LifeFlight Melb. Last one out, please turn off the lights.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 'bout 2nm Nth
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by spinwing
I have been reliably informed that the supplemental corporate sponsorship for LifeFlight has been secured and thus there is no longer any threat to the NETS helicopter transport service in Melbourne.
This thread can now go awaaaaay!!!!!!
Cheers
This thread can now go awaaaaay!!!!!!
Cheers
Maybe that beemer has to go after all?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Child Flight
if Kennett gets back in as premier some pecuniary common sense may prevail.
I've no intentions of intruding into the emotiveness of this debate and i'm no bean counter but i've oft had to make sure the beans were there for those that do.
I cannot see in the Herald Sun article enough beans for a service of more than one helo? lavishly kitted out, lavish pay and conditions and a supply when we feel like it in the daytime only - mentality- for 50, yep it said FIFTY only babies per year??????????????
All of this on 2.5m per year????????
The banks own-em one said. maybe when the balloon payments come along that is when the balloon will go up, in more ways than one.
This is the age of module adaption and as some-one else said the "cots" could be fit elsewhere maybe anywhere within reason, special ambo trucks etc?
apart from that there is plenty of examples around where skinny budgets and safety do NOT go hand in hand for extended periods.
Not in my definition of charity no sir, and the rumoured benefactor, fair go, if it is who it may be suggested it is, well he may 'bowl the odd maiden over' and we all know he has major finger trouble with the old cell phone, maybe he just dialled the wrong "baby".
I've no intentions of intruding into the emotiveness of this debate and i'm no bean counter but i've oft had to make sure the beans were there for those that do.
I cannot see in the Herald Sun article enough beans for a service of more than one helo? lavishly kitted out, lavish pay and conditions and a supply when we feel like it in the daytime only - mentality- for 50, yep it said FIFTY only babies per year??????????????
All of this on 2.5m per year????????
The banks own-em one said. maybe when the balloon payments come along that is when the balloon will go up, in more ways than one.
This is the age of module adaption and as some-one else said the "cots" could be fit elsewhere maybe anywhere within reason, special ambo trucks etc?
apart from that there is plenty of examples around where skinny budgets and safety do NOT go hand in hand for extended periods.
Not in my definition of charity no sir, and the rumoured benefactor, fair go, if it is who it may be suggested it is, well he may 'bowl the odd maiden over' and we all know he has major finger trouble with the old cell phone, maybe he just dialled the wrong "baby".
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
screwed ...
Oh well ...... I guess we'll just have to wait and see ...
BTW the Beemer you seem to be fixating on has nothing to do with LifeFlight, though it is closely connected to BR ... he drives it 'cos his mrs allows him too!
... its hers !!!
Cheers
Oh well ...... I guess we'll just have to wait and see ...
BTW the Beemer you seem to be fixating on has nothing to do with LifeFlight, though it is closely connected to BR ... he drives it 'cos his mrs allows him too!
... its hers !!!Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 'bout 2nm Nth
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by spinwing
screwed ...
BTW the Beemer you seem to be fixating on has nothing to do with LifeFlight, though it is closely connected to BR ... he drives it 'cos his mrs allows him too! ... its hers !!!
Cheers
BTW the Beemer you seem to be fixating on has nothing to do with LifeFlight, though it is closely connected to BR ... he drives it 'cos his mrs allows him too!
... its hers !!!Cheers
BTW, who does she work for?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm...
I am not sure ...I believe she works for a LARGE Multi-National Corp. and the beemer is her (company) car !!!
BTW I think you will find that your info about the Warne Foundation is incorrect as well!
Cheers
I am not sure ...I believe she works for a LARGE Multi-National Corp. and the beemer is her (company) car !!!
BTW I think you will find that your info about the Warne Foundation is incorrect as well!
Cheers
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Screwed
You seem to be REALLY close to what is going on old mate.
A classic example of someone who has worked there before and didn't (or couldn't) hack it.
You seem to be REALLY close to what is going on old mate.
A classic example of someone who has worked there before and didn't (or couldn't) hack it.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of the Equator
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never Satisfied.
Aussies are renowned for practicing the “Tall Poppy Syndrome”, unfortunately it’s one of our negative national traits.
However, most if not all girls/guys that have worked there, or other much criticised operators, still willingly ensure their period there is in Bold letters on their Resume.
And why?, because the crews are normally very professional, know the task, respect the good machines and can put the petty personalities that are exhibited here [prune] by lesser pilots aside, and get on with the demanding tasks.
The intelligence and sense of under achievement exhibited by some of my colleagues is truly an embarrassment to our Industry.
However, most if not all girls/guys that have worked there, or other much criticised operators, still willingly ensure their period there is in Bold letters on their Resume.
And why?, because the crews are normally very professional, know the task, respect the good machines and can put the petty personalities that are exhibited here [prune] by lesser pilots aside, and get on with the demanding tasks.
The intelligence and sense of under achievement exhibited by some of my colleagues is truly an embarrassment to our Industry.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Screwed:
I can't believe that a fool like you would get on this forum and throw mud left right and centre to try and dis-credit the service and the CEO then have the brains to write:
I can't believe that a fool like you would get on this forum and throw mud left right and centre to try and dis-credit the service and the CEO then have the brains to write:
Wrong. I've never met the man.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 'bout 2nm Nth
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My problem is not with the man, it’s with his type. I’ve been in the industry a looong time. Long enough to know how these two bit 'wannabe' operators discredit the industry as a whole. Entering into a Government contract to provide a service that simply wasn’t possible at the price. The fire season wasn’t kind to LifeFlight (..errr, a charity doing commercial work? Can you see where I’m going with this?) which was the final nail in the coffin. Then has the audacity to go cap in hand and beg for more government funds and appear in the media saying babies are suffering because of his gamble that didn’t pay off?
The likes of LifeFlight, Mr Chibbs in Warrnambool and other ‘fly by night wannbes’ who are fulfilling a personal ego trip rather than a sound business proposition, do a great disservice to our industry and need to be outed for what they are.
The likes of LifeFlight, Mr Chibbs in Warrnambool and other ‘fly by night wannbes’ who are fulfilling a personal ego trip rather than a sound business proposition, do a great disservice to our industry and need to be outed for what they are.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What appropriate user names....
Overweight, Screwed, Topendtorque,
It is an interesting coincidence that you guys back off attacking me personally on the same day we identify the persons who have contacted MP’s and others to undertake a smear campaign against our organization. These same people who’ll benefit from our demise!
I don’t think you can call a 6-year-old twin engine IFR HEMS operation with two well-equipped aircraft and a professional team - ‘two bit’ or ‘wannabe’…..
You clearly have a problem with me personally!
Any contract has a minimum of two parties… in our case the Vic Government and ourselves are the two parties.
Both entered into this contract with eyes open… both knowing 90% of the costs would come from non-government sources.
LifeFlight consistently maintained to government that 10% contribution is insufficient to sustain supply. The funding made available by government for the contract was (and remains) restricted by their budget at $250,000 per annum.
YES… LifeFlight undertakes fire fighting and Antarctic work with our second helicopter in order to shift profit from undertaking these activities to the shortfall in funding our helicopter which we have dedicated to the Newborn Emergency Transport Service (Powercor Children’s Helicopter). This commercial work is undertaken with the knowledge and support of the Life Savers who contract it during summer and Westpac who sponsor it (Westpac Rescue Helicopter).
I make no apologies for doing whatever we can to fund a long awaited dedicated Children’s Helicopter in Victoria.
If you have a problem with us needing to do this… then you actually agree with me! … this is the basis to why we’ve asked government to review its contribution. We don’t want to have to do this either!!!!!
Regarding Donations and fundraising - I have no problem asking the communities we serve to chip in for the cost of providing the services they benefit from (and nor do they!).
Your comments regarding my wife are particularly troubling and inappropriate….
Equally inappropriate is your attempt to associate our professional service, operating two IFR, multi engine, multi crewed HEMS helicopters, with the unfortunate efforts and/or motives of Mr Chibbs at Warrnambool or anywhere else!
Anyone who has experience within a HEMS operation knows it’s hardly an ‘ego trip’. It’s difficult, with daily challenges that require dynamic and sometimes complex solutions to overcome.
My understanding is that most of Australia’s HEMS operations commenced on less than sound business propositions. In fact very few have had guaranteed funding from commencement, and even today most do not!
Following your thinking, many of Australia’s HEMS operations should not have commenced (us included). IN fact HEMS was launched in this country by community-based operations, which continue to be a demonstrably cost effective option for government. In fact, more HEMS activity is undertaken under these models than services that enjoy full/guaranteed funding from government.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think either can do the job better than the other… and I too agree that government should fully fund HEMS operations and in doing so dictate across the board standards…. But I don’t see the $$ coming forward at the rate demand for HEMS services has developed in Australia. So we do what we can do…. And shouldn’t be abused for it!
Only when funding equality is achieved will we truly see which model can best deliver a HEMS service. But I don’t see the government giving us the $4.6 million per helicopter per annum our counterparts enjoy here in Victoria. If they did, I doubt I’d have to defend our organization from people like you!
For the record, I have asked our solicitors what actions can be taken to identify you.
Enough is Enough!
To all who have wished us well… Thank you!
I should have good news to announce shortly.
Cheers
BR
It is an interesting coincidence that you guys back off attacking me personally on the same day we identify the persons who have contacted MP’s and others to undertake a smear campaign against our organization. These same people who’ll benefit from our demise!
I don’t think you can call a 6-year-old twin engine IFR HEMS operation with two well-equipped aircraft and a professional team - ‘two bit’ or ‘wannabe’…..
You clearly have a problem with me personally!
Any contract has a minimum of two parties… in our case the Vic Government and ourselves are the two parties.
Both entered into this contract with eyes open… both knowing 90% of the costs would come from non-government sources.
LifeFlight consistently maintained to government that 10% contribution is insufficient to sustain supply. The funding made available by government for the contract was (and remains) restricted by their budget at $250,000 per annum.
YES… LifeFlight undertakes fire fighting and Antarctic work with our second helicopter in order to shift profit from undertaking these activities to the shortfall in funding our helicopter which we have dedicated to the Newborn Emergency Transport Service (Powercor Children’s Helicopter). This commercial work is undertaken with the knowledge and support of the Life Savers who contract it during summer and Westpac who sponsor it (Westpac Rescue Helicopter).
I make no apologies for doing whatever we can to fund a long awaited dedicated Children’s Helicopter in Victoria.
If you have a problem with us needing to do this… then you actually agree with me! … this is the basis to why we’ve asked government to review its contribution. We don’t want to have to do this either!!!!!
Regarding Donations and fundraising - I have no problem asking the communities we serve to chip in for the cost of providing the services they benefit from (and nor do they!).
Your comments regarding my wife are particularly troubling and inappropriate….
Equally inappropriate is your attempt to associate our professional service, operating two IFR, multi engine, multi crewed HEMS helicopters, with the unfortunate efforts and/or motives of Mr Chibbs at Warrnambool or anywhere else!
Anyone who has experience within a HEMS operation knows it’s hardly an ‘ego trip’. It’s difficult, with daily challenges that require dynamic and sometimes complex solutions to overcome.
My understanding is that most of Australia’s HEMS operations commenced on less than sound business propositions. In fact very few have had guaranteed funding from commencement, and even today most do not!
Following your thinking, many of Australia’s HEMS operations should not have commenced (us included). IN fact HEMS was launched in this country by community-based operations, which continue to be a demonstrably cost effective option for government. In fact, more HEMS activity is undertaken under these models than services that enjoy full/guaranteed funding from government.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think either can do the job better than the other… and I too agree that government should fully fund HEMS operations and in doing so dictate across the board standards…. But I don’t see the $$ coming forward at the rate demand for HEMS services has developed in Australia. So we do what we can do…. And shouldn’t be abused for it!
Only when funding equality is achieved will we truly see which model can best deliver a HEMS service. But I don’t see the government giving us the $4.6 million per helicopter per annum our counterparts enjoy here in Victoria. If they did, I doubt I’d have to defend our organization from people like you!
For the record, I have asked our solicitors what actions can be taken to identify you.
Enough is Enough!
To all who have wished us well… Thank you!
I should have good news to announce shortly.
Cheers
BR
Last edited by Brett Rankin; 7th May 2006 at 22:19.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Critics?????
Originally Posted by Brett Rankin
Overweight, Screwed, Topendtorque,
It is an interesting coincidence that you guys back off attacking me personally
YES… LifeFlight undertakes fire fighting and Antarctic work with our second helicopter in order to shift profit BR
It is an interesting coincidence that you guys back off attacking me personally
YES… LifeFlight undertakes fire fighting and Antarctic work with our second helicopter in order to shift profit BR
I didn't think that I was attacking you, merely noting the spectre raised in the Herald sun of a multi Helicopter op reamining viable on a bare 2.5m per annum. so I am glad that you have cleared up the fact that you subsidise cost with the profit from commercial work.
I gather then that work is undertaken as commercial work on an australian issued AOC where deductions for depreciation and all costs etc are allowable under the prevailing australian taxation system?
Yet you proffer adamantly that this is a Registered Charity.
I have two questions;
1) where does a registered charity fit with the ATO (tax office) if it is doing commercial work?
2) where does a charity fit in OZ air regs, as a prtivate op or is it allowable to be commercial?
Apart from that I have very definite views on full charitable funded outfits be they Helicopter or whatever, going in and competing against those registered business's that operate fully commercially with full fiscal responsivbility under the relevant companies ACT etc.
I imagine that you would not get very far with a charity funded taxi set up in opposition to the cabs at Kings Cross for example.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by topendtorque
I have two questions;
1) where does a registered charity fit with the ATO (tax office) if it is doing commercial work?
1) where does a registered charity fit with the ATO (tax office) if it is doing commercial work?
1. its 'predominant purpose';
2. the application of its profits /assets to that purpose;
3. no remuneration or in-kind benefit for the Directors or shareholders;
4. its constitution.
Originally Posted by topendtorque
2) where does a charity fit in OZ air regs, as a prtivate op or is it allowable to be commercial?
Originally Posted by topendtorque
Apart from that I have very definite views on full charitable funded outfits be they Helicopter or whatever, going in and competing against those registered business's that operate fully commercially with full fiscal responsivbility under the relevant companies ACT etc.
You are barking up the wrong tree if you're suggesting financial mismanagement, lessor financial accountability, or an easy ride!
BR
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brett Rankin
Hmmmm
Just a tad defensive there young fella. First of all let me put your ego at rest, you will not be under more severe “obligation” from the taxman than anyone else if you are a registered charity, you will notice as you mature, that ‘taxmen’ in all countries view everyone with equal mistrust right across the spectrum.
I certainly did not suggest that you would be lacking in auditing requirements, neither do I need words put in my mouth as what your interpretation of my thoughts are. One of the fiscal responsibilities I refer to is quoted by you as something that you don’t need, as quoted below.
“3. no remuneration or in-kind benefit for the Directors or shareholders;”
Rather funny that as all of your commercial competitors will have to provide fiscal responsibility to their share holders. Their other major resposibility to their directors and the taxman is a clearly demonstrated technically solvent responsibility.
All this while the like of you swan around in a benevolent state propping your operations up with philanthropy and then having the cheek to undercut those who have to stand on their own two feet finacially.
Technical solvency, if you operate under the oz company’s act, may just come along and tap you on the sholder as a question from ASIC before long if your promised benefactors don’t show up. Non satisfaction of that question is also a trigger for CASA to suspend your AOC.
Your web page states that you are a ‘non profit’ organisation but we hear from you that you shift ‘profit’ from your commercial activity across to other sectors of where you operate.
Now that may be a play by me on your words, but whilst you live on taxpayers funds and philanthropy and while you and you’re A/C are snoring your collective heads off, ‘your predominat service’ that you suggest is essential and can only be carried out by yourselves is being conducted by vehicles, planes and the helicopters of your struggling competition.
Is your ‘predominant purpose’ being clearly demonstrated as such in your annual returns? By that I mean does the taxman allow you to have that ‘purpose’ as only a minor % of your operation?
I am far enough removed from your sphere to evade criticism of being a hostile competitor, however I am a taxpayer and I believe in free trade. I have had to compete against subsidised competition, like yours in fact much larger, in the past so that qualifies me to make these comments.
All commercial aviation in this country will be stronger and safer if it is not encumbered with unnecessary subsidised opposition, Do you agree?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charitable v/s Private structure does not = safer skies
Topendtorque.... you may want to read an earlier thread for more information about this (YMML LifeFlight)
I'll use plan English so as not to 'play on words' as you've described....
LifeFlight has Directors and shareholders the same as any other company. The only difference is that neither the Directors nor the Shareholders hold those positions for financial gain. The Directors and Shareholders have the same responsibilities to corporations’ law as any Director or Shareholder of a profit making company, and I have the same reporting responsibilities to the Directors and Shareholders that any CEO has.
Topendtorque - I'm having trouble following your viewpoints above... If your position is that charities don’t have the added pressure of having to distribute Directors fees $$ and Shareholders dividends $$... this is correct! But is counterbalanced by the extent of work needed to keep our stakeholders happy. It requires a much larger level of detailed interaction and ‘open book’ involvement than would be tolerated by a private company. So your views maybe a case of “grass is greener…” unless of course you’ve worked within the charitable helicopter sector? I don’t know if you have....
If your viewpoint is that Directors fees and Shareholders dividends equates to greater safety within the industry... then I'm not following your argument! I would have thought that any additional demand upon a companies bottom line (such as Directors fees and Shareholders dividends) would place greater pressure upon the companies need to charge increased rates and downward pressure upon the business to cut expenses ...sometimes safety related expenses if no others can be cut???
Our aircraft are not "snoring your collective heads off" as you have so eloquently stated. Despite your claims, no NETS retrieval has transported a baby onboard any other helicopter in Victoria to date ...there is no "struggling competition" as you've suggested.
Your mention of technical solvency 'tapping us on the shoulder' and the suggestion LifeFlight may lose its AOC is a little dramatic.... I can assure you our solvency issues are handled by far more competent persons than you or I, and they hardly need anonymous and misguided advice! For someone who is "far enough removed from your sphere to evade criticism of being a hostile competitor", you seem to have strong anti-LifeFlight buy-in.
Topendtorque's statement that "All commercial aviation in this country will be stronger and safer if it is not encumbered with unnecessary subsidised opposition" is not something I can agree with, nor could I see the very capable and safe government operated HEMS services agreeing with this either.
If you have a problem with LifeFlight needing to do commercial work in order for us to help fund our dedicated Children’s Helicopters… then you actually agree with me! … this is the basis to why we’ve asked government to review its contribution. We don’t want to have to do this either!!!!!
Safe flying topendtorque. Aviation is a tough market to work in for many reasons other than the existence of charitable helicopter services, ....we're not your nemesis nor are we the basis for your lot in life!
Cheers
BR
I'll use plan English so as not to 'play on words' as you've described....
LifeFlight has Directors and shareholders the same as any other company. The only difference is that neither the Directors nor the Shareholders hold those positions for financial gain. The Directors and Shareholders have the same responsibilities to corporations’ law as any Director or Shareholder of a profit making company, and I have the same reporting responsibilities to the Directors and Shareholders that any CEO has.
Topendtorque - I'm having trouble following your viewpoints above... If your position is that charities don’t have the added pressure of having to distribute Directors fees $$ and Shareholders dividends $$... this is correct! But is counterbalanced by the extent of work needed to keep our stakeholders happy. It requires a much larger level of detailed interaction and ‘open book’ involvement than would be tolerated by a private company. So your views maybe a case of “grass is greener…” unless of course you’ve worked within the charitable helicopter sector? I don’t know if you have....
If your viewpoint is that Directors fees and Shareholders dividends equates to greater safety within the industry... then I'm not following your argument! I would have thought that any additional demand upon a companies bottom line (such as Directors fees and Shareholders dividends) would place greater pressure upon the companies need to charge increased rates and downward pressure upon the business to cut expenses ...sometimes safety related expenses if no others can be cut???
Our aircraft are not "snoring your collective heads off" as you have so eloquently stated. Despite your claims, no NETS retrieval has transported a baby onboard any other helicopter in Victoria to date ...there is no "struggling competition" as you've suggested.
Your mention of technical solvency 'tapping us on the shoulder' and the suggestion LifeFlight may lose its AOC is a little dramatic.... I can assure you our solvency issues are handled by far more competent persons than you or I, and they hardly need anonymous and misguided advice! For someone who is "far enough removed from your sphere to evade criticism of being a hostile competitor", you seem to have strong anti-LifeFlight buy-in.
Topendtorque's statement that "All commercial aviation in this country will be stronger and safer if it is not encumbered with unnecessary subsidised opposition" is not something I can agree with, nor could I see the very capable and safe government operated HEMS services agreeing with this either.
If you have a problem with LifeFlight needing to do commercial work in order for us to help fund our dedicated Children’s Helicopters… then you actually agree with me! … this is the basis to why we’ve asked government to review its contribution. We don’t want to have to do this either!!!!!
Safe flying topendtorque. Aviation is a tough market to work in for many reasons other than the existence of charitable helicopter services, ....we're not your nemesis nor are we the basis for your lot in life!
Cheers
BR
Last edited by Brett Rankin; 9th May 2006 at 02:46.
Brett
Would it be fair to say that if a charitable organisation like lifeflight is able to compete for commercial work to increase operating revenue than it would be ok for a commercial operator to seek charity in order to do the same? There would be no difference if the company was involved in any SAR or EMS role of any degree. Any helicopter can be essential to anyones survival at any given time or place.
This doesn't happen does it?
If a commercial operator cannot meet or exceed the bottom line from a sustainable amount of commercial work than it is time to close the doors. They don't seek donations.
Your problem is with the sponsors right?
That is what should be addressed and you shouldn't be endeavouring to secure commercial contracts against commercial operators who have to fund their expenses with their revenue.
I think any service that has the capability to save lives ( particularly young ones) is fantastic but if your charitable donations/ sponsors etc. cannot sustain your service than it is not viable.
Would it be fair to say that if a charitable organisation like lifeflight is able to compete for commercial work to increase operating revenue than it would be ok for a commercial operator to seek charity in order to do the same? There would be no difference if the company was involved in any SAR or EMS role of any degree. Any helicopter can be essential to anyones survival at any given time or place.
This doesn't happen does it?
If a commercial operator cannot meet or exceed the bottom line from a sustainable amount of commercial work than it is time to close the doors. They don't seek donations.
Your problem is with the sponsors right?
That is what should be addressed and you shouldn't be endeavouring to secure commercial contracts against commercial operators who have to fund their expenses with their revenue.
I think any service that has the capability to save lives ( particularly young ones) is fantastic but if your charitable donations/ sponsors etc. cannot sustain your service than it is not viable.