Life Flight YMML
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of the Equator
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back Off SL.
Your arrogance is now becoming over whelming.
Like it or not, at least this man is trying to progress an Aussie Company.
And is also talking the time to answer their / his critics.
Try getting the other operators CEO's to give you that courtesy or time of day.
Just confirm in public, that you are an Aussie, working for an Aussie Owned Helicopter Company please!!!
Like it or not, at least this man is trying to progress an Aussie Company.
And is also talking the time to answer their / his critics.
Try getting the other operators CEO's to give you that courtesy or time of day.
Just confirm in public, that you are an Aussie, working for an Aussie Owned Helicopter Company please!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High Nr,
What should i be backing off from? What arrogance, i started this thread because i wanted to know about the high staff turnover there, this had lead into other directions, but dont accuse me of being arrogant.
I asked a very simple question mate, if Mr Rankin is out there asking for public money for a charity, then competing in the commercial world Against commercial operators, i have every right to raise my eyebrows.
What should i be backing off from? What arrogance, i started this thread because i wanted to know about the high staff turnover there, this had lead into other directions, but dont accuse me of being arrogant.
I asked a very simple question mate, if Mr Rankin is out there asking for public money for a charity, then competing in the commercial world Against commercial operators, i have every right to raise my eyebrows.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of the Equator
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL.
[PHP]Just confirm in public, that you are an Aussie, working for an Aussie Owned Helicopter Company please!!![/PHP]
Did not quite see an answer to my question - I wait with baited breath for your answer.
Your far to focused to be an innocent question asker!!!
Did not quite see an answer to my question - I wait with baited breath for your answer.
Your far to focused to be an innocent question asker!!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry chaps - I'm with High Nr on this one.
Who gives a toss how they make money for the charity as long as the funds earned are channelled back into the charity to upgrade aircraft etc for the neonatal missions that they undertake.
Sling Load - you are extremely lucky to have the CEO come out and explain your claims. Not many companies will do that.
If you don't like the answers - stop asking the questions. I don't see what this organisation has done to you to be filled with so much angst.
Conducting charter work is exactly the same as your AusSAR tasking the joy-ride operators to help look for a downed aircraft, missing persons in the water, etc. I don't hear the dedicated SAR/HEMS guys having a whinge.
Who cares how any charity raises money. Whether its selling cookies door to door or offering BK117 type endorsements IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is all raising money for the charity. Lifeflight is lucky to be able to offer a few more different ways to raise funds for the charity (fire fighting, etc)
Good luck Mr Rankin (I might ask for a job one day)
Who gives a toss how they make money for the charity as long as the funds earned are channelled back into the charity to upgrade aircraft etc for the neonatal missions that they undertake.
Sling Load - you are extremely lucky to have the CEO come out and explain your claims. Not many companies will do that.
If you don't like the answers - stop asking the questions. I don't see what this organisation has done to you to be filled with so much angst.
Conducting charter work is exactly the same as your AusSAR tasking the joy-ride operators to help look for a downed aircraft, missing persons in the water, etc. I don't hear the dedicated SAR/HEMS guys having a whinge.
Who cares how any charity raises money. Whether its selling cookies door to door or offering BK117 type endorsements IT DOESN'T MATTER. It is all raising money for the charity. Lifeflight is lucky to be able to offer a few more different ways to raise funds for the charity (fire fighting, etc)
Good luck Mr Rankin (I might ask for a job one day)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oogle,
i suspect you are not aware of the laws of charities.
The CEO did not explain Heli Solutions and what the involvement of the charity is.
Lets get this straight. I have no issue with charities.
But when a charity takes commercial work from an operator in the Antartic, i dont see it as a charity anymore.Simple.
i suspect you are not aware of the laws of charities.
The CEO did not explain Heli Solutions and what the involvement of the charity is.
Lets get this straight. I have no issue with charities.
But when a charity takes commercial work from an operator in the Antartic, i dont see it as a charity anymore.Simple.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear Hear!
I suppose, if one wished to be mischievious (??) one could ask why a Police Service Helicopter should be able to carry out Aeromedical tasks ... which COULD be percieved as robbing a Charity or commercial operator of work/income ??? etc ..
(Oh here we go again !!!)
I suppose, if one wished to be mischievious (??) one could ask why a Police Service Helicopter should be able to carry out Aeromedical tasks ... which COULD be percieved as robbing a Charity or commercial operator of work/income ??? etc ..
(Oh here we go again !!!)
Last edited by spinwing; 19th Jan 2005 at 11:52.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of the Equator
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL
Oh Dear.
No I am not a memebr of that oragnisation [past or present] or undertaken any type of flying for them. period.
Your words are well choosen?---I asked Aussie "owned" company, your answer neglected the word "owned", just for clarification, please confirm.
[Spelling error edited]
No I am not a memebr of that oragnisation [past or present] or undertaken any type of flying for them. period.
Your words are well choosen?---I asked Aussie "owned" company, your answer neglected the word "owned", just for clarification, please confirm.
[Spelling error edited]
Last edited by High Nr; 19th Jan 2005 at 09:13.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He may be the classic aussie battler, fighting the overseas giants, while just trying to make a difference.
Shrugging off the tall poppy syndrome.
Flying at tree top level to EMS tasks when no other operator would do so due wx and CASA Regs. (herald sun newspaper)
BUT.................
Original Question:
Why such a high flight crew turnover, in such a small company operating time?
It' s not a malicious or hard question, just a question!
Those who have seen the operation first hand prpbably know the answer!
Shrugging off the tall poppy syndrome.
Flying at tree top level to EMS tasks when no other operator would do so due wx and CASA Regs. (herald sun newspaper)
BUT.................
Original Question:
Why such a high flight crew turnover, in such a small company operating time?
It' s not a malicious or hard question, just a question!
Those who have seen the operation first hand prpbably know the answer!
I don't know Brett and I have never worked for LifeFlight.
As an observer of this thread it is obvious that people have some personal and/or professional beefs towards them. Every operator in the world enjoys that, you can't keep everyone happy all of the time.
If they can financially operate the way they do legally, which I presume it is, then what is the problem? And if that does legally give them a competitive advantage in order to increase their revenue, then isn't that to their credit? Business is business, the motive is to find any way legally possible to improve your position. Ethics in reality rarely comes into the equation.
Other companies are doing just that for profit, yet LifeFlight being a charity, are doing that to improve their equipment and service aren't they? If they were pocketing the cash then yes, there is a problem, but that would also be illegal.
To me, the bottom line is that if the LifeFlight helicopter saves just ONE life because no other service was available, then in my opinion they are a success and hats off to the man with the vision and the energy to get it there. That one life is someone's child.
As an observer of this thread it is obvious that people have some personal and/or professional beefs towards them. Every operator in the world enjoys that, you can't keep everyone happy all of the time.
If they can financially operate the way they do legally, which I presume it is, then what is the problem? And if that does legally give them a competitive advantage in order to increase their revenue, then isn't that to their credit? Business is business, the motive is to find any way legally possible to improve your position. Ethics in reality rarely comes into the equation.
Other companies are doing just that for profit, yet LifeFlight being a charity, are doing that to improve their equipment and service aren't they? If they were pocketing the cash then yes, there is a problem, but that would also be illegal.
To me, the bottom line is that if the LifeFlight helicopter saves just ONE life because no other service was available, then in my opinion they are a success and hats off to the man with the vision and the energy to get it there. That one life is someone's child.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North of Zero
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never let the truth get in the way
Let’s not be hood-winked by this charity argument that the profits benefit the community therefore its ok.
Take an operator like John Eacott. He has a BK117, the same type as LF operate. When they both tender for the same commercial contract, and let’s say that both operators have the same DOC and need to recover these from the prospective tender, John must price his bid to fully recover his costs and then add some profit. LF can recover some of their costs from the corporate sponsorship and tax-deductible donations they receive from all sources. Therefore they can go in at a lower price (and do so) to win the tender.
Where in that is the level playing field?
LF are getting a free leg up in bids due to their effective lower operating costs as a result of their charity status and the donations they get. People who wish to donate to John’s business won’t get a tax deduction so there is no incentive to do so.
If the LF’s of this world are allow to unfairly compete with commercial operators, the commercial operators will go out of business. Where will your adhoc helicopters come from then when there are insufficient contract machines around to fight fires?
AusSar is a government body that pays taxpayers money to any suitable operator during a SAR event. So it makes no difference if you are a SAR/EMS operator or a commercial operator in that regard.
And I have spoken to 4 previous employees, and they ALL tell a very different story to that which has been presented by Brett. His readiness to involve legal firms in his dealings with people is well practiced.
If all the profits go back into the “community”, can I come and drive the BMW’s or what ever the latest ‘company cars’ are and be paid a similar benefits package that certain individuals receive in LF?
Brett, me thinks you do protest too much.
PS....love ya guess work buddy!
Take an operator like John Eacott. He has a BK117, the same type as LF operate. When they both tender for the same commercial contract, and let’s say that both operators have the same DOC and need to recover these from the prospective tender, John must price his bid to fully recover his costs and then add some profit. LF can recover some of their costs from the corporate sponsorship and tax-deductible donations they receive from all sources. Therefore they can go in at a lower price (and do so) to win the tender.
Where in that is the level playing field?
LF are getting a free leg up in bids due to their effective lower operating costs as a result of their charity status and the donations they get. People who wish to donate to John’s business won’t get a tax deduction so there is no incentive to do so.
If the LF’s of this world are allow to unfairly compete with commercial operators, the commercial operators will go out of business. Where will your adhoc helicopters come from then when there are insufficient contract machines around to fight fires?
AusSar is a government body that pays taxpayers money to any suitable operator during a SAR event. So it makes no difference if you are a SAR/EMS operator or a commercial operator in that regard.
And I have spoken to 4 previous employees, and they ALL tell a very different story to that which has been presented by Brett. His readiness to involve legal firms in his dealings with people is well practiced.
If all the profits go back into the “community”, can I come and drive the BMW’s or what ever the latest ‘company cars’ are and be paid a similar benefits package that certain individuals receive in LF?
Brett, me thinks you do protest too much.
PS....love ya guess work buddy!
The exact same argument I used to challenge the Washington DNR firefighting fleet and its expansion at the expense of commercial operators. As they expand flying aircraft at an annual rate of about 200 hours each summer for firefighting ops only....the commercial operators who have to operate all year long with the same size aircraft and who rely on the fire fighting revenue to sustain their crews and fleet may one day no longer be there due to going broke.
The state in their quest to build an empire....refuse to discuss that issue. When the fires go wild.....as they do every now and then.....having a robust fleet of commerical aircraft is critical.
The state in their quest to build an empire....refuse to discuss that issue. When the fires go wild.....as they do every now and then.....having a robust fleet of commerical aircraft is critical.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over there
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talklimited has made the point well.
Because the CEO deigns to come on line and answer questions, doesn't mean he's right, and all the detractors are wrong. There's a long history of bending the truth, and many of the Pronouncements from on high stretch the bounds of reality.
Firefighting was NOT a core function back in 1999 on the original application of Lifefright for charitable status. It was added nearly 3 years later, after it became a good source of income. BR would have you believe otherwise, but that would be to LF's benefit, and who's to say what the truth is on the internet?
The industry is small enough to know the goings on down at Docklands, and the aircrew who have left, and why. Brian's legal action to regain unpaid monies from LF after he left in 2003 are not a state secret. The autocratic style of management, dictating to pilots, has eased of late, but the memories linger.
No assumptions from this end, Brett, but a truckload of BS which appears to have been taken as Gospel from your end. How about fronting up with the truth, and why you're operating in the Antarctic for a foreign government? Why you still put out two aircraft (one crosshired) at a daily rate $1000 below the last operator? You can't blame Brian or Roger for that, you're the CEO, no? Or will you go crying to the moderator threatening legal action, as you did before when the thread turned nasty?
Good hunting......
Because the CEO deigns to come on line and answer questions, doesn't mean he's right, and all the detractors are wrong. There's a long history of bending the truth, and many of the Pronouncements from on high stretch the bounds of reality.
Firefighting was NOT a core function back in 1999 on the original application of Lifefright for charitable status. It was added nearly 3 years later, after it became a good source of income. BR would have you believe otherwise, but that would be to LF's benefit, and who's to say what the truth is on the internet?
The industry is small enough to know the goings on down at Docklands, and the aircrew who have left, and why. Brian's legal action to regain unpaid monies from LF after he left in 2003 are not a state secret. The autocratic style of management, dictating to pilots, has eased of late, but the memories linger.
No assumptions from this end, Brett, but a truckload of BS which appears to have been taken as Gospel from your end. How about fronting up with the truth, and why you're operating in the Antarctic for a foreign government? Why you still put out two aircraft (one crosshired) at a daily rate $1000 below the last operator? You can't blame Brian or Roger for that, you're the CEO, no? Or will you go crying to the moderator threatening legal action, as you did before when the thread turned nasty?
Good hunting......
These charity threads keep on keeping on dont they?
SASless raises a very good point, and one that we are sarting to loose focus on: to retain the surge capability to cope with disasters of all types, there needs to be a varied and robust commercial helicopter industry. Nibbling away at the edges of this will eventually reduce such a capability.
I would also like comment on the issue of ploughing money back into the community. This is a noble sentiment and takes the moral high ground forcing any contrary views to look cruel and somehow immoral. Same as the constant cry "babies will die if we dont..." So at the risk of sounding immoral and killing babies as a result, I will give you another side to this story, all perfectly legal and above board, but, well,....you decide.
At another charity helicopter, money was tight, and politics were tighter still. There was much blood letting over the years as power groups came and went. CEOs who tried to rationalise the place were dismissed. All perfectly legal, all within the rights of the charity, and I have no bone with that. Those in power get to choose. So the board decided that only they could run the place effectively, and as the sponsorship money finally stabilised and increased, they changed the constitution to enable VOLUNTEER board members to assume paid positions within the charity. The constitution was duly voted on (comment can be made here on voting structure/period/notice, etc which are all controlled by the board) and approved, just like it says in the charity act. Now you have volunteer board members also being paid CEOs, Development managers, blah blah blah. Where does the CEO go to get guidance and organisational integrity? To the board of course (themselves). The increasing money within the charity can now be more easily distributed by increasing wages and perks (after all they are now responsible for more turnover), getting new kit, and then being able to justify the whole thing by claiming community benefit.
At the end of the day it is all legal, the winners can claim smart manouevering, and the complainers can be dismissed as sore losers. It's all legal. But bad darts perhaps? A little bit stinky? Or beneficial to the community?
I think it depends upon which side of the fence you are seated at the time.
SASless raises a very good point, and one that we are sarting to loose focus on: to retain the surge capability to cope with disasters of all types, there needs to be a varied and robust commercial helicopter industry. Nibbling away at the edges of this will eventually reduce such a capability.
I would also like comment on the issue of ploughing money back into the community. This is a noble sentiment and takes the moral high ground forcing any contrary views to look cruel and somehow immoral. Same as the constant cry "babies will die if we dont..." So at the risk of sounding immoral and killing babies as a result, I will give you another side to this story, all perfectly legal and above board, but, well,....you decide.
At another charity helicopter, money was tight, and politics were tighter still. There was much blood letting over the years as power groups came and went. CEOs who tried to rationalise the place were dismissed. All perfectly legal, all within the rights of the charity, and I have no bone with that. Those in power get to choose. So the board decided that only they could run the place effectively, and as the sponsorship money finally stabilised and increased, they changed the constitution to enable VOLUNTEER board members to assume paid positions within the charity. The constitution was duly voted on (comment can be made here on voting structure/period/notice, etc which are all controlled by the board) and approved, just like it says in the charity act. Now you have volunteer board members also being paid CEOs, Development managers, blah blah blah. Where does the CEO go to get guidance and organisational integrity? To the board of course (themselves). The increasing money within the charity can now be more easily distributed by increasing wages and perks (after all they are now responsible for more turnover), getting new kit, and then being able to justify the whole thing by claiming community benefit.
At the end of the day it is all legal, the winners can claim smart manouevering, and the complainers can be dismissed as sore losers. It's all legal. But bad darts perhaps? A little bit stinky? Or beneficial to the community?
I think it depends upon which side of the fence you are seated at the time.
As I said in one of my first posts here....I would love to see the books....and also alluded to a handpicked "tame" Board.
You have hit the nail on the head...not that it applies here necessarily...but the potential is just that. Some very shrewd folks could make a very tidy setup for themselves if they wanted to.
The shame would be if regular commercial operators were to be put out of business due to the uneven playing field that appears to exist.
Interesting situation in the Land of Oz.
Do we not read daily, especially since the Tsunami event, of charities that live in high cotton on donations while out doing "God's work"?
In Somalia...and other places on the dark continent...I saw just that happen.
You have hit the nail on the head...not that it applies here necessarily...but the potential is just that. Some very shrewd folks could make a very tidy setup for themselves if they wanted to.
The shame would be if regular commercial operators were to be put out of business due to the uneven playing field that appears to exist.
Interesting situation in the Land of Oz.
Do we not read daily, especially since the Tsunami event, of charities that live in high cotton on donations while out doing "God's work"?
In Somalia...and other places on the dark continent...I saw just that happen.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astonished....
Flying at tree top level to EMS tasks when no other operator would do so due wx and CASA Regs. (herald sun newspaper)
SASless - your comments alluding to a "hand picked board" is not a reflection of LifeFlight's Board structure. In fact our Directors would be quite offended that anyone would think this. We spend a great deal of time addressing corporate governance issues here at LifeFlight, in fact I regularly feel as if I’ve gone ten rounds in a washing machine after our Board Meetings. The discussions are robust and the management is constantly challenged by the Board to clarify issues, explain activities, and place forward projects for approval and funding. The board membership consists of Senior Executives and Directors of national and multinational companies (CEO, CFO, Directors, etc). They are not tame. In fact, they are quite often a major challenge for me as CEO, ...and while that remains the case ....they're doing their job and doing very well. Otherwise we wouldn’t be progressing as well as we are.
Your comment "Some very shrewd folks could make a very tidy setup for themselves if they wanted to" is understandable, and indeed is equally of concern to us, because every time a story about how some charity "lives in cotton" hits the airwaves, it damages the charities that are genuine in their efforts to provide benefit to the communities they service in.... I can categorically state that LifeFlight is genuine about our objectives and the governance of our charity!
Helmet Fire - your comment "...the issue of ploughing money back into the community. This is a noble sentiment and takes the moral high ground forcing any contrary views to look cruel and somehow immoral. Same as the constant cry "babies will die if we dont..." So at the risk of sounding immoral and killing babies as a result” ….I don’t recall making the statement that "Babies will die"??? I have only sort to provide facts to counter fictitious claims made... I put it to you that not all charities are a reflection of the circumstances you have outlined, and that just because some may have undertaken this approach, doesn’t mean all charitable helicopter services are likely to follow... (this assumes your note reflects the facts behind their particular situation). Salaries and wages at LifeFlight are tied to relevant awards, as is mine..... Our Board has a sub-committee (three Directors) to review remuneration and they're pretty hard nosed upon controlling increases in HR costs.... They run us like they run their own companies.... to a budget! Otherwise we couldn’t possibly afford the spare aircraft, additional and upgraded equipment, developed in-house engineering, substantially increased training budgets etc etc over the past five years of our existence.
Destabilised ...you've got it in for me mate!
Your statement "Firefighting was NOT a core function back in 1999 on the original application of Lifefright for charitable status" is astounding to me! You have a copy of our company 'Memorandum of Association' dated 15/04/98 and submitted for charitable approval??? Clearly not... or you wouldn’t have published this slanderous untruth onto the web! You purport to have some authority / knowledge of our activities and structure, yet it is easy for me to see through this as you are consistently "off the mark", making statements upon matters and information that hasn’t even left the confines of my office walls.
LifeFlight has currently no legal action against us as you have claimed... Brian Smith (I assume this is who you mean) has had his solicitor send letter demanding a "bonus payment" based upon his performance back in mid 2004. This has been assessed upon its merits and dismissed. No further action taken. Legal action is only worth pursuing if there is substance to your claim....
Your comment "...you still put out two aircraft (one crosshired) at a daily rate $1000 below the last operator?" ….is total rubbish. ...Do you honestly think if we could gain an extra $1000 per day we wouldn’t be doing it????
Again, LifeFlight does not compete with the commercial operators for business!!!!!!!!! I can say this till I’m blue in the face, but I think you'll still refuse to open your mind to the concept that you may not be right???
My motives here is not to "hunt" you as you suggest. You are not my concern; my motive is to correct assumptions and untruths and supply the readers the facts for them to make their own conclusions.... Again I am available to all who have contacted me, and any others who would like to clarify any aspect of our REAL actions.
Talklimited ...your comment "LF can recover some of their costs from the corporate sponsorship and tax-deductible donations they receive from all sources. Therefore they can go in at a lower price (and do so) to win the tender"....is totally inaccurate. All charitable donations and sponsorships fund the dedication of the Children’s Helicopter, and do not fund our spare helicopter. In fact, the spare helicopter must fund itself and contribute to the Children’s Helicopter expenses to justify its existence. LifeFlight does not utilise these funds to "go in at lower prices to win a tender". Again, we do not compete with commercial operators... and if we do undertake work along side commercial operators (such as fire fighting) it is done at the maximum rate we can get!! As I understand it, our rate for fire fighting is above that of operators like John Ecott, and we are happy to keep it that way....
This alone, counters your argument that "If the LF’s of this world are allow to unfairly compete with commercial operators, the commercial operators will go out of business. Where will your adhoc helicopters come from then when there are insufficient contract machines around to fight fires?"
In fact, John Ecott himself has benefited from our hiring out of our BK117 for many months and hundreds of hours, as his company hired it to undertake fire fighting while his BK was getting repaired! And we hired it to him well below full commercial rates to allow him a margin and return from the fire fighting work!!!!!!!!!! We have also hired it to commercial operators for other work such as film, lifting etc ....what’s that ...LifeFlight’s existence and principles actually benefiting and/or supporting commercial operations????? No its not possible is it???
Sling Load ... its not Oogle that doesn’t know the laws... it seems to be you! I respectfully suggest you polish up on Aussie tax law before providing misguided advice on this subject...
Your comment in an earlier post - "Heli Solutions doing the Grand Prix using Life Flight helicopters" … also astounds me, but doesn’t surprise me, as you’ve made some pretty extraordinary assumption so far..... Helisolutions is a company established as a completely separate entity of LifeFlight and has never undertaken any commercial helicopter hiring since its registration.... its a shelf company gained while BS was here and not utilised since, as most of BS's approach was abandoned upon his departure. LifeFlight has been the company undertaking the EMS helicopter contract for the Grand Prix for the past three years.... again the provision of EMS is one of our core objectives!
Talklimited - your recent comment "If all the profits go back into the “community”, can I come and drive the BMW’s or what ever the latest ‘company cars’ are and be paid a similar benefits package that certain individuals receive in LF?" LifeFlight does not dictate to our employees what kind of car they can drive???
Also, ....I wouldn’t get too concerned that you’ll need to be worried about this as LifeFlight would be very unlikely to employ a person of your character, and if we did, you could drive whatever car you think you could afford on the rates and benefits we benchmark from the relevant industrial award. LifeFlight is not a vehicle for anyone’s personal benefit!!!!!!!!!!!! I don’t know how many times this has to be stated before you guys consider it may actually be true!
Again, I'm not here to guess who you guys are.... just providing facts.... Some people will take these onboard and some will dismiss them as untrue. I can only place my case forward and trust that reasonable people will see through the mistruths of some individuals (or individual under several pseudonyms) who are persistent with there rather pointed attacks.... Questions asked and answered.... can’t do much about it if these guys won’t accept the answers!
Cheers to all who have stuck to fact and not ridden the wave of fiction within their postings.... I can respect anyone who takes an objective assessment of the situation based on all the facts... but still disagrees with me ..that’s OK! Just needs to be based on fact and not fiction. Their only avenue to continue this fiction is to discredit the facts and/or myself within their claims, and now some are resorting to absolute lies to achieve this.
I ask you all to keep this in mind.... and if anyone would like me to clarify anything, please give me a call, I can be contacted most days in the office and would be happy to make time available to discuss these claims - +61 3 9614 1700.
Here’s to the advancement of the industry!
Warmest regards to all
Brett Rankin.
Last edited by Brett Rankin; 20th Jan 2005 at 02:26.
It is refreshing to see senior mangement in an open forum discussing their operations.
Shame the Air Logistics/OLOG guys are not that open and forthright. They for sure get a lot of fingers pointed their way....but not one has dared set foot into the public arena for a fair give and take. For that matter...they won't show up in a crew room or company bar for a fair give and take!
Brett is the first I have seen do so in a forum such as this.
I have received a telephone call from a senior manager in the Gulf of Mexico before, asking to explain some things.....that was sure a first. It was not an Air Dog guy I can assure you.
Shame the Air Logistics/OLOG guys are not that open and forthright. They for sure get a lot of fingers pointed their way....but not one has dared set foot into the public arena for a fair give and take. For that matter...they won't show up in a crew room or company bar for a fair give and take!
Brett is the first I have seen do so in a forum such as this.
I have received a telephone call from a senior manager in the Gulf of Mexico before, asking to explain some things.....that was sure a first. It was not an Air Dog guy I can assure you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brett,
i never mentioned BMW or cars etc........i have also noted that Heli Solutions has NEVER contracted out helicopters. NEVER.
With regard to the Grand Prix, i also take your word.
The point im making to you is that you are still engaging in commercial work that does not appear to fit your core charter.
You as the CEO must realise how this appears to industry.
And no, i dont want a job with your organisation.
i never mentioned BMW or cars etc........i have also noted that Heli Solutions has NEVER contracted out helicopters. NEVER.
With regard to the Grand Prix, i also take your word.
The point im making to you is that you are still engaging in commercial work that does not appear to fit your core charter.
You as the CEO must realise how this appears to industry.
And no, i dont want a job with your organisation.
Brett, I want to second SASless's remarks re your openess and willingness to post. So many misunderstandings can be cleared up with such openess.
My "babies will die...." comment was not attributed to you, nor your organisation and I appologise for any inference. It is merely a common tounge-in-cheek saying for keeping CASA and others at bay from EMS ops. For an example of it's usage, if, and I said IF, CHC wanted to take over Sydney EMS operations, existing operators would quickly wheel out and use the "babies will die..." defence. Tounge in cheek label, but I think you get the point.
I also specifically mentioned that the board example given was NOT your organisation, and I will say it was coloured and embelished to be demonstrative, rather than specific. Your review of your corporate governance proceedures is commendable, and reflects the position of thousands of charities right across Australia. I was merely expanding SASless's comments as a discussion item and demonstrating how these things have the potential to be altered, especially when conducted in organisatoins without the corporate safeguards you have outlined. Using this example I posed the $64,000 question, some say it's all legal and smart manouevring, some percieve it to be not quite kosher, and that depends upon which side of the fence you are on. As this whole thread is clearly demonstrating, don't you think? That's Pprune.
My "babies will die...." comment was not attributed to you, nor your organisation and I appologise for any inference. It is merely a common tounge-in-cheek saying for keeping CASA and others at bay from EMS ops. For an example of it's usage, if, and I said IF, CHC wanted to take over Sydney EMS operations, existing operators would quickly wheel out and use the "babies will die..." defence. Tounge in cheek label, but I think you get the point.
I also specifically mentioned that the board example given was NOT your organisation, and I will say it was coloured and embelished to be demonstrative, rather than specific. Your review of your corporate governance proceedures is commendable, and reflects the position of thousands of charities right across Australia. I was merely expanding SASless's comments as a discussion item and demonstrating how these things have the potential to be altered, especially when conducted in organisatoins without the corporate safeguards you have outlined. Using this example I posed the $64,000 question, some say it's all legal and smart manouevring, some percieve it to be not quite kosher, and that depends upon which side of the fence you are on. As this whole thread is clearly demonstrating, don't you think? That's Pprune.