their current fleet and potential additions and the current infrustructure to support that fleet and operations in the interest of the Australian People and Defence Force.
Instead we now have a situation of fourth party providers supplying hull and equipment for brokers yet to create the AOC, infrastructure and operations to carry Australian Troops over; lets face it difficult distances and regions.
(If any one wants to get specific on numbers 1st Party -End user PAX, 2nd Party Defence, 3rd Operator etc).
I would welcome some input as if i am missing something please tell me as i see the current scenario and solution completely unacceptable for the Defence, Australian tax payer and ultimately our troops that have to fly.
Is anyone actually asking why in gods name an Australian Defence Force with the interests of its Australian troops and its own security let a tender out to third party and brokers? I will add some of which do fantastic jobs as GSA's and Charter brokers.
My view on this is that the tender should have been publically released to the market face asking for current Australian Operators of Aircraft, with their current fleet and potential additions and the current infrustructure to support that fleet and operations in the interest of the Australian People and Defence Force.
Instead we now have a situation of fourth party providers supplying hull and equipment for brokers yet to create the AOC, infrastructure and operations to carry Australian Troops over; lets face it difficult distances and regions.
(If any one wants to get specific on numbers 1st Party -End user PAX, 2nd Party Defence, 3rd Operator etc).
I would welcome some input as if i am missing something please tell me as i see the current scenario and solution completely unacceptable for the Defence, Australian tax payer and ultimately our troops that have to fly.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: the 19th hole
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloke down the pub told me that... Strategic was awarded the tender yesterday, to continue the MEAO service for another 1-3 months after their current contract expires 23rd October 
I thought Strategic was under investigation by the AFP related to the original tender award?
Seems to be another shocking decision by ADF
I thought Strategic was under investigation by the AFP related to the original tender award?
Seems to be another shocking decision by ADF
Seems to be another shocking decision by ADF
ZEDEX, it's all about money. How to sustain a long term deployment for the lowest possible cost. In a perfect world the RAAF ALG could do it, but they cant, so hear we are.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too true exgolfer
Golf Punk should not rely on ALL he hears in bars. Strategic nor anyone are under investigation for the original tender that created the current contract. The tender for the current contract was completed in 2008 and has never been called into question.
The antics of two defence force staff in 2005 and how Strategic dealt with them are what is under investigation, and a parlimentary review has been called for the antics of one of those same staff members and how Adagold dealt with him in 2010, but the 2008 tender has never been questioned from what I understand.
I can only guess that Defence have decided that to gain just 12 cubic metres of extra cargo space (the crux of the 2010 tender, I believe) through the use of a foreign aircraft and crew at circa 5M more per year, rather than using an A330 already registered in Oz and operating under this country's tight requlatory controls with all elements of the contract in place and a newly renewed 3 year AOC with zero restrictions, just aint value for money.
Have to say that I for one, as an Oz taxpayer, would have to agree.
Golf Punk should not rely on ALL he hears in bars. Strategic nor anyone are under investigation for the original tender that created the current contract. The tender for the current contract was completed in 2008 and has never been called into question.
The antics of two defence force staff in 2005 and how Strategic dealt with them are what is under investigation, and a parlimentary review has been called for the antics of one of those same staff members and how Adagold dealt with him in 2010, but the 2008 tender has never been questioned from what I understand.
I can only guess that Defence have decided that to gain just 12 cubic metres of extra cargo space (the crux of the 2010 tender, I believe) through the use of a foreign aircraft and crew at circa 5M more per year, rather than using an A330 already registered in Oz and operating under this country's tight requlatory controls with all elements of the contract in place and a newly renewed 3 year AOC with zero restrictions, just aint value for money.
Have to say that I for one, as an Oz taxpayer, would have to agree.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: asia
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZEDEX, it's all about money. How to sustain a long term deployment for the lowest possible cost
I hope for the ADF guys sake that there is some sort of minimum standard in place for the leased A/C and it's crew, as previously mentioned, an outfit with an SMS system in place etc.
After all, what is to stop someone like Adagold using ( as an extreme example ) Garuda ? Would be a real shame to survive fighting in the middle east only to end up as another aviation statistic
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what is to stop someone like Adagold using ( as an extreme example ) Garuda ?
Is anyone actually asking why in gods name an Australian Defence Force with the interests of its Australian troops and its own security let a tender out to third party and brokers?
When Defence need civilian airlift they go to the panel and ask for offers and then select what suits them best. For the MEAO sustainment, Strategic would have offered their A330 (although in previous years they offered the HiFly A330). Adagold apparently offered a HiFly A340 and other panel members no doubt have offered other solutions.
Interestingly, neither Qantas, Virgin, ANZ or Cobham are on the panel, so none of them are allowed to tender for any Defence work directly - it goes through panel members. However that doesn't mean that a broker couldn't offer their aircraft to Defence, but they can't do it directly. I have no idea if they didn't bother to bid to be on the panel or they weren't selected.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Oz
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must say, it is very refreshing to see what appears to be actual facts in this forum, and delivered without the emotion of the usual vitriolic "childs play" that I have seen as an observer of this forum over the years - thank you ADF Flyer!
As you clearly have a good knowledge of the subject then I guess I would pose to you (more as a statement than a question) that the bulk of those who have observed the banter on this subject in this forum are confused with the fact that the latest tender process appeared to only add additional cargo space to the contract requirements. The cargo requirement selected by the ADF, from all I have read, was 150 cubic metres. This ostensibly wipes out the incumbant A330 (at 138 cubic metres) and requires an aircraft like the 777 or A340.
As you mentioned Virgin, et al, are not on the panel so anyone on the panel would need to source a 777 or A340. I would bet that the fuel consumption of the 777 would knock it out straight away, thus the A340 becomes the only real alternative. But nobody in Australia operates A340's (so for an Aussie AOC operator it would be a "first of type" introduction). Yet I also read that it was the politicians and the ADF themselves that pushed the current contractor to do the operation under an Aussie AOC. Very confusing.
The end result would therefore have to result in either increased contract prices for the incumbant operator (who would need to add the A340 to their Australian AOC and pass on such costs - including any additional operating costs) OR a change to a "foreign" solution brokered by the brokerage firms on the tender panel.
So my confusion is based on this.... why on earth would the ADF decision makers put themselves through so much angst to gain 12 cubic meters of cargo space in their troop transport solution when they must have military cargo operations around the world on a continuous basis?
I've got to say, from my viewpoint it certainly looks more "suspicious" than "stupid". I can see why the incumbant operator would be asking questions. Particularly when you add in the factor of the gentleman (featured in all the newspaper articles on the subject) who was working within the same department of ADF (and close to such decision makers) and who has been revealed as also working as an adviser for the broker who miraculously had an A340 at the ready.
As you clearly have a good knowledge of the subject then I guess I would pose to you (more as a statement than a question) that the bulk of those who have observed the banter on this subject in this forum are confused with the fact that the latest tender process appeared to only add additional cargo space to the contract requirements. The cargo requirement selected by the ADF, from all I have read, was 150 cubic metres. This ostensibly wipes out the incumbant A330 (at 138 cubic metres) and requires an aircraft like the 777 or A340.
As you mentioned Virgin, et al, are not on the panel so anyone on the panel would need to source a 777 or A340. I would bet that the fuel consumption of the 777 would knock it out straight away, thus the A340 becomes the only real alternative. But nobody in Australia operates A340's (so for an Aussie AOC operator it would be a "first of type" introduction). Yet I also read that it was the politicians and the ADF themselves that pushed the current contractor to do the operation under an Aussie AOC. Very confusing.
The end result would therefore have to result in either increased contract prices for the incumbant operator (who would need to add the A340 to their Australian AOC and pass on such costs - including any additional operating costs) OR a change to a "foreign" solution brokered by the brokerage firms on the tender panel.
So my confusion is based on this.... why on earth would the ADF decision makers put themselves through so much angst to gain 12 cubic meters of cargo space in their troop transport solution when they must have military cargo operations around the world on a continuous basis?
I've got to say, from my viewpoint it certainly looks more "suspicious" than "stupid". I can see why the incumbant operator would be asking questions. Particularly when you add in the factor of the gentleman (featured in all the newspaper articles on the subject) who was working within the same department of ADF (and close to such decision makers) and who has been revealed as also working as an adviser for the broker who miraculously had an A340 at the ready.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have been told of some of the members of the Panel are:
1. Strategic (Current operator using A330 for operation and has used a Hifly A330 & A340 for the Middle East Operation and has also used a Air NZ 777, Malaysian 747 and Omni or something like that DC10-30 in prior years)
2. Adagold (Possibly new operator of Middle East operation with Hifly A340 and has sourced AN124 and other aircraft for the ADF and other government departments)
3. Toll (Often uses Our Airline 737 for its winning tenders)
4. Qantas (Prefers not to bid for this tender I am guessing for political reasons)
3 or 4 other tenderers that are brokers and not airlines/operating carriers.
I believe Cobham, Air NZ, Alliance and Virgin are not a Panel Members either.
So therefore even going back to the Standing Panel will only bring back Strategic or another broker which is either aligned to Adagold, Strategic or David Charlton as in previous tenders, DC has provided help to try and wrestle the tender from Strategic.
1. Strategic (Current operator using A330 for operation and has used a Hifly A330 & A340 for the Middle East Operation and has also used a Air NZ 777, Malaysian 747 and Omni or something like that DC10-30 in prior years)
2. Adagold (Possibly new operator of Middle East operation with Hifly A340 and has sourced AN124 and other aircraft for the ADF and other government departments)
3. Toll (Often uses Our Airline 737 for its winning tenders)
4. Qantas (Prefers not to bid for this tender I am guessing for political reasons)
3 or 4 other tenderers that are brokers and not airlines/operating carriers.
I believe Cobham, Air NZ, Alliance and Virgin are not a Panel Members either.
So therefore even going back to the Standing Panel will only bring back Strategic or another broker which is either aligned to Adagold, Strategic or David Charlton as in previous tenders, DC has provided help to try and wrestle the tender from Strategic.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4. Qantas (Prefers not to bid for this tender I am guessing for political reasons)
Strategic previously used HiFly A330-300 which would have had same cargo capacity of the A340-300. One would think that the change to the -200 and the lower capacity was done in agreement with Defence, so it does seem strange if this is the reason they lost the contract.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thailand
More and more RPT iso charter.
Strategic Air's application to the IASC for RPT seating capacity to Thailand
Strategic Air's application to the IASC for RPT seating capacity to Thailand
Last edited by 66biscuits; 29th Sep 2010 at 07:41. Reason: more information, no link text
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it continues
Seems like other brokers are getting in on the action...
Defence contract row widens
Richard Baker
September 30, 2010
A MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR Commonwealth aviation contracting scandal has widened, with a flight broker involved in an Australian Defence Force tender controversy enjoying a near monopoly on asylum-seeker transport contracts, prompting complaints from rival firms.
Brisbane's Adagold Aviation has won 52 of 56 Department of Immigration and Citizenship asylum-seeker flight contracts awarded between June last year and March 31, amassing $6.49 million of the $7.28 million spent by the federal government on such flights. In 2008-09, Adagold won 23 of 45 asylum seeker flights, worth $2.31 million. The next most successful company won 12 contracts worth $894,000.
Owners of some of the five other aviation brokers or charter airlines on the department's panel of providers have told The Age that they had occasionally submitted bids so cheap that it would have cost them thousands of dollars to fulfil the contract, only to still lose out.
''Immigration won't tell us why we did not get the contract or the price of the successful bid,'' said one firm's manager. '' It makes you wonder what is going on as we all pretty much operate on the same margins.''
A spokesman for the Immigration Department said its asylum-seeker aviation contracts were handled in accordance with public service guidelines.
The Defence Department recently decided to call in external auditors to review this year's $30 million Middle East troop-flight tender process - won by Adagold Aviation - amid conflict-of-interest allegations involving the firm and Army Reserve Captain David Charlton, who was working in the Defence unit running the tender. Mr Charlton has also worked as a consultant to Adagold Aviation.
Defence has also referred its 2005 Middle East flight tender to the federal police after The Age revealed two officers in the unit overseeing the contract gave inside information to the winning firm, Strategic Aviation, before joining it in senior management roles.
Officials from Defence and Immigration are expected to be questioned over the aviation contracts at Senate estimates hearings next month.
Despite referring the 2005 Strategic Aviation contract to the AFP, Defence this week awarded the firm a short-term contract to continue the Middle East flights while an external review into this year's tender process - won by Adagold Aviation - continues.
Fresh documents obtained by The Age reveal Adagold Aviation and Mr Charlton intended to establish a commercial relationship last year to help fulfil a Danish military contract won by Adagold.
Under the January 2009 ''letter of intent'', signed by Adagold Aviation director Mark Clark and Mr Charlton, SkyAirWorld was to provide a Boeing 737 aircraft to Adagold to allow use on its Danish troop flights to the Middle East.
Mr Charlton's SkyAirWorld collapsed with debts of $93 million weeks after the document was signed. By April 2009, he was back working in the Defence Department unit overseeing troop deployments to the Middle East.
Mr Charlton is also at the centre of the AFP probe into Defence's 2005 Middle East troop flight tender process, after it emerged that he and fellow army officer John Davies were in contact with Strategic Aviation directors during the tender process and then took management jobs at the firm after it was declared the contract winner.
Adagold Aviation has declined to answer questions. Strategic Aviation has denied wrongdoing in the 2005 tender process, saying it advised Defence of its intention to hire Mr Charlton and Mr Davies.
Mr Davies has denied playing any role in the 2005 tender. Mr Charlton could not be contacted.
Defence contract row widens
Richard Baker
September 30, 2010
A MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR Commonwealth aviation contracting scandal has widened, with a flight broker involved in an Australian Defence Force tender controversy enjoying a near monopoly on asylum-seeker transport contracts, prompting complaints from rival firms.
Brisbane's Adagold Aviation has won 52 of 56 Department of Immigration and Citizenship asylum-seeker flight contracts awarded between June last year and March 31, amassing $6.49 million of the $7.28 million spent by the federal government on such flights. In 2008-09, Adagold won 23 of 45 asylum seeker flights, worth $2.31 million. The next most successful company won 12 contracts worth $894,000.
Owners of some of the five other aviation brokers or charter airlines on the department's panel of providers have told The Age that they had occasionally submitted bids so cheap that it would have cost them thousands of dollars to fulfil the contract, only to still lose out.
''Immigration won't tell us why we did not get the contract or the price of the successful bid,'' said one firm's manager. '' It makes you wonder what is going on as we all pretty much operate on the same margins.''
A spokesman for the Immigration Department said its asylum-seeker aviation contracts were handled in accordance with public service guidelines.
The Defence Department recently decided to call in external auditors to review this year's $30 million Middle East troop-flight tender process - won by Adagold Aviation - amid conflict-of-interest allegations involving the firm and Army Reserve Captain David Charlton, who was working in the Defence unit running the tender. Mr Charlton has also worked as a consultant to Adagold Aviation.
Defence has also referred its 2005 Middle East flight tender to the federal police after The Age revealed two officers in the unit overseeing the contract gave inside information to the winning firm, Strategic Aviation, before joining it in senior management roles.
Officials from Defence and Immigration are expected to be questioned over the aviation contracts at Senate estimates hearings next month.
Despite referring the 2005 Strategic Aviation contract to the AFP, Defence this week awarded the firm a short-term contract to continue the Middle East flights while an external review into this year's tender process - won by Adagold Aviation - continues.
Fresh documents obtained by The Age reveal Adagold Aviation and Mr Charlton intended to establish a commercial relationship last year to help fulfil a Danish military contract won by Adagold.
Under the January 2009 ''letter of intent'', signed by Adagold Aviation director Mark Clark and Mr Charlton, SkyAirWorld was to provide a Boeing 737 aircraft to Adagold to allow use on its Danish troop flights to the Middle East.
Mr Charlton's SkyAirWorld collapsed with debts of $93 million weeks after the document was signed. By April 2009, he was back working in the Defence Department unit overseeing troop deployments to the Middle East.
Mr Charlton is also at the centre of the AFP probe into Defence's 2005 Middle East troop flight tender process, after it emerged that he and fellow army officer John Davies were in contact with Strategic Aviation directors during the tender process and then took management jobs at the firm after it was declared the contract winner.
Adagold Aviation has declined to answer questions. Strategic Aviation has denied wrongdoing in the 2005 tender process, saying it advised Defence of its intention to hire Mr Charlton and Mr Davies.
Mr Davies has denied playing any role in the 2005 tender. Mr Charlton could not be contacted.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: vic
Age: 23
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, so how this now works is that a couple of guys will now post who have only one or two previous prior posts, pretending to be concerned taxpayers or ADF personnel who travel to the ME all the time are really happy with the SA service and why should their lives be put in jeopardy by a third party operator and blah blah blah.
Then the same guys will the get on the Skywest thread that has been running for nearly as long pretending to give a sh!t about poor old twiggy forest who has a right to have an A320 and the crap management of Skywest and blah blah blah.
Is this the toilet for SA management or what? Can we click these threads? Boring......
Then the same guys will the get on the Skywest thread that has been running for nearly as long pretending to give a sh!t about poor old twiggy forest who has a right to have an A320 and the crap management of Skywest and blah blah blah.
Is this the toilet for SA management or what? Can we click these threads? Boring......
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In a barrel at Niagara
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dodgybrothers
Totally agree with your comments....
I especially liked the justification for the current contract not being under suspicion therefore making it all OK. Despite that fact that the 2005 contract required AFP investigation for alleged corruption and fraud!!
I especially liked the justification for the current contract not being under suspicion therefore making it all OK. Despite that fact that the 2005 contract required AFP investigation for alleged corruption and fraud!!