Letter to Geoffrey Thomas (Aviation expert)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GT, you and I agree unequivocally on one point. Qantas MISMANAGEMENT.
Here is our dilemma. They exist in denial and think they are doing a sterling job and reward themselves appropriately.
Loss of market share is the fault of our cost base. That is, we are all paid too much. Unions, are bad for the airline business.
We have a management team and Board who will relentlessly spend millions and millions and millions of dollars on consultants, lawyers, accountants, spin doctors, physcologists and alternative workforces to crucify their own employees rather than work with them. Employees who, in my lengthy time with this airline, do an outstanding job day in, day out. Employees who have great pride in the airline, have reasonable expectations of a career and are bewildered by the antics going on from above.
A toxic environment, you bet.
Here is our dilemma. They exist in denial and think they are doing a sterling job and reward themselves appropriately.
Loss of market share is the fault of our cost base. That is, we are all paid too much. Unions, are bad for the airline business.
We have a management team and Board who will relentlessly spend millions and millions and millions of dollars on consultants, lawyers, accountants, spin doctors, physcologists and alternative workforces to crucify their own employees rather than work with them. Employees who, in my lengthy time with this airline, do an outstanding job day in, day out. Employees who have great pride in the airline, have reasonable expectations of a career and are bewildered by the antics going on from above.
A toxic environment, you bet.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The damage you have done to your name is irreparable.
That video interview was inexcusable, inaccurate and worst of all dishonest.
You have no integrity. Period.
That video interview was inexcusable, inaccurate and worst of all dishonest.
You have no integrity. Period.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GT,
Maybe we need to look Before Alan, ie Dixon who made the decision of NO 777's? Who decided of changing A/C brand after how many years? Who's cronies have sold off & outsourced anything they could get their hands on? You mention the FF program, & how profitable it is, do you remember who wanted to sell off the FF program just before the end off their reign? Oh, whom would have got a bigger bonus if that sale went through by the way! As all bonus's I' m sure work, off yearly profit. Who decided on the A180? What a debacle. I wonder how many kick backs were involved their? I know that was another era, but the current management are using the same old excuses on how tough the airline business is! But you tell me, WHO are still getting the F&/);@G bonuses & huge payrises! They never go through the bull>}#t we go through for 3% plus some icing on our cake. Absolute max totalling 5%. Sorry heard it all before!
Maybe we need to look Before Alan, ie Dixon who made the decision of NO 777's? Who decided of changing A/C brand after how many years? Who's cronies have sold off & outsourced anything they could get their hands on? You mention the FF program, & how profitable it is, do you remember who wanted to sell off the FF program just before the end off their reign? Oh, whom would have got a bigger bonus if that sale went through by the way! As all bonus's I' m sure work, off yearly profit. Who decided on the A180? What a debacle. I wonder how many kick backs were involved their? I know that was another era, but the current management are using the same old excuses on how tough the airline business is! But you tell me, WHO are still getting the F&/);@G bonuses & huge payrises! They never go through the bull>}#t we go through for 3% plus some icing on our cake. Absolute max totalling 5%. Sorry heard it all before!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GT
OH by the way the travelling public NEVER tore down EOC & Sydney heavy maint! You tell me how that has bit us in the ar$e & continues too. Just ask the pax stranded in SIN last week & while your up there zip over to BKK, ask those loyal Australians what they think also. By the way, they shut down that engine as a precautionary measure????
OH by the way the travelling public NEVER tore down EOC & Sydney heavy maint! You tell me how that has bit us in the ar$e & continues too. Just ask the pax stranded in SIN last week & while your up there zip over to BKK, ask those loyal Australians what they think also. By the way, they shut down that engine as a precautionary measure????
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bandit2
I think you can look a bit further back and find that Strong sold everything that wasn't bolted down and if I am not mistaken , also started the outsourcing trend with the 747 landing gear and wheels. I was in H245 when the first of the outsourced MLGs were fitted. I stood there beside the engineering middle management of the time listening to them complain about how the gear looked like "a bright yellow Christmas tree" as almost everything that could be machined to oversize had been (hence the yellow paint). Within a year or so they discovered components that had been machined out of limits, causing a run of inspections and gear changes. Also there was a 747-300 (EBW maybe) broke a MLG in Rome during taxi, bashed an engine into the ground as a result.
As much as I would like to blame Dixon for starting this process I think the prize goes to Strong.
l.s.a.A.
Maybe we need to look Before Alan, ie Dixon who made the decision of NO 777's? Who decided of changing A/C brand after how many years? Who's cronies have sold off & outsourced anything they could get their hands on?
As much as I would like to blame Dixon for starting this process I think the prize goes to Strong.
l.s.a.A.
GT,
Some points I would like to take issue with you on:
There is one entity that has the power to stop this and that is the Australian government (whoever may be in power at the time). I do not buy Australian Aviation any more because of its pro-airline stance in past times, but I would be very interested to read an article by you that asks the responsible minister at what point they would step in to limit access by foreign carriers (particularly LCCs) if they were hurting Australian companies, and potentially putting Australian jobs at risk. This is very relevant, I feel, since Joyce continues to cry poor (although we won't know how justified that will be for a while) and Virgin are likely to announce a full year loss. If you are indeed a critic of deregulation, let's see an article about this point.
As a QF employee, i totally agree that the current industrial climate is the most toxic I have experienced, but ask where the fault lies. Management are short-timers at best, out to make a buck and move on. Frontline staff look to the long term and want a long career in a company they are proud of. The current toxic climate is the result of the airline devaluing their staff and waging a war of intimidation against them. Several years ago, all unions voted a voluntary wage freeze on a promise that we would be looked after when the situation improved. When it did ... nothing! Qantas asked long-haul pilots to find 8 million dollars worth of savings to avoid pilot redundancies. We did and they gave it all (plus another 3 million) to Dixon!! The staff have had enough, Geoff. That's why there is such a toxic environment. If we were to follow your suggestion and roll over again, they would sincerely thank us, set up another offshore operation and then make a lot of us redundant. That is what is at stake here. We all know it, but the travelling public don't, and don't care. That is why we wish journalists in your position could put the real points across to the public and not the politically easy "militant" union bashing stories, like yours that was aired last week.
Frontline staff have seen the QF premium product slashed through cost-cutting for the last 10 years. I'm sure our management knows that it would take a lot of money to fix this, and they just find it easier to attack the staff to make continued savings because with slanted journalism depicting us as greedy, their job in getting rid of us (rather than fixing the product) becomes so much easier.
Geoff, did you read the story about Jetstar only making money on its inflight snacks and not making money on seat sales? The "amazing" business that is Jetstar is a smokescreen set up to undercut mainline and wreck T&Cs of Qantas staff. Qantas flights continue to be handed over to Jetstar - probably San Francisco will be the next destination now that Qantas has abandoned the route. Ask Alan Joyce what the true financial position of Jetstar would be if all of the cross-subsidization costs provided by mainline were taken out of the equation. Jetstar WILL succeed at all costs because there is too much corporate ego involved to let it fail. How can QF mainline be struggling to turn a buck when CX, SQ and EK are all making healthy profits - none of whom are LCCs.
Geoff, QF staff at the moment are afraid that the "end game" is in sight. We appeal to you and to any other jounralists reading this thread to not merely buy the Qantas spin, but to provide a balanced account of what's happening and ask QF management the hard questions. If you don't do so, when the roo disappears and you ask yourselves how this could have happened, just look at yourselves in the mirror!
Some points I would like to take issue with you on:
Steve, this industry is at the crossroads as we are seeing a tsunami of LCCS in Asia and Australia and I am deeply concerned about the affects of AirAsia on our industry in Australia. It has seat mile costs of approximately 2.5c ASK and Australians are flying with it in droves! How do you stop that? I don’t think you can!
Question is, how do we achieve all of this in the current toxic environment? Perhaps you can lead the way and say roll over the EBA for 12 months and let’s reinvent Qantas. Challenge Joyce to reinvent travel! You would have every Australian behind you!
Frontline staff have seen the QF premium product slashed through cost-cutting for the last 10 years. I'm sure our management knows that it would take a lot of money to fix this, and they just find it easier to attack the staff to make continued savings because with slanted journalism depicting us as greedy, their job in getting rid of us (rather than fixing the product) becomes so much easier.
Sure Qantas isn’t Japan Airlines but if it wasn’t for the FF program and Jetstar it would be in lousy shape and that is a cold hard sobering fact!
Geoff, QF staff at the moment are afraid that the "end game" is in sight. We appeal to you and to any other jounralists reading this thread to not merely buy the Qantas spin, but to provide a balanced account of what's happening and ask QF management the hard questions. If you don't do so, when the roo disappears and you ask yourselves how this could have happened, just look at yourselves in the mirror!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas is being murdered. The only hope must be in a board room or investor revolt over where this is all headed.
Another depressing but I fear well founded article here too.
Dual dangers hanging over Qantas, as we know it | Plane Talking
Another depressing but I fear well founded article here too.
Dual dangers hanging over Qantas, as we know it | Plane Talking
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ngineer
This may give you some insight into to how much safer air travel has become.
The skillset from previous gen aircraft are no longer needed and salary levels will adjust accordingly.
This may give you some insight into to how much safer air travel has become.
The skillset from previous gen aircraft are no longer needed and salary levels will adjust accordingly.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The skillset from previous gen aircraft are no longer needed
Yeah, right! Until everything goes pear-shaped like QF32 or US Airways in the Hudson!
Ask anybody who survived those incidents whether or not "the skillset from previous gen aircraft are no longer needed"?
Not something you can flick on with a switch. Another thing Beancounters can never come to grips with. Aviation professionals are not paid for what they do, so much as what they know. And how they apply that knowlege and experience when the excriment hits the fan.
Something that time and again, history has proven, separates the men from the boys (or the women from the girls
).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record AirAsia CASK's are not 2.5c. Their latest (2010 Q4 presentation) lists them as (US$)
The difference between AirAsia & QF based solely on ticket cost is not an apples for apples comparison. This is further magnified by the upfront "all in upfront" cost of QF vs the low "upfront+ancillary charge" model of AirAsia. Only once a flight has been completed can the cost of the travel be directly compared. Of course, the vast majority of travellers fail to do this, and are effectively duped as to the true "all in" cost of the travel. In essence, the LCC model is like mobile phone contract, very complex and very difficult to make direct comparisons between plans.
That said, if the paying public wish to fly longhaul in a high density configuration for a lower cost, this is their choice. I find it hard to believe that this market will become the bulk of the longhaul market. Travelling in a full 377 config A330 would be an uncomfortable experience for more than a few hours for all of the most price sensative travellers. Repeat business will be a significant challange.
- MAA (Malysian AirAsia) 3.81 cents per Km
- TAA (Thai AirAsia) 4.55 cents per Km
- IAA (Indonesion AirAsia) 4.86 cents per Km
The difference between AirAsia & QF based solely on ticket cost is not an apples for apples comparison. This is further magnified by the upfront "all in upfront" cost of QF vs the low "upfront+ancillary charge" model of AirAsia. Only once a flight has been completed can the cost of the travel be directly compared. Of course, the vast majority of travellers fail to do this, and are effectively duped as to the true "all in" cost of the travel. In essence, the LCC model is like mobile phone contract, very complex and very difficult to make direct comparisons between plans.
That said, if the paying public wish to fly longhaul in a high density configuration for a lower cost, this is their choice. I find it hard to believe that this market will become the bulk of the longhaul market. Travelling in a full 377 config A330 would be an uncomfortable experience for more than a few hours for all of the most price sensative travellers. Repeat business will be a significant challange.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: The South 40
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Thomas,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to this forum...
We may be biased in our opinions, but there are many members here who work in the industry you report on, who have coal-face experience of decisions, implementations & ramifications of management's practices.
It is a difficult job to be an objective journalist, made even more so when you stand up as an 'expert' on a particular topic in front of a large audience. That objectivity will always be questioned by both sides of an argument - and rightly so. You are a dis-interested commentator trying to say in less than 20 seconds what they have been living for 20 years. Yes, perhaps a 4C's piece on these issues is required - 40 minutes should be able to balance the story properly. And if that fails, there is always Media Watch....
For the record, I disagree with most of your current stance. If there is great danger from asian based LCC's, supporting the erosion of jobs & conditions at home only makes it easier for foreign companies to set up here. A disgruntled workforce is not the way to an efficient business. I hope this is not what you want.
It is interesting to note that some of the Asian LCC's we fear seem to have been started and run by our own? So who is really driving this fear? And to what end?
Yes, the travelling public no longer hold any brand loyalty, and will change airlines to save $10. But that is because there is no brand differentiation now, its all "Fly me, I'm cheaper!"
I have always thought it would be interesting if you asked the general public which would they buy, a seat on an low cost airline for $100, or a seat that costs $110 but with the extra $10 having been publically stated as going to proper maintenance and local safety initiatives? Remember, flying is still a concern for many people, it's still a possible way to suffer and die in an ugly manner with 300 new friends! Qantas successfully promoted their safety record for years, why have they stopped? Too many near misses caused by failures in maintenance?
It was pleasing to read how in the past you were warning management about future dangers.
Perhaps there is hope for you yet.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to this forum...
We may be biased in our opinions, but there are many members here who work in the industry you report on, who have coal-face experience of decisions, implementations & ramifications of management's practices.
It is a difficult job to be an objective journalist, made even more so when you stand up as an 'expert' on a particular topic in front of a large audience. That objectivity will always be questioned by both sides of an argument - and rightly so. You are a dis-interested commentator trying to say in less than 20 seconds what they have been living for 20 years. Yes, perhaps a 4C's piece on these issues is required - 40 minutes should be able to balance the story properly. And if that fails, there is always Media Watch....
For the record, I disagree with most of your current stance. If there is great danger from asian based LCC's, supporting the erosion of jobs & conditions at home only makes it easier for foreign companies to set up here. A disgruntled workforce is not the way to an efficient business. I hope this is not what you want.
It is interesting to note that some of the Asian LCC's we fear seem to have been started and run by our own? So who is really driving this fear? And to what end?
Yes, the travelling public no longer hold any brand loyalty, and will change airlines to save $10. But that is because there is no brand differentiation now, its all "Fly me, I'm cheaper!"
I have always thought it would be interesting if you asked the general public which would they buy, a seat on an low cost airline for $100, or a seat that costs $110 but with the extra $10 having been publically stated as going to proper maintenance and local safety initiatives? Remember, flying is still a concern for many people, it's still a possible way to suffer and die in an ugly manner with 300 new friends! Qantas successfully promoted their safety record for years, why have they stopped? Too many near misses caused by failures in maintenance?
It was pleasing to read how in the past you were warning management about future dangers.
Perhaps there is hope for you yet.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We did that a few EBA's ago remember. We forgo a payrise to help them out. Next EBA they thanked us with one right up the ar*e, no lube. Sorry GT we wont fall for that again.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on boys/girls...some Qf Ff journo speaks his mind to earn another jolly...who gives a.....most people ya talk to never saw it anyway!Stay focussed!
Last edited by howyoulikethat; 22nd May 2011 at 10:22.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mild comment: FF programs make a lot of money for airlines (including QF), even with pax who accumulated points from credit cards or whatever. The CC provider had to purchase the FF points in the first place, from the airline, in advance, paying cash.
The pax takes up a seat (effectively a standby seat in most cases due to the availability restrictions) - effective cost (including likely loss of revenue from additional pax) close to zero.
A very lucrative business indeed. I don't begrudge the pax his/her seat at all.
Airlines (including QF) increasingly use program status rather than point balance as a loyalty reward. Maybe the curried ferret in the lounge makes it all worthwhile.
The pax takes up a seat (effectively a standby seat in most cases due to the availability restrictions) - effective cost (including likely loss of revenue from additional pax) close to zero.
A very lucrative business indeed. I don't begrudge the pax his/her seat at all.
Airlines (including QF) increasingly use program status rather than point balance as a loyalty reward. Maybe the curried ferret in the lounge makes it all worthwhile.
Balanced reporting
Mr Thomas,
If you are genuinely interested in providing balanced reporting of the current issues that affect the industry perhaps you could use you extensive resources to research the following issues and report back via media or this forum:
1 (a). Qantas is moving Jetstar personnel around on QF services in lieu of their own to reduce costs attributable to Jetstar,
1 (b). When Jetstar aircraft are refuelled, sometimes the cost is billed to Qantas International (has been previously reported on this forum so maybe a PPRuNer can supply you with evidence),
2. Olivia Wirth recently stated on Sunrise that QF mainline is continuing to recruit pilots. This is a blatant lie but no journalist has questioned it or attempted to put the record straight,
3. Olivia Wirth recently on the ABC:
SIMON SANTOW: "Are there bar charts that are circulated amongst pilots that show who took what, when and who didn't need to take it?"
OLIVIA WIRTH: "Absolutely not."
Again a blatant lie but no journalist has questioned it or attempted to put the record straight (I can send you a copy of one of my fuel bar chart if you want to use it to confront her),
4. Outsourcing maintenance (the most important issue) - Alan Joyce has often said that over 90% of maintenance is done in Australia. A very careful selection of words as he avoids saying that most of it is not done by Qantas staff, instead it is outsourced to companies such as Forstaff (Avalon) and JHAS (Melbourne) - Why don't journalists ask for a complete breakdown of where the various aircraft types are serviced for HM "C" & "D" checks as well as major component overhaul. They probably won't give it to you because your scrutiny would subsequently prove that they are lying (refer to Steve Purvinas' letter for more detail),
5. RR engine overhaul - your arguments about the financial advantages of outsourcing engine overhaul as the B747 fleet shrinks are valid - except for 1. they recently decided to keep the majority of the fleet operating for a number of years and 2. the failure rate of the QF B747 RB211-524G-T engines is currently over 3 times the failure rate when the engines were overhauled "in-house". QF management refuse to admit that they've made a mistake, so they are about to introduce a range of procedural changes to pilot operations to make the engines "last", including use of idle reverse thrust on landing (once they convince James Strong, QF Board member & CEO at the time of the QF1 accident). The engines are being treated with "kid gloves" just so management can save face.
Ansett was starved of cash by News Corp (Murdoch) and TNT (Abeles) and was left a basket case that Air NZ was unable to financially turn around. What is happening in Qantas now has so many parallels to Ansett 15-20 years ago and all the staff and supporters of this national icon are worried about whether it will last another 5 years - if the Australian media have such great insight in the would of business, why aren't you screaming as loud as you can so that institutional shareholders will listen and replace the QF Board & senior management? Oh to have true airline managers like Yates, Ward, Menadue, etc.................................
If you are genuinely interested in providing balanced reporting of the current issues that affect the industry perhaps you could use you extensive resources to research the following issues and report back via media or this forum:
1 (a). Qantas is moving Jetstar personnel around on QF services in lieu of their own to reduce costs attributable to Jetstar,
1 (b). When Jetstar aircraft are refuelled, sometimes the cost is billed to Qantas International (has been previously reported on this forum so maybe a PPRuNer can supply you with evidence),
2. Olivia Wirth recently stated on Sunrise that QF mainline is continuing to recruit pilots. This is a blatant lie but no journalist has questioned it or attempted to put the record straight,
3. Olivia Wirth recently on the ABC:
SIMON SANTOW: "Are there bar charts that are circulated amongst pilots that show who took what, when and who didn't need to take it?"
OLIVIA WIRTH: "Absolutely not."
Again a blatant lie but no journalist has questioned it or attempted to put the record straight (I can send you a copy of one of my fuel bar chart if you want to use it to confront her),
4. Outsourcing maintenance (the most important issue) - Alan Joyce has often said that over 90% of maintenance is done in Australia. A very careful selection of words as he avoids saying that most of it is not done by Qantas staff, instead it is outsourced to companies such as Forstaff (Avalon) and JHAS (Melbourne) - Why don't journalists ask for a complete breakdown of where the various aircraft types are serviced for HM "C" & "D" checks as well as major component overhaul. They probably won't give it to you because your scrutiny would subsequently prove that they are lying (refer to Steve Purvinas' letter for more detail),
5. RR engine overhaul - your arguments about the financial advantages of outsourcing engine overhaul as the B747 fleet shrinks are valid - except for 1. they recently decided to keep the majority of the fleet operating for a number of years and 2. the failure rate of the QF B747 RB211-524G-T engines is currently over 3 times the failure rate when the engines were overhauled "in-house". QF management refuse to admit that they've made a mistake, so they are about to introduce a range of procedural changes to pilot operations to make the engines "last", including use of idle reverse thrust on landing (once they convince James Strong, QF Board member & CEO at the time of the QF1 accident). The engines are being treated with "kid gloves" just so management can save face.
Ansett was starved of cash by News Corp (Murdoch) and TNT (Abeles) and was left a basket case that Air NZ was unable to financially turn around. What is happening in Qantas now has so many parallels to Ansett 15-20 years ago and all the staff and supporters of this national icon are worried about whether it will last another 5 years - if the Australian media have such great insight in the would of business, why aren't you screaming as loud as you can so that institutional shareholders will listen and replace the QF Board & senior management? Oh to have true airline managers like Yates, Ward, Menadue, etc.................................
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. Olivia Wirth recently stated on Sunrise that QF mainline is continuing to recruit pilots. This is a blatant lie but no journalist has questioned it or attempted to put the record straight
She didn't actually say the word "pilots" in the sentence.
Nunc est bibendum
She didn't actually say the word "pilots" in the sentence.
Every time I see references to 26% or other comments by Olivia it just hardens my resolve.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FGD135 the quote from OW was:
".....we are continuing to hire pilots into Qantas Mainline...."
This makes it quite unequivocal......unless of course she is including Jetconnect.
".....we are continuing to hire pilots into Qantas Mainline...."
This makes it quite unequivocal......unless of course she is including Jetconnect.
Geoffrey...
You can write about how you have previously called Qantas management on bad decisions (such as failure to buy the 777) until the cows come home.
It doesn't matter.
The fact remains that you went on national television and told millions of Australians (the people who will ultimately cause Qantas to fail or succeed) that Qantas Engineers want $3-400 million extra per year (which equates to a increase of at least $187,500 per engineer per year).
I am a senior pilot at a competing airline and Qantas' success (or lack thereof) is of no consequence to me, but I'm still disgusted by your piece on Sunrise.
YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY until you correct the above lie. And I will, like others, refuse to buy Australian Aviation until you have the balls to publicly admit your error and the massive damage it may have done to the cause of our world class Australian engineers and pilots.
You can write about how you have previously called Qantas management on bad decisions (such as failure to buy the 777) until the cows come home.
It doesn't matter.
The fact remains that you went on national television and told millions of Australians (the people who will ultimately cause Qantas to fail or succeed) that Qantas Engineers want $3-400 million extra per year (which equates to a increase of at least $187,500 per engineer per year).
I am a senior pilot at a competing airline and Qantas' success (or lack thereof) is of no consequence to me, but I'm still disgusted by your piece on Sunrise.
YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY until you correct the above lie. And I will, like others, refuse to buy Australian Aviation until you have the balls to publicly admit your error and the massive damage it may have done to the cause of our world class Australian engineers and pilots.