TJ RESIGNS FROM AN
I trust everyone is learning from this misinformation masterclass.
[quote] Mr Jensen was named on Ansett Mark II's air operating certificate and was coordinating the massive amounts of paperwork to be completed before Ansett Mark II got Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) permission to fly. ... There were substantial chunks missing before CASA could give the go-ahead to the airline, [Mr Gibson of CASA] said. <hr></blockquote>
Any reasonable person would read that and assume that Mr Jensen is named on "Ansett Mark II's" AOC, that his being so named affects the authority of “Ansett Mark II” to conduct the operations authorised by the AOC, and that “Ansett Mark II” is not authorised to fly without CASA permission.
Mr Jensen is not and never has been the holder in law of either of the Ansett AOCs. An AOC was and continues to be held by Ansett Airways Limited ACN 004 216 291 (now in administration). Another AOC was and continues to be held by Ansett International Limited ACN 060 622 460 (also now in administration). Neither AOC is transferable to any person, natural or otherwise, including Mr Rindfleish, Tesna (or Mr Jensen for that matter). CASA has not published details of either of those AOCs having ceased to authorise operations, and no AOC has been issued to "Ansett Mark II". Today's "Ansett" operations are being conducted under the authority of the same AOCs that authorised "Ansett's" operations before the companies went into administration. There is no "Ansett Mark II".
What’s really happening is that an entirely new entity is applying for an entirely new AOC.
[quote] Mr Jensen was named on Ansett Mark II's air operating certificate and was coordinating the massive amounts of paperwork to be completed before Ansett Mark II got Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) permission to fly. ... There were substantial chunks missing before CASA could give the go-ahead to the airline, [Mr Gibson of CASA] said. <hr></blockquote>
Any reasonable person would read that and assume that Mr Jensen is named on "Ansett Mark II's" AOC, that his being so named affects the authority of “Ansett Mark II” to conduct the operations authorised by the AOC, and that “Ansett Mark II” is not authorised to fly without CASA permission.
Mr Jensen is not and never has been the holder in law of either of the Ansett AOCs. An AOC was and continues to be held by Ansett Airways Limited ACN 004 216 291 (now in administration). Another AOC was and continues to be held by Ansett International Limited ACN 060 622 460 (also now in administration). Neither AOC is transferable to any person, natural or otherwise, including Mr Rindfleish, Tesna (or Mr Jensen for that matter). CASA has not published details of either of those AOCs having ceased to authorise operations, and no AOC has been issued to "Ansett Mark II". Today's "Ansett" operations are being conducted under the authority of the same AOCs that authorised "Ansett's" operations before the companies went into administration. There is no "Ansett Mark II".
What’s really happening is that an entirely new entity is applying for an entirely new AOC.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a rumour that AN pilots at one time were considering a vote of no confidence in a certain person. Rumour was that said person forestalled that by alleging that his name was on the AOC and such a move would cause a cessation of operations.
Creampuff confirms my previous remarks about the AOC. The ONLY person's name on the AOC is the signature of the CASA officer who signed it.
Perhaps the said person had a premonition of his imminent departure and got in early.
. ...............or was that got out early? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
[ 24 January 2002: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]</p>
Creampuff confirms my previous remarks about the AOC. The ONLY person's name on the AOC is the signature of the CASA officer who signed it.
Perhaps the said person had a premonition of his imminent departure and got in early.
. ...............or was that got out early? <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
[ 24 January 2002: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]</p>
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter "the combover Nazi" Gibson has made his (rather brave) unwelcome return to the press - his first foray since the famous 767 landing gear gaff of 2001.
I hope you stick to the facts this time.
[ 24 January 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
I hope you stick to the facts this time.
[ 24 January 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
Guest
Posts: n/a
As there has been NO AOC issued yet for Ansett 2, obviously NOBODY can have their name on it, not even a CASA person.
I think what they mean, is that TJs name is the one on the application so far, and NOW the application must be changed, POSSIBLY delaying the process?
I think what they mean, is that TJs name is the one on the application so far, and NOW the application must be changed, POSSIBLY delaying the process?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just don't see what all the fuss is about.. .Ansett is operating under the original AOC right now. All the infrastructure, manuals etc are already in place. The new AOC does not involve adding a new type but rather reducing the types of aircraft on the existing AOC and changing the company name on it to TESNA or whatever they choose to call it. The fact that Jensen may have signed the application is irrelevant since he would have signed it on behalf of TESNA. Anyway changing the signee is a minor matter. As to what Jensen may have carried in his head is absurd. We all know that CASA wants everything in hard copy.
It was not necessary for the "haircut" to comment at all unless he had an ulterior motive.
Where do they get these people!!?? <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
It was not necessary for the "haircut" to comment at all unless he had an ulterior motive.
Where do they get these people!!?? <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is NOT a big deal, however as I said before, I think you will find they mean the application for the new AOC.
This is from the CASA site, re how to apply for an Airline AOC.
(Quote}
Step 2 - Formal application
The precise requirements of a formal application are contained in CASA instrument 293/00. You should read that document before starting the application process but in brief you will need to tell us:
The applicant's name and contact details, including ABN. . .The service you intend to provide . .The aircraft to be used and area of operation. . .Proposed organisational structure . .Key personnel qualifications and experience . .Any current or previous regulatory action against the applicant or key personnel . .Services such as maintenance carried out by other organisations . .Proposed schedule for the application process . .Compliance Statement . .Financial statement
(Endquote}
Now it is obvious IF they want a new AOC, that they will have to submit a new application, or change their previous application, because (no matter who signed it) with the resignation of TJ, there have been changes to "key personnel qualifications and experience".
Sure you will find that this is what CASA are talking about, and they have said that they hope to still have it ready on time okay?
This is from the CASA site, re how to apply for an Airline AOC.
(Quote}
Step 2 - Formal application
The precise requirements of a formal application are contained in CASA instrument 293/00. You should read that document before starting the application process but in brief you will need to tell us:
The applicant's name and contact details, including ABN. . .The service you intend to provide . .The aircraft to be used and area of operation. . .Proposed organisational structure . .Key personnel qualifications and experience . .Any current or previous regulatory action against the applicant or key personnel . .Services such as maintenance carried out by other organisations . .Proposed schedule for the application process . .Compliance Statement . .Financial statement
(Endquote}
Now it is obvious IF they want a new AOC, that they will have to submit a new application, or change their previous application, because (no matter who signed it) with the resignation of TJ, there have been changes to "key personnel qualifications and experience".
Sure you will find that this is what CASA are talking about, and they have said that they hope to still have it ready on time okay?
There is a very big issue here folks. It’s just being disguised by all this “Jensen on the AOC” and “Ansett Mark II” smoke and mirrors.
FSU - Most of what you say is accurate, except in one key respect.
You need to understand the key difference between “changing the company name” on an AOC, and “changing the company” on an AOC.
If a corporate entity merely changes its name, it remains the same corporate person notwithstanding the change. For instance, the corporate person whose ACN is 004 216 291 happens to have been called Ansett Airways Limited for a long time. That entity to could change its name (assuming its available) to anything it likes, but the entity would still be the same corporate person whose ACN is 004 216 291.
A company (or a natural person) “changing its name” makes no difference to what that legal person is authorised to do under an AOC issued to it. CASA assesses, and has grounds to assess, nothing. The same legal person continues to be authorised to do what it was always authorised to do.
An analogous situation would arise if you changed your name. You would be exactly the same person, but with a different name. The change of name would not change your authority under the licences/certificates issued to you.
“Changing the company” on an AOC is a nonsense. It cannot happen.
It would be like you walking into a CASA office and asking for your mate Fred to be substituted for you on your licences. “I’ve got a pilot’s licence and I’m selling it to Fred. Can you put his name on the licence, so he can exercise its privileges please?”
If CASA is going through an AOC application assessment process, that means a completely different corporate person from any of the existing AOC holders has applied for an AOC. The new applicant might be using bits of the old “Ansett” carcass to satisfy some of the requirements of the application, but make no mistake: the new applicant is not “Ansett”, Mark II or otherwise.
FSU - Most of what you say is accurate, except in one key respect.
You need to understand the key difference between “changing the company name” on an AOC, and “changing the company” on an AOC.
If a corporate entity merely changes its name, it remains the same corporate person notwithstanding the change. For instance, the corporate person whose ACN is 004 216 291 happens to have been called Ansett Airways Limited for a long time. That entity to could change its name (assuming its available) to anything it likes, but the entity would still be the same corporate person whose ACN is 004 216 291.
A company (or a natural person) “changing its name” makes no difference to what that legal person is authorised to do under an AOC issued to it. CASA assesses, and has grounds to assess, nothing. The same legal person continues to be authorised to do what it was always authorised to do.
An analogous situation would arise if you changed your name. You would be exactly the same person, but with a different name. The change of name would not change your authority under the licences/certificates issued to you.
“Changing the company” on an AOC is a nonsense. It cannot happen.
It would be like you walking into a CASA office and asking for your mate Fred to be substituted for you on your licences. “I’ve got a pilot’s licence and I’m selling it to Fred. Can you put his name on the licence, so he can exercise its privileges please?”
If CASA is going through an AOC application assessment process, that means a completely different corporate person from any of the existing AOC holders has applied for an AOC. The new applicant might be using bits of the old “Ansett” carcass to satisfy some of the requirements of the application, but make no mistake: the new applicant is not “Ansett”, Mark II or otherwise.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,. . Quite so. However the "key personnel" by and large are the same except that Jensen will be replaced by another approved person who, in fact, may be more qualified and familiar with the nuts and bolts of the operation.
CASA can hardly say that systems that are currently approved suddenly become unapproved because there has been an ownership change otherwise the airline could/should not be operating now. Was AirNZ acquiring Ansett an ownwership change and did the AOC get reviewed/reassessed/renewed/reissued then?
All of the requirements listed above would have been adequately addressed already. The contentious ones could be the Compliance Statement and Financial Statement.
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]</p>
CASA can hardly say that systems that are currently approved suddenly become unapproved because there has been an ownership change otherwise the airline could/should not be operating now. Was AirNZ acquiring Ansett an ownwership change and did the AOC get reviewed/reassessed/renewed/reissued then?
All of the requirements listed above would have been adequately addressed already. The contentious ones could be the Compliance Statement and Financial Statement.
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]</p>
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day FSU,
I have watched pprune from afar for a couple of years now without making comment. However, I need to make my first post in response to a short comment you made earlier.
AN Apron control was NOT infused with ex- air traffic CONTROLLERS. In fact, in Melbourne, there was only one. Their experience spread broadly across aircraft engineering, Flight service, flight dispatch, airport operations, flying and cabin crew. Yes, I agree that all of the personnel displaced were experienced, however, not all of them were excellent operators (just like some who ended up taking their places). WE are all human after all. It was all just another idea that evolved in AN in pursuit of better efficiency. Unfortuntely, it was not around long enough to realise its potential. The ideas planned for the function were reasonable but needed time and support to evolve. I believe it would have improved over time.
Since you asked, ALL of the ex Apron Controllers (and I can only speak for those in Melbourne) are gainfully employed in the aviation industry. Some are still in AN (their function to be expanded), some moved on prior to the collapse, to bigger and better things within the industry. None are in the street.
Ruprect.
<img src="cool.gif" border="0"> NOT
I have watched pprune from afar for a couple of years now without making comment. However, I need to make my first post in response to a short comment you made earlier.
AN Apron control was NOT infused with ex- air traffic CONTROLLERS. In fact, in Melbourne, there was only one. Their experience spread broadly across aircraft engineering, Flight service, flight dispatch, airport operations, flying and cabin crew. Yes, I agree that all of the personnel displaced were experienced, however, not all of them were excellent operators (just like some who ended up taking their places). WE are all human after all. It was all just another idea that evolved in AN in pursuit of better efficiency. Unfortuntely, it was not around long enough to realise its potential. The ideas planned for the function were reasonable but needed time and support to evolve. I believe it would have improved over time.
Since you asked, ALL of the ex Apron Controllers (and I can only speak for those in Melbourne) are gainfully employed in the aviation industry. Some are still in AN (their function to be expanded), some moved on prior to the collapse, to bigger and better things within the industry. None are in the street.
Ruprect.
<img src="cool.gif" border="0"> NOT
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ruprect - you are wrong - none in Sydney are gainfully employed and some are still looking for jobs. They were the first to get compulsory redundancies as they were too expensive to keep. . .Meanwhile the very experienced ops/crewing staff who they replaced in Sydney have moved on and gained employment. Someone else's gain!!!
The whole exercise was a waste of time and money. Just ask any flight crew.
With ideas like that no wonder they went broke.
The whole exercise was a waste of time and money. Just ask any flight crew.
With ideas like that no wonder they went broke.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADU
What I meant was that all of the Melbourne guys are employed. The whole exercise was a waste of money only because the potential gains were not ever going to be realised until further down the track, after full implementation.
Everything needs to be given a chance. This wasn't implemented to cause anyone grief (although it certainly did that). I'm not saying it worked, I'm not saying nothing was gained, either. However, it evolved out of a belief that it would increase the efficiency of the company and actually help the crews. Whether it did or not is another topic.
Regards,
Ruprect. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: Ruprect ]</p>
What I meant was that all of the Melbourne guys are employed. The whole exercise was a waste of money only because the potential gains were not ever going to be realised until further down the track, after full implementation.
Everything needs to be given a chance. This wasn't implemented to cause anyone grief (although it certainly did that). I'm not saying it worked, I'm not saying nothing was gained, either. However, it evolved out of a belief that it would increase the efficiency of the company and actually help the crews. Whether it did or not is another topic.
Regards,
Ruprect. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: Ruprect ]</p>
Evertonian
WRT AN apron controllers, I have been reliably informed that they are now operating from the Central Ops area---for all major ports!! <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Yes, there was a need to clean out the "deadwood", but the replacements were OTT. I believe some work previously done was beneath them.
Also, a little birdy told me that MR's replacement is very fast! Think about it AN chaps! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Yes, there was a need to clean out the "deadwood", but the replacements were OTT. I believe some work previously done was beneath them.
Also, a little birdy told me that MR's replacement is very fast! Think about it AN chaps! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
FSU – I think we agree in principle.
I note your observation that: [quote]CASA can hardly say that systems that are currently approved suddenly become unapproved because there has been an ownership change otherwise the airline could/should not be operating now.<hr></blockquote>
Your observation merely begs the question. LB (don’t tell Torres, but that’s me) has observed elsewhere: [quote]One wonders how “Ansett” manages to continue to satisfy the management-related conditions on its AOC ... when the first administrator stated publicly that the organisation had had “no management for the last three months”.<hr></blockquote>
It’s been mostly down hill since then.
The politics of the situation are that the Ansett carcass will be kept flying until the assets are sold, no matter what the state of the organisation, and the new company’s new AOC application is being ‘fast-tracked’.. CASA has been told not to act against the carcass’s AOCs in the interim. As LB also observed in the same post: [quote]I heard the minister on radio telling all and sundry that “the government” had ensured that “Ansett” remained an attractive piece of property, by “keeping its AOC on foot”. How can that be so? The decision as to whether an AOC remains on foot is not the government’s to make. Or at least it’s not supposed to be. The decision is supposed to be made independently of and uninfluenced by the minister and his government, and made on the basis of objective safety-related criteria alone.<hr></blockquote>
In most civilised countries, that’s called “corruption”.
FoxTrotter: spot on. Now you know why there’s all the smoke and mirrors.
I note your observation that: [quote]CASA can hardly say that systems that are currently approved suddenly become unapproved because there has been an ownership change otherwise the airline could/should not be operating now.<hr></blockquote>
Your observation merely begs the question. LB (don’t tell Torres, but that’s me) has observed elsewhere: [quote]One wonders how “Ansett” manages to continue to satisfy the management-related conditions on its AOC ... when the first administrator stated publicly that the organisation had had “no management for the last three months”.<hr></blockquote>
It’s been mostly down hill since then.
The politics of the situation are that the Ansett carcass will be kept flying until the assets are sold, no matter what the state of the organisation, and the new company’s new AOC application is being ‘fast-tracked’.. CASA has been told not to act against the carcass’s AOCs in the interim. As LB also observed in the same post: [quote]I heard the minister on radio telling all and sundry that “the government” had ensured that “Ansett” remained an attractive piece of property, by “keeping its AOC on foot”. How can that be so? The decision as to whether an AOC remains on foot is not the government’s to make. Or at least it’s not supposed to be. The decision is supposed to be made independently of and uninfluenced by the minister and his government, and made on the basis of objective safety-related criteria alone.<hr></blockquote>
In most civilised countries, that’s called “corruption”.
FoxTrotter: spot on. Now you know why there’s all the smoke and mirrors.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sydney
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not any nice words to be heard about Mr Jensen from the QF pilots.. .His welcome back party will be as quiet as a Jonestown reunion.
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: edster ]</p>
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: edster ]</p>
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Planet earth...for the time being.
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps TJ coveted the CEO position at AN and when it didn't come his way he looked for other options especially since the appointee was several years junior and succession to CEO in future years would be unlikely.
QF, on the other hand, and the possibility of advancement to a more exalted position suitable to his self assessed stature, would seem to be more attractive.
Unbridled ambition?.........or supreme optimism? Which would one think?
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: The Vicar ]</p>
QF, on the other hand, and the possibility of advancement to a more exalted position suitable to his self assessed stature, would seem to be more attractive.
Unbridled ambition?.........or supreme optimism? Which would one think?
[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: The Vicar ]</p>
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vicar - I'd say that you are close to the truth!
QF will no doubt pay more, has more jets and better options [short term].
Isn't greed one of the seven deadly sins that you preach on a Sunday morning?
QF will no doubt pay more, has more jets and better options [short term].
Isn't greed one of the seven deadly sins that you preach on a Sunday morning?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flat side up, re apron control, well you couldn't be further from the truth, most were not ex ATC and most, as i understand it, are still with the company . I'm sure they will appreciate your concern though re the streets .
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster,
If what you say about Rindfleish's replacement is true, then it's a worse move than replacing TJ with MR.
They need to get some new blood in - some with skills and training in management. Not drones who float to top like high fibre turds.
If what you say about Rindfleish's replacement is true, then it's a worse move than replacing TJ with MR.
They need to get some new blood in - some with skills and training in management. Not drones who float to top like high fibre turds.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Page 69 - 3rd rock
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the (lack of) calibre (I will not scab thanks to you) of his replacement, the departure of Mr. Jensen at this point, points to his assessment of the likelihood of survival of whatever this airline's name is. It won't. But it won't cost SLEW a cent. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">