AusJet Aviation/Australasian Jet in liquidation
Every time someone goes under owing money all over the place the suppliers have to recoup their losses from the remaining customers. Yet still we have people thinking it is clever to start price wars.
So we have to muddle on in our relics as best we can.
So we have to muddle on in our relics as best we can.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Apple set up a charter company, the flight would cost $100 to operate, but sell for $20,000. If the passenger was careless, and bumped the window with an elbow, the window would shatter, and cost the passenger another $10,000 to fix.
Unserviceabilities would be normal, and to be expected.
When Apple bought a new aircraft, people would line up for days just to sit in it, pay an hefty premium for flights, and then realise the range was now reduced by half on the new model.
Finally, when Apple Air ran into financial difficulty, the worlds 2nd richest man would put his hand in his pocket, and give them 50 Billion dollars to stay afloat.
The cockpit would have a table tennis table, and you could wear whatever you want.
Now charter works!
Unserviceabilities would be normal, and to be expected.
When Apple bought a new aircraft, people would line up for days just to sit in it, pay an hefty premium for flights, and then realise the range was now reduced by half on the new model.
Finally, when Apple Air ran into financial difficulty, the worlds 2nd richest man would put his hand in his pocket, and give them 50 Billion dollars to stay afloat.
The cockpit would have a table tennis table, and you could wear whatever you want.
Now charter works!
I’m currently dabbling in a bit of old vs new aircraft and the operators who get newer or even new aircraft win all the time in my line of business. If everyone shelled out and started investing in newer turbine equipment, even if it was with only one older machine, aka less than 10 years old and then put their rates up accordingly it would slowly bring the standard of aircraft up.
As far as the punters in the NT remote areas go, doesn’t matter what the charter costs are as the taxpayer in most cases will be paying for it anyway.
As far as the punters in the NT remote areas go, doesn’t matter what the charter costs are as the taxpayer in most cases will be paying for it anyway.
As far as the punters in the NT remote areas go, doesn’t matter what the charter costs are as the taxpayer in most cases will be paying for it anyway.
The point about the new gear is interesting but requires a brave investor. Big price jump between a 1982 USD $1.2m Conquest and a 2009 USD $2.6m B200
As for pax, not talking about the Indigenous Industry either.
It is all well and good to say that, however someone has to bid and win on the competitive contract in the first place!
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was an interesting outfit in the 90's when I freelanced for Chop & the gang, I heard in recent times this outcome was only a matter of time-(
RIP, another nail in the Aussie GA coffin, soon to be viewed open by all & sundry who parade past!
RIP, another nail in the Aussie GA coffin, soon to be viewed open by all & sundry who parade past!
Might not be 100% paid by the taxpayers, however a high percentage of it is directly or indirectly particularly for some of the work that’s done in the outback, in comparison to most other regional locations - same could be said for commercial operations in the Torres Straits.
If the new regs are going to put all the small GA operators out of business in a few years, why aren’t we seeing more GA business closing their doors now. I know some have closed voluntary or been forced to, however I don’t believe the whole lot will go. The larger players will most likely gobble up some of the smaller operators - which has already happened in some places.
More money in flight training theses days if you can do it right.
If the new regs are going to put all the small GA operators out of business in a few years, why aren’t we seeing more GA business closing their doors now. I know some have closed voluntary or been forced to, however I don’t believe the whole lot will go. The larger players will most likely gobble up some of the smaller operators - which has already happened in some places.
More money in flight training theses days if you can do it right.
Many corporate customers will only let contracts to operators who can offer 'young' aircraft - i.e. less than 15 to 20 years old.
As good as the $1.2 million Conquest is, at 35 years old it won't be acceptable to some clients. As for a 45 year old Chieftain, forget it - no CEO with any basic knowledge of risk management would put valued employees in one of those. Oh, the potential for litigation!
Most of the Aus Jet fleet appears to have been very old. Whether this had anything to do with their demise, I am not qualified to say. But it is a fair bet they operated at below true cost in order to keep a desperate grip on a shrinking market.
As for the bigger operators 'gobbling up' the small fry, they need do nothing more than wait for said small fry to self-destruct...aided somewhat by CASA. But not all the blame should be laid on CASA - the signs that sail had to give way to steam have been writ in transport regulation since about year 1918.
As good as the $1.2 million Conquest is, at 35 years old it won't be acceptable to some clients. As for a 45 year old Chieftain, forget it - no CEO with any basic knowledge of risk management would put valued employees in one of those. Oh, the potential for litigation!
Most of the Aus Jet fleet appears to have been very old. Whether this had anything to do with their demise, I am not qualified to say. But it is a fair bet they operated at below true cost in order to keep a desperate grip on a shrinking market.
As for the bigger operators 'gobbling up' the small fry, they need do nothing more than wait for said small fry to self-destruct...aided somewhat by CASA. But not all the blame should be laid on CASA - the signs that sail had to give way to steam have been writ in transport regulation since about year 1918.
If the new regs are going to put all the small GA operators out of business in a few years, why aren’t we seeing more GA business closing their doors now.
One flying school operator I know tooled up for 141/142 with all the additional staff only to have the implementation date rolled back 12 months and he has lost his home as a result of being pro-active.
Once you have hundreds of thousands of dollars in Aircraft finance and good people relying on you and working for you, you can't just shut the doors and walk away because it looks hard.
CASA are also selling the myth that "You're one of the good guys, you will probably be last man standing and you will clean up".
The problem is not the volume of work available but the overall health of the ecosystem. Close off the small operators and watch the the support services dry up. MROs, Parts, Fuel.
why aren’t we seeing more GA business closing their doors now
More money in flight training theses days if you can do it right.
I know some have closed voluntary or been forced to, however I don’t believe the whole lot will go. The larger players will most likely gobble up some of the smaller operators - which has already happened in some places.
Unless we can lean on CASA to make the Part 119 and Part 135 rules workable, Simple, effective and accountable, small family businesses will fold because small family businesses operate to feed a family.... not to beat the world or make 200% ROI. It won't just be operators, it will be maintainers who need ALL their current work to survive.
It won't happen overnight... but...
Great post from Horatio.
From what I've seen, most operators have the doors closed for them when creditors wind them up. Very few would just shut up shop, as HLB said you can't just walk away. But it does amaze me how long so many people get away with trading while insolvent, or accept contracts that may take 120 days or more to get paid... and how many suppliers actually give them credit.
There are too many variables to make this a good investment. Ranging from oil prices to exchange rates, lack of security of tenure for property at the privatised airports, hostile business practices from the monopolies who ere allowed to get their hands on the infrastructure, lack of qualified senior staff (the biggest problem facing flying training at the moment) high profile people running media scare campaigns and crying wolf, new entrants who are deliberately losing money for tax reasons starting price wars, CASA and their arbitrary numbers for things like duty times forcing a business like myself to give up 10% of our trading days etc plus an election coming up which may put into power people who are hostile to private enterprise.
From what I've seen, most operators have the doors closed for them when creditors wind them up. Very few would just shut up shop, as HLB said you can't just walk away. But it does amaze me how long so many people get away with trading while insolvent, or accept contracts that may take 120 days or more to get paid... and how many suppliers actually give them credit.
There are too many variables to make this a good investment. Ranging from oil prices to exchange rates, lack of security of tenure for property at the privatised airports, hostile business practices from the monopolies who ere allowed to get their hands on the infrastructure, lack of qualified senior staff (the biggest problem facing flying training at the moment) high profile people running media scare campaigns and crying wolf, new entrants who are deliberately losing money for tax reasons starting price wars, CASA and their arbitrary numbers for things like duty times forcing a business like myself to give up 10% of our trading days etc plus an election coming up which may put into power people who are hostile to private enterprise.
It won't happen overnight... but...
4 or 5 ex-operators who have had to suspend their own AOCs.
Getting back to the point, why did Ausjet finally shut it's doors ? Old man Lamb died of cancer in 2015(?), did his son take over and not do so well ?
Many corporate customers will only let contracts to operators who can offer 'young' aircraft - i.e. less than 15 to 20 years old.
I would say MOST corporate customers would put "unit cost" first.
Some corporate customers would have/had such requirements, but these are flexible in economic times generally by outsourcing the task to a third party to keep the profit line good.
The CEO's priority is to the Share Holders and his research will show not many Chieftains have crashed in the past 10 years - but a brand new B737 crashed last month!
I would say MOST corporate customers would put "unit cost" first.
Some corporate customers would have/had such requirements, but these are flexible in economic times generally by outsourcing the task to a third party to keep the profit line good.
The CEO's priority is to the Share Holders and his research will show not many Chieftains have crashed in the past 10 years - but a brand new B737 crashed last month!
My Gads!, its got a propeller on the front!
When was the last time a piston twin crashed in oz with an experienced pilot up front? On a charter flight?
I can't think of any. Meanwhile Air Asia and Lion Air have lost brand new twin jets, good luck to all those consultants and business people being sent to asia on contracts.
I'll stick to my Baron thanks.
When was the last time a piston twin crashed in oz with an experienced pilot up front? On a charter flight?
I can't think of any. Meanwhile Air Asia and Lion Air have lost brand new twin jets, good luck to all those consultants and business people being sent to asia on contracts.
I'll stick to my Baron thanks.
If you are going to play the crash statistics argument at least factor in total fleet hours flown, miles flown, passengers flown.
This, and fleet age/type, is the sort of stuff aviation safety advisors do when assessing risk and drafting charter contracts. I have seen many tenders where fleet age and type are strict requirements.
Sure, I would never put my staff on Lion Air or Air Asia. In some parts of the world you would want to charter from a reputable source. One with turbine equipment.
Aus Jet were probably reputable enough - just not competitive enough with their fleet.
This, and fleet age/type, is the sort of stuff aviation safety advisors do when assessing risk and drafting charter contracts. I have seen many tenders where fleet age and type are strict requirements.
Sure, I would never put my staff on Lion Air or Air Asia. In some parts of the world you would want to charter from a reputable source. One with turbine equipment.
Aus Jet were probably reputable enough - just not competitive enough with their fleet.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 1st Dec 2018 at 21:25. Reason: typo
Ok I'll bite.
"If you are going to play the crash statistics argument at least factor in total fleet hours flown, miles flown, passengers flown"
What is safer B747-400D or the B747-400ERF?
There is no argument, you can selectively use certain statistics to play the story you wish to hear - your inclusion of "passengers flown" is to use a apples verses oranges principle. But when we break that down to the 747 pax/freighter number of passengers is clearly not relevant - but you do have a statistical valid point.
"If you are going to play the crash statistics argument at least factor in total fleet hours flown, miles flown, passengers flown"
What is safer B747-400D or the B747-400ERF?
There is no argument, you can selectively use certain statistics to play the story you wish to hear - your inclusion of "passengers flown" is to use a apples verses oranges principle. But when we break that down to the 747 pax/freighter number of passengers is clearly not relevant - but you do have a statistical valid point.
I fear you are correct Mach E. The lawyers are taking over the world. I believe a lot of what is happening is cultural, I don't have a irrational fear of piston engines like much of the public so it's hard for me to accept. Many people I know seem to live in fear of one thing or the other. Code" orange" in the "age of terror" etc etc etc, I think its scared the uneducated masses witless about their own shadows now.
Safety is always relative and not absolute.
We would never have an Apollo program now, too dangerous.
Safety is always relative and not absolute.
We would never have an Apollo program now, too dangerous.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Coober Pedy
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark Harrison
All Aus Jet carnet cards & accounts have been stopped listed by Viva Aviation (Previously Shell Aviation). As the refueller at Coober Pedy South Australia I have advised Ausjet that if they require fuel at my site I will require cash up front,
Kiunga, Mildura, Port Macquarie, Bathurst Island and MacAurthur River, that's without even trying too hard.
I searched the ATSB Database for 2008-2018 and found a few incidents but no piston twin charter fatalities.