Merged: Pel Air vs RFDS for the Air Ambulance contract in Australia
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In the middle
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for those kind words of encouragement and the handy tip "KABOY". I am assuming you are involved on the AAV side of things, the way you worded you comments. I believe all current pilots are capable of seeing through company politics. From where I sit, its more to do with the lack of any news from Pelair or Air Ambulane Victoria. So how about a little bit of colour in regards to the new T&C's and we can all gain an honest opinion???
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lester Burnam
The RFDS cannot be considered as one entity, so please do not attempt to generalise. There are four sections, all operating under different funding models each with vastly different levels of expertise in each. You are correct in that the RFDS can gain from FBT exemptions, airservices exemptions etc. However they do suffer lack of efficiency from an archaic national structure, lack of fleet planning and purchase leverage and management duplication.
ie. to many chiefs!
On top of this the industrial relations situation pilot wise within SE Section and QLD section is by far the best of most if not ALL GA operators. This all costs money. It will be interesting indeed if CSection wins the NT contract. It will be the first job they will have won whereby they will be held accountable performance wise. Lets watch and see, what you pick up on the roundabout you lose on the hurdygurdy!!
SN
The RFDS cannot be considered as one entity, so please do not attempt to generalise. There are four sections, all operating under different funding models each with vastly different levels of expertise in each. You are correct in that the RFDS can gain from FBT exemptions, airservices exemptions etc. However they do suffer lack of efficiency from an archaic national structure, lack of fleet planning and purchase leverage and management duplication.
ie. to many chiefs!
On top of this the industrial relations situation pilot wise within SE Section and QLD section is by far the best of most if not ALL GA operators. This all costs money. It will be interesting indeed if CSection wins the NT contract. It will be the first job they will have won whereby they will be held accountable performance wise. Lets watch and see, what you pick up on the roundabout you lose on the hurdygurdy!!
SN
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAAF is the only australian organisation that has had a fatal crash with a jet airliner.
We must differentiate between having lots of new machinery, and "high quality."
We must differentiate between having lots of new machinery, and "high quality."
I think what people miss here is the RFDS don't bid for these contracts just because they want to. They use these contracts to help with things like economies of scale and to provide funding for rural health and keeping the traditional parts of the RFDS operating. They arent in this for shareholders or company directors, but for the general public in rural Australia.
To state they use their donations or otherwise to help them get these contracts is crap, they have had their funding reduced dramitically over the last 10 years, and have to compete with a myriad of other charities chasing peoples money. They are also very extensively audited in how they spend the money they receive.
They aren't perfect, the RFDS is a hugely political machine (which i have experienced), and they have had problems with the AAV contract, especially earlier on (remember those day Wally!) but i think maybe the government and MAS has made an error here.
All the best for the current crop of pilots..good bunch of guys and girls.
To state they use their donations or otherwise to help them get these contracts is crap, they have had their funding reduced dramitically over the last 10 years, and have to compete with a myriad of other charities chasing peoples money. They are also very extensively audited in how they spend the money they receive.
They aren't perfect, the RFDS is a hugely political machine (which i have experienced), and they have had problems with the AAV contract, especially earlier on (remember those day Wally!) but i think maybe the government and MAS has made an error here.
All the best for the current crop of pilots..good bunch of guys and girls.
Well said "ANCDU" 
despite what the "LB's" of the world say the RFDS is made up of PEOPLE with no financial stake in the business unlike the winners of the Vic contract who are in it for the money alone.I've said all along I think AAV will regret the decision but that's that. Nothing is 4ever especially in aviation!
Wmk2
despite what the "LB's" of the world say the RFDS is made up of PEOPLE with no financial stake in the business unlike the winners of the Vic contract who are in it for the money alone.I've said all along I think AAV will regret the decision but that's that. Nothing is 4ever especially in aviation!Wmk2
"LB" I don't know or pretend to understand why you have the hates for the RFDS, fortunately there would be few who share yr thoughts.
Everyone is motivated by money LB (obviously) & to get the best deal wages wise is normal from any business so am not too sure what yr on about there. To the man at the coal face within the RFDS (Pilot for Eg) the RFDS is just another employer in some ways BUT that employer having roots with integrity also is part of a great Aussie institution, shame you don't share that but I respect it also
Still we each have our own beliefs, you have yrs ( in the minority thank God) & the rest of us still believe that the RFDS is going after Govt contracts for good moral reasons, to help support the great work we/they do
You linked here "RFDS receives record funding boost" Great I hope they get a hell of a lot more & edge out in the future any commercial operator who does it for money not pride.
Wmk2
Everyone is motivated by money LB (obviously) & to get the best deal wages wise is normal from any business so am not too sure what yr on about there. To the man at the coal face within the RFDS (Pilot for Eg) the RFDS is just another employer in some ways BUT that employer having roots with integrity also is part of a great Aussie institution, shame you don't share that but I respect it also
Still we each have our own beliefs, you have yrs ( in the minority thank God) & the rest of us still believe that the RFDS is going after Govt contracts for good moral reasons, to help support the great work we/they do
You linked here "RFDS receives record funding boost" Great I hope they get a hell of a lot more & edge out in the future any commercial operator who does it for money not pride.
Wmk2
Lester you share the same sentiments about the RFDS as Lim Kim Dim Sim Hai, whatever his name is. The Singaporean arms dealer who own's Rex/Pel Air.
Is it really you Lim?
morno
Is it really you Lim?
morno
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: east coast
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. This is a honest question. If RFDS has such a wonderful glow around them,cant do no wrong and for these reasons they should recieve future contracts without going to tender. What happens to other companies in Australia? Not just Pelair but anyone they go up against. Would there not be a risk that this power would be abused. If there is no risk of loosing the contract or having to being financially viable. What is to stop the above happening.How would you feel if one year they start looking at a contract your company holds. How would you feel about an unlevel playing field then.
Tenders keep companies honest. Best tender wins. Simple as that.
And the fact that companies that make profits are giving RFDS a run in these contracts should sound warning bells as it is. Remove all competition and then see what happens to running costs( Our taxes).
Tenders keep companies honest. Best tender wins. Simple as that.
And the fact that companies that make profits are giving RFDS a run in these contracts should sound warning bells as it is. Remove all competition and then see what happens to running costs( Our taxes).
Truthboy said
Is the "BEST" tender the CHEAPEST, or the one that does the task most effectively, with the highest quality and standards? For my money I would prefer that I, my friends and family are flown by RFDS. If it costs a few more dollars in my taxes, I can live with that.
Given that to my (limited) knowledge RFDS does not and never has considered entering General Aviation charter; if they did, using their same philosophy of the most appropriate and up-to-date aircraft and crews trained to the highest standards, it is unlikely they would do much, as the GA marketplace is crowded with operators who offer a rock-bottom price in the oldest and cheapest airframes and drivers they legally can. A 'level playing field' in the context you suggest would be one where all prospective aeromedical operators had to match the standards set by RFDS.
I am DAMN sure that if Julia or one of the State leaders, or their family, needed aeromedical transport, they would not be using the cheapest bidder. Why should the taxpaying public be treated any differently?
I have worked in FW & RW aeromedical services with a number of government and private providers. I know several RFDS people as well as Careflight and other aeromedical people and I like what the RFDS do and the way they do it. I like that they put anything they make out of service provision, contracts and donations into continuing their traditional services in the unprofitable bush, which no other operator does or is interested in doing, while keeping their standards high, and that they have done so for the past 85-odd years when no-one else was interested because there was no money in it.
RFDS is not perfect, but they have a great record and a great philosophy. It is sad to see Aussies rubbishing one of our National icons.
Best tender wins. Simple as that
How would you feel if one year they start looking at a contract your company holds
I am DAMN sure that if Julia or one of the State leaders, or their family, needed aeromedical transport, they would not be using the cheapest bidder. Why should the taxpaying public be treated any differently?
I have worked in FW & RW aeromedical services with a number of government and private providers. I know several RFDS people as well as Careflight and other aeromedical people and I like what the RFDS do and the way they do it. I like that they put anything they make out of service provision, contracts and donations into continuing their traditional services in the unprofitable bush, which no other operator does or is interested in doing, while keeping their standards high, and that they have done so for the past 85-odd years when no-one else was interested because there was no money in it.
RFDS is not perfect, but they have a great record and a great philosophy. It is sad to see Aussies rubbishing one of our National icons.
Is the "BEST" tender the CHEAPEST, or the one that does the task most effectively, with the highest quality and standards? For my money I would prefer that I, my friends and family are flown by RFDS. If it costs a few more dollars in my taxes, I can live with that.
I suggest you look at the history of the Air Ambulance Victoria and the services they have provided to the people of Victoria.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are Victorians different??
Do you blokes actually think that the RFDS in outback Australia finances it's services with money from donations and bequests only?????
It doesn't! Governments pay a per mile charge just the same as anywhere else. With that and the donations and bequests they have more money than other operators, and can afford better equipment. And the governments are not paying as much as they should for those services. The public is subsidising services that government should be paying a proper price for.
The end result is that no other operator can compete without that second cash flow.
Apart from this incorrect business arrangement, I have great respect for the RFDS operation. I flew their aircraft for over a decade, and some very good freinds of mine are now flying RFDS aircraft. I also live in an area where I may one day require their services.
But with the RFDS, Missionaries, and Aboriginal organisations, to compete with, I am not surprised that the rest of GA is impoverished.
It doesn't! Governments pay a per mile charge just the same as anywhere else. With that and the donations and bequests they have more money than other operators, and can afford better equipment. And the governments are not paying as much as they should for those services. The public is subsidising services that government should be paying a proper price for.
The end result is that no other operator can compete without that second cash flow.
Apart from this incorrect business arrangement, I have great respect for the RFDS operation. I flew their aircraft for over a decade, and some very good freinds of mine are now flying RFDS aircraft. I also live in an area where I may one day require their services.
But with the RFDS, Missionaries, and Aboriginal organisations, to compete with, I am not surprised that the rest of GA is impoverished.
The public is subsidising services that government should be paying a proper price for.
The end result is that no other operator can compete without that second cash flow.
Apart from this incorrect business arrangement,
The end result is that no other operator can compete without that second cash flow.
Apart from this incorrect business arrangement,
How is that an incorrect business arrangement?
What is wrong with people's donations allowing an organisation to charge the community less? So what if it means that a company that is out to line its owner/shareholders' pockets cannot compete!
At the end of the day the community is better off!
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bushy
In some areas you are almost correct. Remember it costs a lot of money to fly your patients around in decent equipment, although even the RFDS still fly airframes that are 30 years old. Its about time the governments were held accountable and provide a minimum standard for aeromedical operators as the Australian public would expect a higher standard than that provided by the RFDS and certainly would consider most other operators and their equipment totally unacceptable were properly informed.
The RFDS is far from perfect but it is by far the best on offer to patients and employees alike and that wont change as any competition is totally driven by profits and bragging rights rather than service and pride.
SN
In some areas you are almost correct. Remember it costs a lot of money to fly your patients around in decent equipment, although even the RFDS still fly airframes that are 30 years old. Its about time the governments were held accountable and provide a minimum standard for aeromedical operators as the Australian public would expect a higher standard than that provided by the RFDS and certainly would consider most other operators and their equipment totally unacceptable were properly informed.
The RFDS is far from perfect but it is by far the best on offer to patients and employees alike and that wont change as any competition is totally driven by profits and bragging rights rather than service and pride.
SN
Australian public would expect a higher standard than that provided by the RFDS
Skynews,
Having worked for RFDS now for sometime, I can attest to the level of training being absolutely second to none. How many other operators train you to safely land in a black hole on nothing but car headlights? Or just a single line of kerosene flares?
I'm sure many others will agree that the training RFDS provides as well as the constant checking, is well above what is a) required, and b) provided by any other organisation Australia wide.
morno