TAAE about to bite dust?
Thread Starter
I think a Virgin/Patricks tie up would not be much different from QANTAS and AAE. There is already a Virgin freight component to the company if you look at their website. Freight doesn't have to be core business in a passenger airline, the marginal cost of carrying it utilising spare belly capacity is very low and hence returns very good.
Virgin to carry the belly in thier nice new aircraft pretty much like QANTAS and Patricks to operate the old low utilisation freighters for which the economics don't work with new equipment like AAE( or contractor).
However, I'm with you. my money is on NJS as this is what AAE wants.
Virgin to carry the belly in thier nice new aircraft pretty much like QANTAS and Patricks to operate the old low utilisation freighters for which the economics don't work with new equipment like AAE( or contractor).
However, I'm with you. my money is on NJS as this is what AAE wants.
Evertonian
I guess it all boils down to the question of whether or not there is a need for a freighter airline of this size in Oz?
Sure, Tassie runs are pretty much necessary, but cost is now the driving force these days, so one can only wonder if the Ferries to Tassie will cover this market too.
At the end of the day, airfreight will never beat a truck for price.
Sure, Tassie runs are pretty much necessary, but cost is now the driving force these days, so one can only wonder if the Ferries to Tassie will cover this market too.
At the end of the day, airfreight will never beat a truck for price.
Thread Starter
I don't know what impact that this will have for the operation but I heard tonight that the 727 simulator has been shut down.
I don't know what impact this will have in keeping the operation going but would almost make it almost impossible for a new operator in the short term.
They were evidently one of the bigger creditors.
I don't know what impact this will have in keeping the operation going but would almost make it almost impossible for a new operator in the short term.
They were evidently one of the bigger creditors.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrick's loom bigger than most contenders in books. They have the money, and freight is their game. Patrick's have also bought up most of the ex AN ground equipmen around Aus.
Operating a 727 operation would be a large challenge to Pel Air and one would think fraught with major(expensive!) problems. NJS, well, it would depend on what their British masters decree.
Time will only tell - lets hope the three holers keep burning and turning!
Operating a 727 operation would be a large challenge to Pel Air and one would think fraught with major(expensive!) problems. NJS, well, it would depend on what their British masters decree.
Time will only tell - lets hope the three holers keep burning and turning!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yorkey's Knob
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did TAA go tits up?
In a word, the answer is 'CASA complience'.
The costs of the last 2 'C' checks overran budget due to CASA requirements and the unbudgeted costs associated with 'day to day' complience issues finally blew the liquidity of the company out of the water.
For the C chks, CASA wanted every component that did not have a known history replaced. We're talking 7 figure amounts here for a very marginal if any improvement in safety.
The 3 holer is a reliable workhorse but to operate it within the confines of 2 or 3 pages of MELs is pretty difficult. Hundreds of hours went into trying to improve on Boeing's 727 MELs to bring them to an acceptable standard for CASA but to no avail.
This problem is still unresolved and will be ongoing for the future owner - if there is one.
Every step of the sale process has to be vetted and given the nod by CASA.
It is in the interests of everyone to have the new owners onboard as quickly as possible. However, with CASA's involvement, it will be a miricle if it happens this year.
Unfortunately, CASA is unaccountable.
They are bureacrats, who under the guise of safety, are out of control.
Staff, who are mainly ex Ansett, are about to have another pineapple rammed up the arse. What recourse do they have?
Not much except perhaps to hound their federal member and John Anderson. It maybe opportune with Toller's removal, the man who grounded Ansett's 767s.
In a word, the answer is 'CASA complience'.
The costs of the last 2 'C' checks overran budget due to CASA requirements and the unbudgeted costs associated with 'day to day' complience issues finally blew the liquidity of the company out of the water.
For the C chks, CASA wanted every component that did not have a known history replaced. We're talking 7 figure amounts here for a very marginal if any improvement in safety.
The 3 holer is a reliable workhorse but to operate it within the confines of 2 or 3 pages of MELs is pretty difficult. Hundreds of hours went into trying to improve on Boeing's 727 MELs to bring them to an acceptable standard for CASA but to no avail.
This problem is still unresolved and will be ongoing for the future owner - if there is one.
Every step of the sale process has to be vetted and given the nod by CASA.
It is in the interests of everyone to have the new owners onboard as quickly as possible. However, with CASA's involvement, it will be a miricle if it happens this year.
Unfortunately, CASA is unaccountable.
They are bureacrats, who under the guise of safety, are out of control.
Staff, who are mainly ex Ansett, are about to have another pineapple rammed up the arse. What recourse do they have?
Not much except perhaps to hound their federal member and John Anderson. It maybe opportune with Toller's removal, the man who grounded Ansett's 767s.
I am of the opinion that AAE has ultimately brought this upon themselves.
You should not be able to walk in the door of an organisation like AAE, place a proposal for tender on the desk and not expect to have a very intensive SWAT (Strenghts, Weakness and Threats) analysis carried out.
I accept that AAE may well have been desperate and at the time the TAAE proposal might well have looked like a solution to a problem that no one else would touch. It is however incumbent on the management team to determine the likelihood of continued solvency of an operator. With the benefit of years of hindsight (before the formation of TAAE), AAE has had the opportunity to analyse the track record of these aged aircraft newstarts. We have all seen this before.
CASA does have a history of going way over the top to cover its ever increasingly vulnerable backside, particularly with new organisations. This is not new!
Operators of older machinery tend to underestimate the costs of maintenace on their aircraft as they "should be faultless" This is not new!
And unfortunately another freight operator looks like going under. Sad to say this is not new!
I do not meen to exonerate TAAE of potentially poor managemnet (I don't have all the facts to say) AAE, however have been at this game for eleven years. If their customers depend primarily on continuation and reliability of service...............
Willie
You should not be able to walk in the door of an organisation like AAE, place a proposal for tender on the desk and not expect to have a very intensive SWAT (Strenghts, Weakness and Threats) analysis carried out.
I accept that AAE may well have been desperate and at the time the TAAE proposal might well have looked like a solution to a problem that no one else would touch. It is however incumbent on the management team to determine the likelihood of continued solvency of an operator. With the benefit of years of hindsight (before the formation of TAAE), AAE has had the opportunity to analyse the track record of these aged aircraft newstarts. We have all seen this before.
CASA does have a history of going way over the top to cover its ever increasingly vulnerable backside, particularly with new organisations. This is not new!
Operators of older machinery tend to underestimate the costs of maintenace on their aircraft as they "should be faultless" This is not new!
And unfortunately another freight operator looks like going under. Sad to say this is not new!
I do not meen to exonerate TAAE of potentially poor managemnet (I don't have all the facts to say) AAE, however have been at this game for eleven years. If their customers depend primarily on continuation and reliability of service...............
Willie
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: in a suitcase
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WN you are correct AaE brought this on themselves, however they were not desperate. There were 2 other properly constructed proposals on the table by other operators at the time, at realistic costings.
However TAAE were falling over themselves to grab the operation at an unrealistic bargain basement price, with I have heard "inside" help, such that the other propasals were dismissed out of hand and CASA was in muddying the waters also.
Some heads could and should roll within AaE over this debacle.
However TAAE were falling over themselves to grab the operation at an unrealistic bargain basement price, with I have heard "inside" help, such that the other propasals were dismissed out of hand and CASA was in muddying the waters also.
Some heads could and should roll within AaE over this debacle.
Thread Starter
Wingnuts,
TAAE didn't go titsup because of CASA, they wen't titsup despite them.
You can't blame CASA for the fact that these people bought an aircraft which was in effect full of bogus parts. If TAAE had done the job correctly they would have paid a price that reflected the condition of the aircraft and fixed it up correctly. A lot like buying a C172 with a run out engine. Most people wouldn't pay the same price as one with a part life or new engine. CASA shouldn't have allowed this aircraft to fly just to assist these people, every other operator has to toe the line.
You also can't blame CASA for the MEL's. The company tried to grow so fast they just couldn't keep up and didn't have the resources in house. I think the ex CASA ex Ansett person at the top found out it's a lot harder in the real world without the support of dozens of specialist personnel. I'm sure he also found out that it's a lot easier to criticise from the CASA side than actually get in and do the job. I'm also sure that he came across the limitations of the rest of the senior management pretty quick as well. It get's hard to do things when people start screaming for money and moral drops and all your getting is BS out of management.
You also can't blame CASA for the company going broke. The fact is that the company has no banks as creditors in the report given out last week and you would have to assume they had no financial facilities with the banks, they put in little capital if any and right from the outset they set about using the creditors money to try and run the business. CASA should have looked at the financial viability of the company in terms of maintaining standards and safety and there has been no suggestion that they didn't or that the operations weren't OK.
What you can blame CASA for is most of the industry knew this was happening for quite some time and that clearly the company and the crews were stressed and that they didn't step in earlier to assess the situation.
The reality is that CASA cut them more slack than they would have given normally and you would have to think that that was because of the ex CASA now chief pilot without any experience running this type of show. That's a concern in it's inconsitency. Most of the industry has been hamstrung in trying to get new aircraft into the fleet let alone everything else.
As I said, TAAE failed despite CASA not because of them. CASA had no involvement in the actual financial failure of TAAE. It was doomed from the start.
If I take the Circular to Creditors on face value the Chief Pilot is in fact employed by TAAE. How does that work with the AOC held in the name of Aeromarine Consulting. Did Aeromarine in fact meet the requirements to exercise it's privilidges of the AOC. Does this in fact breach the borrowed AOC regs and does it continue to under the administration.
What CASA needs to do is to regulate within its' own charter to be fair, impartial and consistent in it's own duties. This is what frustrates most of the industry. If CASA had insisted that this company meet all the requirements as they are laid down, then right from the start it would have been evident why their pricing was so different from those other establised operators that tendered. CASA in fact rewarded the party taking the shortcuts.
In terms of AAE, they have certainly got themselves in this position. They let a major contract to a company and people of no substance and have exposed their whole network. Your right Willie, the senior management of AAE and the relationship to one of the directors of TAAE should be looked at by the Board. The transaction smells. I'm with you LFS.
TAAE didn't go titsup because of CASA, they wen't titsup despite them.
You can't blame CASA for the fact that these people bought an aircraft which was in effect full of bogus parts. If TAAE had done the job correctly they would have paid a price that reflected the condition of the aircraft and fixed it up correctly. A lot like buying a C172 with a run out engine. Most people wouldn't pay the same price as one with a part life or new engine. CASA shouldn't have allowed this aircraft to fly just to assist these people, every other operator has to toe the line.
You also can't blame CASA for the MEL's. The company tried to grow so fast they just couldn't keep up and didn't have the resources in house. I think the ex CASA ex Ansett person at the top found out it's a lot harder in the real world without the support of dozens of specialist personnel. I'm sure he also found out that it's a lot easier to criticise from the CASA side than actually get in and do the job. I'm also sure that he came across the limitations of the rest of the senior management pretty quick as well. It get's hard to do things when people start screaming for money and moral drops and all your getting is BS out of management.
You also can't blame CASA for the company going broke. The fact is that the company has no banks as creditors in the report given out last week and you would have to assume they had no financial facilities with the banks, they put in little capital if any and right from the outset they set about using the creditors money to try and run the business. CASA should have looked at the financial viability of the company in terms of maintaining standards and safety and there has been no suggestion that they didn't or that the operations weren't OK.
What you can blame CASA for is most of the industry knew this was happening for quite some time and that clearly the company and the crews were stressed and that they didn't step in earlier to assess the situation.
The reality is that CASA cut them more slack than they would have given normally and you would have to think that that was because of the ex CASA now chief pilot without any experience running this type of show. That's a concern in it's inconsitency. Most of the industry has been hamstrung in trying to get new aircraft into the fleet let alone everything else.
As I said, TAAE failed despite CASA not because of them. CASA had no involvement in the actual financial failure of TAAE. It was doomed from the start.
If I take the Circular to Creditors on face value the Chief Pilot is in fact employed by TAAE. How does that work with the AOC held in the name of Aeromarine Consulting. Did Aeromarine in fact meet the requirements to exercise it's privilidges of the AOC. Does this in fact breach the borrowed AOC regs and does it continue to under the administration.
What CASA needs to do is to regulate within its' own charter to be fair, impartial and consistent in it's own duties. This is what frustrates most of the industry. If CASA had insisted that this company meet all the requirements as they are laid down, then right from the start it would have been evident why their pricing was so different from those other establised operators that tendered. CASA in fact rewarded the party taking the shortcuts.
In terms of AAE, they have certainly got themselves in this position. They let a major contract to a company and people of no substance and have exposed their whole network. Your right Willie, the senior management of AAE and the relationship to one of the directors of TAAE should be looked at by the Board. The transaction smells. I'm with you LFS.
Last edited by d_concord; 29th Jul 2003 at 13:05.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yorkey's Knob
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAA moves about 270 ton of freight, on 21 flights, 5 nights a week with a dispatch reliability of 98%. All maintenance is done in house through to Check Ds. Can you imagine the management and resources required to organise a Check D on a 20-30 year old 727?
The score is on the board.
These facts, numbers do not reflect poor management or a half baked operation.Three weeks into administration, this world class performance is being maintained and the Check D of VLG goes on. This does not reflect low moral. To the contrary. It reflects a group of people who know they have a viable organisation and are prepared to stay and see the process through to the end.
d_concord, you make a number of valid points. However, you do not lessen my beef with CASA. CASA is 'out of control'. Willie says that 'CASA has a history of being way over the top' and you,yourself, say CASA 'needs to be fair, impartial and consistant'. This is all I ask. The longer the aviation industry keeps bending over and taking it up the arse from CASA the longer they will have their pleasure.
CASA's charter is to 'work cooperatively with the aviation industry to maintain and enhance safety'.(Civil Aviation Act 1988 Para.9(1)(c) & Sect. 16) That is a 'c' for 'cooperation' not a 'd' for 'dictation'. CASA should be facilitating airlines such as TAA. Unfortuately, they have moved beyond to power play.
The score is on the board.
These facts, numbers do not reflect poor management or a half baked operation.Three weeks into administration, this world class performance is being maintained and the Check D of VLG goes on. This does not reflect low moral. To the contrary. It reflects a group of people who know they have a viable organisation and are prepared to stay and see the process through to the end.
d_concord, you make a number of valid points. However, you do not lessen my beef with CASA. CASA is 'out of control'. Willie says that 'CASA has a history of being way over the top' and you,yourself, say CASA 'needs to be fair, impartial and consistant'. This is all I ask. The longer the aviation industry keeps bending over and taking it up the arse from CASA the longer they will have their pleasure.
CASA's charter is to 'work cooperatively with the aviation industry to maintain and enhance safety'.(Civil Aviation Act 1988 Para.9(1)(c) & Sect. 16) That is a 'c' for 'cooperation' not a 'd' for 'dictation'. CASA should be facilitating airlines such as TAA. Unfortuately, they have moved beyond to power play.
Last edited by Wingnuts; 2nd Aug 2003 at 13:19.
Thread Starter
Wingnut.
While on the face of it some what you say is true, I think you are giving credit where it's not due.
The management of this company is atrocious. You are giving them credit for the professionalism of the crews and engineers that have had to put up with quite a bit of angst and duress over unpaid bills while they have been at the coalface dealing with the suppliers. Let me assure you this company has been stressed financially for quite some time.
I know a lot of them, both engineers and pilots, they are great blokes and highly professional and I wouldn't expect anything else but a great "operational performance" but to attribute this so called "world class performance" (which it's not by any measure) to management begs belief.
Almost from day one the management of this organisation has been diverting the creditors money to only loose it. If you remember back to very early in the piece there were wages missed just after the current senior management took over. Of course that was a clerical error!!!
There was never enough seed capital or bank facilities for this organisation. It will be interesting to see the final report from the administrator is as to the so called management of this company but knowing what I do, I'd almost bet that they have been insolvent from the first week.
CASA had nothing whatsoever to do with the demise of this company. It's a case of damded if you do, damded if you don't in this case. They just can't win depending on your perspective.
I'm happy to debate CASA in terms of the rights or wrongs in industry general terms anytime you want, but I suspect, from what you have said in your last post, that we will agree on most things.
However it is not CASA's place to ensure or assist the financial success of a company. I'll say it again, they had nothing whatsoever to do with the demise of this company. The demise of this company is purely financial missmanagement. (and that's throwing the kindest light on it you can imagine).
While on the face of it some what you say is true, I think you are giving credit where it's not due.
The management of this company is atrocious. You are giving them credit for the professionalism of the crews and engineers that have had to put up with quite a bit of angst and duress over unpaid bills while they have been at the coalface dealing with the suppliers. Let me assure you this company has been stressed financially for quite some time.
I know a lot of them, both engineers and pilots, they are great blokes and highly professional and I wouldn't expect anything else but a great "operational performance" but to attribute this so called "world class performance" (which it's not by any measure) to management begs belief.
Almost from day one the management of this organisation has been diverting the creditors money to only loose it. If you remember back to very early in the piece there were wages missed just after the current senior management took over. Of course that was a clerical error!!!
There was never enough seed capital or bank facilities for this organisation. It will be interesting to see the final report from the administrator is as to the so called management of this company but knowing what I do, I'd almost bet that they have been insolvent from the first week.
CASA had nothing whatsoever to do with the demise of this company. It's a case of damded if you do, damded if you don't in this case. They just can't win depending on your perspective.
I'm happy to debate CASA in terms of the rights or wrongs in industry general terms anytime you want, but I suspect, from what you have said in your last post, that we will agree on most things.
However it is not CASA's place to ensure or assist the financial success of a company. I'll say it again, they had nothing whatsoever to do with the demise of this company. The demise of this company is purely financial missmanagement. (and that's throwing the kindest light on it you can imagine).
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately when you operate aircraft in the RPT category you are in the big league as far as CASA is concerned, if you cannot keep up with the paperwork which seems to be one of the problems this operation has always had, how can you blame CASA.
Guest
Posts: n/a
****** me. I have just read the Report to Creditors and the compnay has paid "management Fees" totalling over $ 2.5 million between Nov 2002 and July 2003. All went to Transworld Leasing aka Griffin and Brown the Directors of TAAE !
The Administrator gives over a full page to "related party dealings" .
It makes damned good reading . As one of the main creditors are the tax office I am sure that this info will be passed on to them for further action
The future of TAAE will be decided on the 8th August. Tenders close that day.
The Administrator gives over a full page to "related party dealings" .
It makes damned good reading . As one of the main creditors are the tax office I am sure that this info will be passed on to them for further action
The future of TAAE will be decided on the 8th August. Tenders close that day.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think d-concord has it right on the money. The internal inefficiencies and incompetencies were the primary cause of the collapse. What didn't help was that CASA was allowing them to operate with seeming impunity, when for lesser problems AN's 767 fleet was grounded. The inconsistencies of the regulator are appalling.
Wingnuts - I don't know where you get your data from but the TAA 727 operation is exceptionally unreliable. Ask the customers. Sure, when they operated they were usally pretty good - problem was that more often than not one of the 727's fell over. And in the freight industry in Australia there is simply nowhere else to put that freight. Dispatch reliability as a measure is smoke and mirrors.
Wingnuts - I don't know where you get your data from but the TAA 727 operation is exceptionally unreliable. Ask the customers. Sure, when they operated they were usally pretty good - problem was that more often than not one of the 727's fell over. And in the freight industry in Australia there is simply nowhere else to put that freight. Dispatch reliability as a measure is smoke and mirrors.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The problem was not so much the operation , the guys have done a great job getting this company in the air , nor casa , nor any other factor that can be attributed to the guys at the coal face. Another disturbing item is mentioned in page 3 of the report. It states that the contract with AAE was calculated on the basis of break even or a slight loss. To be profitable the company required third party charter flights. So , with its aircraft tied up with AAE the company stood no chance of survival in the first place . To expect third party work for these aircraft - presumably only on a Friday , Sat , Sun and hang your whole future on it seems dodgy.
You may wish to rephrase your second para deleted. W
You may wish to rephrase your second para deleted. W
Last edited by Woomera; 8th Aug 2003 at 07:35.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AITK
Thats probably sailing a bit close to the wind defamation wise. If he does have 2 and a half million squid he could sure cause you some sleepless nights in reponse.
No relation to me, just the way I see it. (Delete I'd suggest)
Thats probably sailing a bit close to the wind defamation wise. If he does have 2 and a half million squid he could sure cause you some sleepless nights in reponse.
No relation to me, just the way I see it. (Delete I'd suggest)