Life Flight YMML
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North of Zero
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
----- ok so I'm knocking again ----
MPT is right on.
I was living in Oz when this organisation first started. I with many others wished it well as it meant another avenue of employment for local pilots. After two years in operation it was clear that big problems existed. None the least with the CEO, and his grip on all matters operational. The CP has no say in how things should run.
Ask yourselves as to why some of the most experienced and respected members of the industry that have held positions including CP for this mob, have left. And they will tell you it’s not due to the lack of flying. The turnover speaks for itself, especially with the quality of the former employees. If they have trouble with this company to the extent of the numbers who have left, the “knocking” is justified so as to warn all new lambs to the slaughter of yet another operator that needs to be treated with much caution.
The argument about prejudice doesn’t stack up either. If the Health Dept. had another option other than CHC and their pricing techniques, I feel sure that they would take it. No, slate the blame where it fits and that’s with the organisation. If not convinced, ask Mike, Greg, Roger, Brian, Chris, Jason, Roger, John, ...........and the list goes on.
Change the CEO and the “head crewy”, stop them using their charity status to compete with other tax paying local operators on commercial tenders, and I’ll be one of their biggest fans.
I was living in Oz when this organisation first started. I with many others wished it well as it meant another avenue of employment for local pilots. After two years in operation it was clear that big problems existed. None the least with the CEO, and his grip on all matters operational. The CP has no say in how things should run.
Ask yourselves as to why some of the most experienced and respected members of the industry that have held positions including CP for this mob, have left. And they will tell you it’s not due to the lack of flying. The turnover speaks for itself, especially with the quality of the former employees. If they have trouble with this company to the extent of the numbers who have left, the “knocking” is justified so as to warn all new lambs to the slaughter of yet another operator that needs to be treated with much caution.
The argument about prejudice doesn’t stack up either. If the Health Dept. had another option other than CHC and their pricing techniques, I feel sure that they would take it. No, slate the blame where it fits and that’s with the organisation. If not convinced, ask Mike, Greg, Roger, Brian, Chris, Jason, Roger, John, ...........and the list goes on.
Change the CEO and the “head crewy”, stop them using their charity status to compete with other tax paying local operators on commercial tenders, and I’ll be one of their biggest fans.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The talk is not limited coming from your mouth when it comes to the lack of accuracy.....but why let facts stand in the way of yet another caustic slander of an Aussie mob.
For your information, Greg is still there, Mike went west to Perth to join another company a few k's from home [and I agree, he is well respected and a friend], the Management terminated another one of your so called "most experienced and respected members of the industry" for undermining the company whilst in a competitive tender, the evidence was right there on the sacked pilots computer.
And then two others failed to achieve IFR status due to their own lack of performance and lack of other pilot qualifications and hence could not command either IFR helicopter, so they left [or asked to leave].
That leaves 3 pilots who I don’t know or can’t account for. The trend is clear, and is not as focused on any specific individual [CEO], that your limited capacity of fairness can comprehend.
Enjoy your over sea’s tour, and god be willing, may it be permanent.
For your information, Greg is still there, Mike went west to Perth to join another company a few k's from home [and I agree, he is well respected and a friend], the Management terminated another one of your so called "most experienced and respected members of the industry" for undermining the company whilst in a competitive tender, the evidence was right there on the sacked pilots computer.
And then two others failed to achieve IFR status due to their own lack of performance and lack of other pilot qualifications and hence could not command either IFR helicopter, so they left [or asked to leave].
That leaves 3 pilots who I don’t know or can’t account for. The trend is clear, and is not as focused on any specific individual [CEO], that your limited capacity of fairness can comprehend.
Enjoy your over sea’s tour, and god be willing, may it be permanent.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LMN,
I believe you'll find that Greg has left the building also!! I also note that none of the above are leaping to the defence of what is known around the traps as NSC Mk2.
You also didn't address the comment regarding Lifefright competing with other "tax paying" companies for commercial work.
Cheers,
MPT
I believe you'll find that Greg has left the building also!! I also note that none of the above are leaping to the defence of what is known around the traps as NSC Mk2.
You also didn't address the comment regarding Lifefright competing with other "tax paying" companies for commercial work.
Cheers,
MPT
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, the facts need to be considered.....
1. The Victorian Health Department does have another option, and has taken it in contracting LifeFlight since April 2004 to provide helicopter transfers for the Newborn Emergency Transportation Service.
2. LifeFlight is a charity with core objectives to improve PUBLIC safety by helping to ensure Aeromedical, Rescue, and Fire Fighting helicopters are available when they're needed. You will note these are the only contracts we have entered into a competitive process.
3. Any surplus from our contracts goes directly into providing our dedicated "Children’s Helicopter", ....not into individual pockets, or share dividends, or swimming pools, or superannuation funds! The principle behind a not-for-profit is to support the community rather than an individual.
The fundamental purpose of a "for profit" company is to provide returns for their share holders, ...you appear to have taken upon yourself to defend this capitalism - MPT & Talk Limited. Capitalism is a strong and necessary foundation within our economy, and should be encouraged to succeed within the various markets.
LifeFlight believes strongly in the protection of key public services from capitalist positioning. In Australia, you will not see private ambulances or rescue services undertaking public safety roles, there is a reason for this, and we don’t see helicopters as exempt from this principle.
There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding about charities. What legally (and morally) defines a charity is not where we gain our funding, but where and how the profits are expended, ...and I would have thought that investing ours into a dedicated children’s helicopter to transport critically ill and/or injured babies and children from throughout Victoria to the Royal Children’s Hospital (for and on behalf of the Air Ambulance Service) was a pretty good gesture?
4. Talk limited - not sure you have ever wished us well, in fact your comments have been nothing but derogatory which makes it difficult for me to identify any real substance within your opinions. You have taken it upon yourself to publish a list of names claiming them to be all ex employees of LifeFlight. While we do have records of employing the first six (and circumstances surrounding their departure has already been outlined within this stream). The final two are names we are unfamiliar with?? Perhaps you should seek the facts before judging?
I have little respect for a man who hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice his opinion.....
5. MPT - Greg remains on the books as a Casual IFR Captain, in fact he remains upon our roster in this capacity (not that this is anyone’s business other than Greg’s and ours), ...again the facts need to be considered.
6. Id like to think the reason why you don’t see "ex employees weighing in to defend the organisation" is due to the integrity of the individuals we have employed. These are all good people, some of which found our operation did not suit them..... and we have agreed with this.
7. Talk limited.... I hope this attack hasn’t been motivated by our recent rejection of youself as an IFR captain for our organisation?? Its difficult for me not to think this, as the timing is too close. No doubt you'll defend your position by denying this. You are from all accounts a good pilot, ....if you drop the assumption and aggression you'll find people will once again seek to have you work for them...
I am always happy to talk to constructive contributors who are genuine in their desire to advance the industry. I can be contacted most days at work on +61 3 9614 1700.
Again, I thank all readers for taking the time to view the information I've laid out above, and I hope this helps clarify LifeFlight’s role, intentions and our history here in Victoria.
Brett Rankin.
What defines a charity gentlemen, is not where we gain our funding, but where and how the profits are utilised...
1. The Victorian Health Department does have another option, and has taken it in contracting LifeFlight since April 2004 to provide helicopter transfers for the Newborn Emergency Transportation Service.
2. LifeFlight is a charity with core objectives to improve PUBLIC safety by helping to ensure Aeromedical, Rescue, and Fire Fighting helicopters are available when they're needed. You will note these are the only contracts we have entered into a competitive process.
3. Any surplus from our contracts goes directly into providing our dedicated "Children’s Helicopter", ....not into individual pockets, or share dividends, or swimming pools, or superannuation funds! The principle behind a not-for-profit is to support the community rather than an individual.
The fundamental purpose of a "for profit" company is to provide returns for their share holders, ...you appear to have taken upon yourself to defend this capitalism - MPT & Talk Limited. Capitalism is a strong and necessary foundation within our economy, and should be encouraged to succeed within the various markets.
LifeFlight believes strongly in the protection of key public services from capitalist positioning. In Australia, you will not see private ambulances or rescue services undertaking public safety roles, there is a reason for this, and we don’t see helicopters as exempt from this principle.
There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding about charities. What legally (and morally) defines a charity is not where we gain our funding, but where and how the profits are expended, ...and I would have thought that investing ours into a dedicated children’s helicopter to transport critically ill and/or injured babies and children from throughout Victoria to the Royal Children’s Hospital (for and on behalf of the Air Ambulance Service) was a pretty good gesture?
4. Talk limited - not sure you have ever wished us well, in fact your comments have been nothing but derogatory which makes it difficult for me to identify any real substance within your opinions. You have taken it upon yourself to publish a list of names claiming them to be all ex employees of LifeFlight. While we do have records of employing the first six (and circumstances surrounding their departure has already been outlined within this stream). The final two are names we are unfamiliar with?? Perhaps you should seek the facts before judging?
I have little respect for a man who hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice his opinion.....
5. MPT - Greg remains on the books as a Casual IFR Captain, in fact he remains upon our roster in this capacity (not that this is anyone’s business other than Greg’s and ours), ...again the facts need to be considered.
6. Id like to think the reason why you don’t see "ex employees weighing in to defend the organisation" is due to the integrity of the individuals we have employed. These are all good people, some of which found our operation did not suit them..... and we have agreed with this.
7. Talk limited.... I hope this attack hasn’t been motivated by our recent rejection of youself as an IFR captain for our organisation?? Its difficult for me not to think this, as the timing is too close. No doubt you'll defend your position by denying this. You are from all accounts a good pilot, ....if you drop the assumption and aggression you'll find people will once again seek to have you work for them...
I am always happy to talk to constructive contributors who are genuine in their desire to advance the industry. I can be contacted most days at work on +61 3 9614 1700.
Again, I thank all readers for taking the time to view the information I've laid out above, and I hope this helps clarify LifeFlight’s role, intentions and our history here in Victoria.
Brett Rankin.
What defines a charity gentlemen, is not where we gain our funding, but where and how the profits are utilised...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over there
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. LifeFlight is a charity with core objectives to improve PUBLIC safety by helping to ensure Aeromedical, Rescue, and Fire Fighting helicopters are available when they're needed. You will note these are the only contracts we have entered into a competitive process.
), but hard to justify that as a charitable activity.Fire fighting: since when was that a core objective of an Aeromedical charity? Nice income stream (750 hours two years ago, 300+ the year before), but once again b*ggering up the commercial operators with low prices.
Competetive process? You'll be quoting probity aspects next. Or legal issues with previous employees
I know it's all good stuff for your sponsors, where would Lifeflite be without them
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Destabilized...my memory appears to be clearer on fact than the assumptions made within your postings. You have made several points that I would like to address separately.
1. The Antarctic support was entered into at rates and arrangements made by previous employees... This was not a competitive process whereby commercial operators were undermined, undercut or any other adjective you’d like to slander us with. I remind you that any income from activity like this is utilised for the greater good of the community - ie our ongoing ability to dedicate one of our BK117's as the "Children’s Helicopter". Again you misunderstand what defines a charity. It is not where we gain our funding, but whether our objectives are being achieved (ie Aeromedical, Rescue and Fire Fighting services provided to the community without prejudice or personal gain...)
2. Fire Fighting has been a core function of our charity since our establishment in 1999 (as stated within our charitable objectives approved by the ATO when registered as a charity in 1999), and yes as you well know the fire services in Australia fund the expenses involved at realistic levels. LifeFlight charges no less than any other operator of BK117 helicopters.
Your quote that LifeFlight has "once again b*ggering up the commercial operators with low prices" is unfounded untrue and totally without foundation. Put in plain English ...your full of ****!
3. Finally there is something we can agree on, that is that LifeFlight would not be in existence without our valued sponsors - Powercor, Telstra, Westpac....etc They're all aware of our activities (including the Antarctic activity) and support our service 100% in our efforts.
I encourage you to telephone me to clarify these issues and discuss your concerns , otherwise I can only perceive your motives as questionable, ...seeking only to discredit our organisation without foundation or truth to your words. I note you fail to address my comments that it is hard to find a man's opinion credible when he hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice it.....
I was typing an email an hour or so ago to a friend about the misaligned intentions of individuals such as yourself. It contained a statement that is worth sharing, it said "We'll flush out the hidden agenda's and get to the facts soon enough, just wish these p%#cks would spend as much energy on positive progression of the industry rather than this crap!
At the end of the day, not all like to be held accountable for their action or inaction.... and not all are going to agree with our principles and beliefs, ...but I am confident reasonable men and women (cant forget the girls) will agree with our actions, intentions and motives.
Brett Rankin
Destabilised - Your quote that LifeFlight has "once again b*ggering up the commercial operators with low prices” is unfounded untrue and totally without foundation.
1. The Antarctic support was entered into at rates and arrangements made by previous employees... This was not a competitive process whereby commercial operators were undermined, undercut or any other adjective you’d like to slander us with. I remind you that any income from activity like this is utilised for the greater good of the community - ie our ongoing ability to dedicate one of our BK117's as the "Children’s Helicopter". Again you misunderstand what defines a charity. It is not where we gain our funding, but whether our objectives are being achieved (ie Aeromedical, Rescue and Fire Fighting services provided to the community without prejudice or personal gain...)
2. Fire Fighting has been a core function of our charity since our establishment in 1999 (as stated within our charitable objectives approved by the ATO when registered as a charity in 1999), and yes as you well know the fire services in Australia fund the expenses involved at realistic levels. LifeFlight charges no less than any other operator of BK117 helicopters.
Your quote that LifeFlight has "once again b*ggering up the commercial operators with low prices" is unfounded untrue and totally without foundation. Put in plain English ...your full of ****!
3. Finally there is something we can agree on, that is that LifeFlight would not be in existence without our valued sponsors - Powercor, Telstra, Westpac....etc They're all aware of our activities (including the Antarctic activity) and support our service 100% in our efforts.
I encourage you to telephone me to clarify these issues and discuss your concerns , otherwise I can only perceive your motives as questionable, ...seeking only to discredit our organisation without foundation or truth to your words. I note you fail to address my comments that it is hard to find a man's opinion credible when he hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice it.....
I was typing an email an hour or so ago to a friend about the misaligned intentions of individuals such as yourself. It contained a statement that is worth sharing, it said "We'll flush out the hidden agenda's and get to the facts soon enough, just wish these p%#cks would spend as much energy on positive progression of the industry rather than this crap!
At the end of the day, not all like to be held accountable for their action or inaction.... and not all are going to agree with our principles and beliefs, ...but I am confident reasonable men and women (cant forget the girls) will agree with our actions, intentions and motives.
Brett Rankin
Destabilised - Your quote that LifeFlight has "once again b*ggering up the commercial operators with low prices” is unfounded untrue and totally without foundation.
Brett,
Being a long way away from Oz....confirm you have commerical backers who donate money to help fund your operation and you also compete for work against commerical operators who have no charitable backers?
If that is so...I can understand some angst by those that have to make it on their own if you have a backstop financially.
We are confronted in a similar situation in the State of Washington where the State operates a fleet of surplus military helicopters during the fire season there. They are supported by tax money....and thereby do not have to worry about profitability as do the commerical operators. As they take away work from the commerical operators it gets harder for the non-tax supported operations to continue operating.
Or am I missing something that is peculilar to Oz law and general business practices?
Being a long way away from Oz....confirm you have commerical backers who donate money to help fund your operation and you also compete for work against commerical operators who have no charitable backers?
If that is so...I can understand some angst by those that have to make it on their own if you have a backstop financially.
We are confronted in a similar situation in the State of Washington where the State operates a fleet of surplus military helicopters during the fire season there. They are supported by tax money....and thereby do not have to worry about profitability as do the commerical operators. As they take away work from the commerical operators it gets harder for the non-tax supported operations to continue operating.
Or am I missing something that is peculilar to Oz law and general business practices?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sassless
LifeFlight is recognised by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as a charity and therfore does not pay tax upon any surpluses. The reason why they do this is because our constitution dictates all surplusses (profits) be reinvested into the organisation rather than a Director or Member (shareholder) receive a benefit from the company (...no income, dividend or benefit of any kind).
We are not "supported by tax money....and thereby do not have to worry about profitability as do the commerical operators".
LifeFLight must operate as if we were a fully fledged commerical operation or we'll go broke just like you and any other operator... We do not get underwritten by government of tax dollars.
We have however sold two key sponsorships from corporations seeking to associate themselves with the good will surrounding our operations (ie Aeromedical, Rescue, Fire Fighting). Supporting the community in this manner provides them with a vehicle to display their ethical investment in the safety of the community they work within.
These sponsorships can be gained by private commercial operations as well.... so am unsure of the perceived 'leg up' people are assuming we have??
Brett Rankin.
LifeFlight is recognised by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as a charity and therfore does not pay tax upon any surpluses. The reason why they do this is because our constitution dictates all surplusses (profits) be reinvested into the organisation rather than a Director or Member (shareholder) receive a benefit from the company (...no income, dividend or benefit of any kind).
We are not "supported by tax money....and thereby do not have to worry about profitability as do the commerical operators".
LifeFLight must operate as if we were a fully fledged commerical operation or we'll go broke just like you and any other operator... We do not get underwritten by government of tax dollars.
We have however sold two key sponsorships from corporations seeking to associate themselves with the good will surrounding our operations (ie Aeromedical, Rescue, Fire Fighting). Supporting the community in this manner provides them with a vehicle to display their ethical investment in the safety of the community they work within.
These sponsorships can be gained by private commercial operations as well.... so am unsure of the perceived 'leg up' people are assuming we have??
Brett Rankin.
Interesting concept....will have to mull that one over.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over there
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spare me, where's the icon for "jaw hitting the floor"?
What a crock, Mr Rankin, and what's more you probably believe yourself, too. There's no assumptions made by me, and to be slanderous, they have to be untruthful.
1. The Antarctic support was entered into at rates and arrangements made by previous employees
But what the Hell are you doing as a charity, operating in the Antarctic anyway!!!!!!
These sponsorships can be gained by private commercial operations as well
They get a nice little tax benefit throwing money at Lifeflight, which they can't achieve elswhere. And I'm sure that they feel that their name flying around the Antarctic is really valuable to their shareholders/investors - NOT.You have an enormous advantage over dinky di commercial operators, who have to compete against your subsidised rates in order to make a dollar, then have to pay tax on any profit they make. Lifeflight & tax? Where does that enter into the equation?
Fire Fighting has been a core function of our charity since our establishment in 1999
Positive progression of the industry? Not this week.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Destabilised.... my god fella you've got a bee in your bonet! Strongly suggest a bex and a lay down...didnt think your job would stress you out like this!
Our relationship with the French Antarctic support Division is an arrangement for several years and the prices are set (not that this is any of your business).
...you’ve made an assumption here!
All sponsors pay Tax (GST) upon sponsorship payments which is the same they would pay if sponsoring a strictly commercial operator. Sponsors also receive NO tax deductibility or relief.
…you’ve made another assumption here too...
Our sponsors CEO sits upon our Board of Directors and has provided feedback to us that they support this... perhaps you purport to represent them now??
….again, another assumption (starting to see a pattern?)
Yes quite correct, John Ecott did introduce us to the NSW Fire Services, and yes we didn’t have a bucket until 2001/2. In fact we didn’t have a lot of items due to financial constraints of a start up operation. But we've grown and acquired equipment as and when we could afford to do it..... This doesn’t change an organisations objectives!!!!! Just because we couldn’t afford everything right from day one!!!
….another assumption!!!!
I guess this makes you a cereal ASSumer???
Best of luck pal (whoever you are), ....I think you are one of those people who find the world quite challenging...
Brett Rankin
The first year, by BS, OK, but that has/had nothing to do with your continuing operations there, nor the rates that you persisted in, to the detriment of other commercial operators.
...you’ve made an assumption here!
Yes, as if Powercorp are going to sponsor a non charity They get a nice little tax benefit throwing money at LifeFlight, which they can't achieve elsewhere.
…you’ve made another assumption here too...
And I'm sure that they feel that their name flying around the Antarctic is really valuable to their shareholders/investors - NOT.
….again, another assumption (starting to see a pattern?)
Really? Really!! Utter BS. I thought that JE put you into the fire fighting game, and I can't remember that being back in 1999. You didn't even have a fire bucket until three years ago, so how was it your "core function", FCS.
….another assumption!!!!
I guess this makes you a cereal ASSumer???
Best of luck pal (whoever you are), ....I think you are one of those people who find the world quite challenging...
Brett Rankin
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the yellow pages if you call Heli Solutions, you may request a helicopter for a charter, and get a LifeFlight BK117.
This idea of a charity mixing with business sounds a bit odd to me
This idea of a charity mixing with business sounds a bit odd to me
Makes sense somehow....if the old geezer gets a heart attack after a three martini lunch and a fling with his secretary....at least the aircraft is equipped to deal with it. Just shove the fire bucket out of the way to get to the litter.....leather seat cushions in back?
I have to admit...am still struggling with the idea of an Australian charity bird flying French scientists in Antartica for hire when it is not off fighting fires under contract to the government.
If the service is a non-profit operation (that could be said for most helicopter operations notwithstanding their tax status....) and it is competing successfully against other profitable operators.....I would sure like to see the books. Wonder if they would make some interesting reading?
The concept of not getting a tax break of some kind from the guvmint for being a sponsor of such a deal also challenges my concept of business. Goodwill is valuable....but to what costs does having your name associated with something like this go before enough of a good thing happens. Are these publically owned firms that donate company funds to the charity? Wonder how the shareholders would see the value for cost on that investment of their capital?
Not trying to be rude here....just pondering how this works.....it sure would not in the USA....I don't think?
I have to admit...am still struggling with the idea of an Australian charity bird flying French scientists in Antartica for hire when it is not off fighting fires under contract to the government.
If the service is a non-profit operation (that could be said for most helicopter operations notwithstanding their tax status....) and it is competing successfully against other profitable operators.....I would sure like to see the books. Wonder if they would make some interesting reading?
The concept of not getting a tax break of some kind from the guvmint for being a sponsor of such a deal also challenges my concept of business. Goodwill is valuable....but to what costs does having your name associated with something like this go before enough of a good thing happens. Are these publically owned firms that donate company funds to the charity? Wonder how the shareholders would see the value for cost on that investment of their capital?
Not trying to be rude here....just pondering how this works.....it sure would not in the USA....I don't think?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sasless...
No LifeFlight helicopter has ever or would ever be placed in this situation you have satirically described..... although I do thank you for my first laugh of the day!
LifeFlight does not "compete against other profitable operators" this is untruthful and inaccurate to state....
While I understand your struggling with the concept of there being no tax break for corporations to sponsor services like ours (of which there is >14 in Australia ...some > 25 years in operation with the same sponsor), the Australian GST introduced some years back recognised the value in the return to the sponsor and slapped a tax against it (cant beat the tax man).
Non government and government helicopter services throughout Australia have received corporate sponsorship ever since year dot... in fact this was how Aeromedical/Rescue/ and Fire Fighting helicopter were first introduced / funded in Australia...
regards,
Brett Rankin.
Sling load - your post is absolute rubbish.... This neither has nor will ever occur....
I repeat my earlier comments ...and encourage you to telephone me to clarify these issues and discuss your concerns, otherwise I can only perceive your motives as questionable ...seeking only to discredit our organisation without foundation or truth to your words. I note you fail to address my comments that it is hard to find a man\'s opinion credible when he hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice untruths.....
Brett Rankin.
Sling load - your post is absolute rubbish.... This neither has nor will ever occur....
I repeat my earlier comments ...and encourage you to telephone me to clarify these issues and discuss your concerns, otherwise I can only perceive your motives as questionable ...seeking only to discredit our organisation without foundation or truth to your words. I note you fail to address my comments that it is hard to find a man\'s opinion credible when he hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice untruths.....
Brett Rankin.
No LifeFlight helicopter has ever or would ever be placed in this situation you have satirically described..... although I do thank you for my first laugh of the day!
LifeFlight does not "compete against other profitable operators" this is untruthful and inaccurate to state....
While I understand your struggling with the concept of there being no tax break for corporations to sponsor services like ours (of which there is >14 in Australia ...some > 25 years in operation with the same sponsor), the Australian GST introduced some years back recognised the value in the return to the sponsor and slapped a tax against it (cant beat the tax man).
Non government and government helicopter services throughout Australia have received corporate sponsorship ever since year dot... in fact this was how Aeromedical/Rescue/ and Fire Fighting helicopter were first introduced / funded in Australia...
regards,
Brett Rankin.
Sling load - your post is absolute rubbish.... This neither has nor will ever occur....
I repeat my earlier comments ...and encourage you to telephone me to clarify these issues and discuss your concerns, otherwise I can only perceive your motives as questionable ...seeking only to discredit our organisation without foundation or truth to your words. I note you fail to address my comments that it is hard to find a man\'s opinion credible when he hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice untruths.....
Brett Rankin.
Sling load - your post is absolute rubbish.... This neither has nor will ever occur....
I repeat my earlier comments ...and encourage you to telephone me to clarify these issues and discuss your concerns, otherwise I can only perceive your motives as questionable ...seeking only to discredit our organisation without foundation or truth to your words. I note you fail to address my comments that it is hard to find a man\'s opinion credible when he hides behind a pseudonym to publicly voice untruths.....
Brett Rankin.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over there
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 Bex later, still can't see the wood for the trees, can we, Brett?
From your own website:
There's a difference between paying 10% GST and getting a tax deduction on corporate tax up in the high 30%'s. Master of subterfuge, eh?
From your own website:
Is Powercor LifeFlight a recognised charity?
YES - LifeFlight Pty Ltd ACN 082 305 931 ABN 15 082 305 931
Powercor LifeFlight is a not-for-profit organisation and Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) Charity. ALL donations to Powercor LifeFlight over $2 are tax-deductible.
For more information, go to the Australian Taxation Office website:
YES - LifeFlight Pty Ltd ACN 082 305 931 ABN 15 082 305 931
Powercor LifeFlight is a not-for-profit organisation and Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) Charity. ALL donations to Powercor LifeFlight over $2 are tax-deductible.
For more information, go to the Australian Taxation Office website:
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Brett, did Heli Solutions have anything to do with the Grand Prix at Phillip Island? You can see where your organisation starts to merge with commercial operators, you have all this talk. French Antartic work, i cannot see for the life of me how a charity gets involved in that work.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Destableized.... Sling Load....
A corporate does not receive a deduction from the tax man for undertaking a sponsorship (whether sponsoring a charity or not). The only time a corporate can achieve a tax deduction is if they donate the funds and there is no obligation upon the charity to provide any type of recognition/return for it...
Not my words mate..... Law!
Your assumptions about this subject are substantially off the mark....
I have stated my position on this several times now.... At the end of the day, not all are going to agree with our principles and beliefs ...but I am confident reasonable men and women will agree with our actions, intentions and motives.
Its time I spent my energies upon more worthy issues, ...you guys have elicited enough information from me to last a while...
I encourage any pilot or observer treading this thread to contact me and get the facts before listening to these guys, after all Sling load has done nothing but sling rubbish on us at every opportunity, and Destabilised has only registered to do the same ...with no other postings to date other than to attack us.
I thank the many of you who have messaged and telephoned me over the past days, your support is appreciated. It’s nice to know we’re not the only ones dismayed at the mistruths and harassment these individuals (or individual) is slating at us.
Here’s to a more positive and progressive forum….
Kind regards,
Brett Rankin
A corporate does not receive a deduction from the tax man for undertaking a sponsorship (whether sponsoring a charity or not). The only time a corporate can achieve a tax deduction is if they donate the funds and there is no obligation upon the charity to provide any type of recognition/return for it...
Not my words mate..... Law!
Your assumptions about this subject are substantially off the mark....
I have stated my position on this several times now.... At the end of the day, not all are going to agree with our principles and beliefs ...but I am confident reasonable men and women will agree with our actions, intentions and motives.
Its time I spent my energies upon more worthy issues, ...you guys have elicited enough information from me to last a while...
I encourage any pilot or observer treading this thread to contact me and get the facts before listening to these guys, after all Sling load has done nothing but sling rubbish on us at every opportunity, and Destabilised has only registered to do the same ...with no other postings to date other than to attack us.
I thank the many of you who have messaged and telephoned me over the past days, your support is appreciated. It’s nice to know we’re not the only ones dismayed at the mistruths and harassment these individuals (or individual) is slating at us.
Here’s to a more positive and progressive forum….
Kind regards,
Brett Rankin
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brett,
what a crock of ####. I have not engaged in any of those activities you mentioned, rather ive been asking questions because of things im told. You have not answered the question about Heli Solutions doing the Grand Prix using Life Flight helicopters yet, im waiting for that one.
You are trying to squirm your self out of practical logical questions which you know you cant answer.
what a crock of ####. I have not engaged in any of those activities you mentioned, rather ive been asking questions because of things im told. You have not answered the question about Heli Solutions doing the Grand Prix using Life Flight helicopters yet, im waiting for that one.
You are trying to squirm your self out of practical logical questions which you know you cant answer.