Adagold Aviation

[dodo whirlygig]

Do they need to?

Do they explicitly state on their web site that they are a broker, do not hold an AOC and that they do not hold any compulsory Passenger Liability insurance.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by 601

Do they explicitly state on their web site that they are a broker, do not hold an AOC and that they do not hold any compulsory Passenger Liability insurance.

Ahhh, yes, the false accusation, disguised as a question you already know the answer to, but wish to imply the opposite anyway, giving the excuse that you were "only asking" when caught out.

Originally Posted by Adagold's website

Adagold does not own, operate or have any financial interest in any aircraft. This decision has been designed to uphold Adagold’s status as an independent air charter service company.

Originally Posted by Adagold's website

In commercial terms, Adagold’s primary roles include the planning of the best logistical solutions, aircraft management and task organisation. The client contracts directly with Adagold and this is their only commercial transaction.

Originally Posted by Adagold's website

An important factor is our position as an independent broker in both charter and FBO operations. This ensures a no bias, nil allegiance or restriction scenario when selecting aircraft for operational capabilities.

Originally Posted by Adagold's website

Liabilities for aircraft, crew and related matters are covered by the operator’s Air Operator’s Certificate. Adagold ensures that all operators have appropriate licences, insurances and a high standard of maintenance, safety, pilot check and training procedures.

In addition, Adagold carries public liability insurance. These commercial arrangements are intended to give maximum protection and assurance to the client.

All that on my first visit to their website. It wasn't hidden.

Any other "questions" ?

As for having positioned themselves as a broker of Australian Government Charters: My own company does a fair amount of business with an arm of the US government. It is all through a broker. Initially we had explored a direct contract, but found that this organization preferred to do the contracting thru a broker. *shrug* If the terms aren't favorable, nobody's twisting our arm to take the work. Apparently they are, as we do.

[VR-HFX]

Well Skytraders are also doing OK by the look of things and won't need the Antarctic gig. Unlike "Our Airline" they have however blocked their flights from being shown on any of the flight tracking websites.

According to the AusTender website they have about $51m in contracts with the Dept of Immigration and Citizenship to move pieces around the Refugee Monopoly board.

The two big contracts are $20m on 18 Jan 2013 and $30m on 31 May 2013.

But all of these aircraft charter contracts are small beer compared to SERCO Pty Ltd who have a total of $6.5 BILLION since December 2009. $6 BILLION of this is since mid 2011. This is only for the Dept of Immigration and Citizenship and does not include other contracts with Defence etc. Guessing they will be sending KRudd a big hamper at Xmas.

[megle2]

Squared, on your first site visit you found the latest version which I suspect meets with Casa's approval
Previous web info could be read as implying they were the operator
This was the problem many had for a long time and were frustrated that Casa took no notice

[MartinCh]

So this is where my PR application fee to DIAC goes..

[witwiw]

.... Our Airline's aircraft, who in turn have exclusive access to Nauru.

Wrong!!!!

Recent operators into INU include: Skytraders (repeat Skytraders), Alliance, Toll, Solomon Airlines, Airwork NZ, RAAF.

That's hardly exclusivity, except where it obviously suits your argument!!!!!

[down3gr33ns]

The Our Airline deal is a bit dodgy, with Adagold being the prime contractor

(Post 50)

I would be very interested to see where the funding for Skytraders originates, as both A319s are under permanent contract to WOAG. At least most Adagold's (with partners OA and Alliance) contracts are visible as being conducted with DIAC funds.

(Post42)


So, Sub1, it's either "dodgy" or "visible".


Further:

I would be very interested to see where the funding for Skytraders originates

however, you appear to answer that in Post 14 where you state:

DIAC have also booked with Skytraders

You seem to be having a bit each way.