LifeFlight Melb. Last one out, please turn off the lights.

[Brett Rankin]

Any commercial operator can approach the community or seek sponsorship.... My experience is that the community and most (if not all) sponsors seek to support an operation with a benevolent focus, not one that provides $$ in the pockets of its directors or shareholders....
I don’t disagree with the view that "Any helicopter can be essential to anyone’s survival at any given time or place", .... I was responding to specific claims that charitable operations somehow make the industry unsafe!
Our problem is not with our sponsors... they already invest substantial annual $$, our quarrel is with government's who expect a dedicated HEMS (10 hours a day) for $250,000 per annum.
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!!!!!
cheers
BR

PS: Bellfest - Your poem is somewhat offensive in its suggestion - I do drive a BMW (not current model but great car), dont own raybans, and cant afford AMARNI....

[Squeaks]

Originally Posted by Brett Rankin

Our problem is not with our sponsors... they already invest substantial annual $$, our quarrel is with government's who expect a dedicated HEMS (10 hours a day) for $250,000 per annum.
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!!!!!

Just so that I can understand your point: why have you an issue with a Government Department who expect the winner of a commercially won tender, to carry out that tender at the rate they contracted? Why do commit your registered charity to carry out work at a commercially unsustainable rate?

And why should the Government give you more money, when you won the contract against other operators: isn't there a small point of probity to be considered?

[Brett Rankin]

Squeaks.... Will help you to understand the circumstances..... although I note your history of anti-LifeFlight posting....
Certainly is a probity issue and this may result in the contract being retendered....
The government’s budget of $250,000 for this contract was what drove the process....
LifeFlight set up helicopter transportation of NETS babies in this state.... initially doing it for free several years ago, because the government did not recognise a need without there being a proven demand.
When our charity configured and dedicated a helicopter to do this work, demand was proven and it increased.... Discussions with the department resulted in them finding some money ($250,000) which, if we wanted to access it, would have to undergo a competitive tender process... All the while demand increased....
Both the government and LifeFlight entered into the contract with open eyes, both knowing we would have to raise 90% from sponsorships and the community. Both (albeit reluctantly for us) were willing to explore this 90/10 model. Remember this was not our solution!
We've raised approximately 60%, which is well short, but I think an admirable effort. LifeFlight has provided substantial commitment to the development and delivery of NETS helicopter services in Victoria, and I feel our efforts should be recognised within a revised funding model. This is why I think they should provide the additional funding to us, and not to those who seek to profit.
The Royal Children’s Hospital isn’t run by a private profit making organization…. I don’t see why the Children’s Helicopter should be any different!

[Squeaks]

Originally Posted by Brett Rankin

Squeaks.... Will help you to understand the circumstances..... although I note your history of anti-LifeFlight posting....

Two other posts, one in 2004, one in 2005: my, what a memory you have

Tell me, what would you think if you were the losing bidder against (say) CHC, and they were now crying for more money from the Government? Would you accept them claiming the same as you are? Would it not seem inappropriate, were they to infer that the Government was at fault, when they had accepted the terms and conditions of the contract, won fairly and squarely against other tenderers?

That's what seems a bit odd about this business, quite frankly. You didn't have to sign up for no standby rate, and a low hourly rate: did you?

Originally Posted by Brett Rankin

Both (albeit reluctantly for us) were willing to explore this 90/10 model. Remember this was not our solution!

Then whose solution was it? Why did you accept it?

[bellfest]

How was it that the recent and I'm sure expensive upgrade on the aircraft was able to proceed when this impending financial situation was obvious upon assessing the sponsorship, or lack of?
Seems now that could have been the wrong decision. If a commercial operator was to use his available capital on an upgrade that was to later leave him under financed, he is up **** creek with out a paddle yeah? His problem.
As far as your comments about directors and shareholders filling their pockets, You may want to think about that a bit. Some larger company directors are enclined to be a bit ruthless in their bean counting mode. A good percentage of Australian GA (It is very obvious that you have had no experience here by the way) is made up of tight operators that are running a low profit margin business whilst having to maintain aircraft, facilities, tooling, administration and most importantly staff.
The low profit margin is partly passed on to the frontline staff in the way of reduced salaries. The last thing the Australian aviation industry needs is more revenue reduction brought about by charitable organisations carrying out commercail work that should be done by a commercial company, to top up a contract with obvious flaws and and a mismanagement of funds.
After saying all of that, I hope that Lifeflight continues on for many years to come and saves many young lives but I think that if you can't get it out of the Vic gov and your sponsors, you need to leave the already retarded and soon to be even more struggling ( with the coming of fuel costs and the many, many lacking engineers) GA industry alone.
Would they really let you pack up and leave if you are providing such an essential service?
As I said, if it is, than I hope you are still there the next time we throw sticks at eachother on Pprune

[Brett Rankin]

We are actually working toward what you want!

Squeaks.... to answer your question... some money is better than none!
When I see the likes of CHC (or any other operator) utilise their own funds to improve infant mortality and morbidity... I'll be happy to support their claim for aditional funds!

Bellfest... no mismanagement here mate!. Upgrades are appart of their lease signed many years ago...
I see your point regarding our need to undertake commercial activities and its impact upon operators such as yourself... rest assured our intention is to withdraw from commercial work ASAP! ....so no more sticks??
BR

[4 PER]

I read these threads and you can't help but admire how BR has everyone fooled. Whilst he argues the toss about who should be doing what...(and more importantly , who should be paying), everyone misses the point. Life flight is a vehicle for BR. Nothing more....nothing less. It has nothing to do with saving childrens lives. As has been so well put already...."no childrens lives are at risk." Never have been, never will be. All of BR's points tug at the heart strings but are not based on fact. He makes it sound like he is the Childrens hospitals saviour. He's actually just a naughty little boy!! Anyone that knows BR, knows that he is a control freak. This, not being in control is killing him. Now he is thinking abou entering into a parnership. Sounds like a deal with the devil. This is going to end in tears eventually. The health minister is now well aware of what he is about, and she isn't going to play his game. He came into this helicopter game without being asked to. He just turned up and offered his services to the Epworth Hospital. They didn't want him, (fast learners) and after a few other failed shots at EMS transport he found himself a little hole in the kiddies EMS market. The whole time with either his hand out, or dipping into the GA market by undercutting the genuine operators, (and still falling short of ripping enough out of GA to stay upright!). Life flight is an industry joke. BR tries to give "his little vehicle" credibility by talking it up. In the end it's all about him....not EMS....not the kids....just a guy with a huge ego that wants a business card with "CEO" on it. Give up Brett....you can argue till you are blue in the face but the industry doesn't want you, (don't take my word for it....do a ring around and ask, I dare you!)...the kids don't need you...and the Government don't want to pay you. Do everyone a favour and give up and let the government give the contract to a real operator who knows what they are actually doing, (before you do actually start costing lives by doing Aviation on a shoe string!!) If you are dumb enough to accept a contract that isn't viable, you should be in another business. Try snake oil selling. Put your ego away. The numerous operators that I have spoken to are over it and you and the damage you are doing this industry.

[spinwing]

4 per

Oooohhh bitter arn't we ..... think you need to go back on the medication!

[Squeaks]

Originally Posted by Brett Rankin

Squeaks.... to answer your question... some money is better than none!
When I see the likes of CHC (or any other operator) utilise their own funds to improve infant mortality and morbidity... I'll be happy to support their claim for aditional funds!

This concerns me, and some other points that you made. Sitting here in the sun, after a few conversations with people down in Melbourne, it still doesn't seem quite right that a Registered Charity should be out in the commercial market. Not only in the market, but taking work at commercially uncompetitive and unsustainable rates. By your own admission above, you took this work in the full knowledge that it was with a massive (90%) shortfall of funding, which is now being addressed by pleading with the public for donations, whilst at the same time implying that the Government holds some responsibiity, and should give more money!

Originally Posted by Brett Rankin

on the same day we identify the persons who have contacted MP’s and others to undertake a smear campaign against our organization.

A statement which smacks of arrogance: didn't you "contact MP's and others" to further your aims, and in the course of which raise inaccurate comments against an approved local operator? Goose/gander?

Originally Posted by Brett Rankin

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

And Grands Prix, and the odd little other job. The important word that you used here is profit: how could you claim any "profit" on the rates that were used to undercut local operators? Don't forget the old adage "confuse cash flow with profit", the bane of so many operators.

Originally Posted by Brett Rankin

rest assured our intention is to withdraw from commercial work ASAP!

Applaudable, but think about the damage that has been done in the meantime There are now clients with totally false expectations about what they should pay for (replacement) helicopter services, and an uphill battle for the replacement operators to get proper income for their services. Before anyone takes me to task on this, where do you think that employers get their income to pay pilots, engineers and staff? Without a healthy income, no operator can expect to survive, and the undercutting of rates by a registered charity effectively abusing its charitable status is wrong, in anyone's book.

[Brett Rankin]

I think you guys are the sort that find life quite challenging.......

Originally Posted by Squeaks

didn't you "contact MP's and others" to further your aims, and in the course of which raise inaccurate comments against an approved local operator?

No... and there was no inaccurate claims made by the MP’s or the media! THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WAS NOT AN IFR EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT... it has nothing to do with which operator's supplying!

Originally Posted by Squeaks

...how could you claim any "profit" on the rates that were used to undercut local operators?

LifeFlight’s rates have always been higher or equal to commercial rates. No undercutting has ever taken place... GP contracts were originally won by matching the previous provider’s rate and have since climbed by an annual %... Retention of the contract has been due to the level of professional service provided (2 crew, EMS fit out, etc). You clearly don't know what you're purporting to have knowledge about!

4PER - anyone who creates his profile simply to post abuse is not worth the time of day!

I've said it before and I'll say it again.....Any professional within the HEMS industry knows it’s hardly an ‘ego trip’. It’s difficult, with daily challenges that require dynamic and sometimes complex solutions to overcome.

The reality is that efforts of LifeFlight have contributed to many lives saved! A recent example; - a baby retrieved to awaiting surgical teams at the RCH who performed the youngest tracheotomy recorded! Paediatrician’s openly attribute the ability to transport back to RCH within minutes as the reason kids transported by us are alive today!!!! Many other examples of similar circumstances…..

Again, no other service has transported a baby here in Victoria.... So how you sanctimonious hypocrites (above) can sit back and hurl abuse at something that makes this difference is beyond me!!!!

And remember... this work did not exist before LifeFlight dedicated an aircraft for it.... kids used to be transported by road for hours instead of minutes that matter!!!! Suggesting we're somehow pushing into a market that doen't want us is a little dumb, considering the governments resultant contract to provide the services, no matter what the funding arrangement. If they didnt want us, they wouldn't have contracted us!

But I guess now that we’ve proven the need for a dedicated Chidlren's Helicopter… it should be considered a commercial operator's work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bellfest]

Brett

Suggesting we're somehow pushing into a market that doen't want us is a little dumb, considering the governments resultant contract to provide the services, no matter what the funding arrangement. If they didnt want us, they wouldn't have contracted us!

This is why you should be solving it with them. I is partly their responsibility to ensure that an important and necassary charitable organisation is able to continue operating. After all it is their state, their people and their babies.
Your existence is made possible by the government, the charity and your sponsors. That is where it should end.

But I guess now that we’ve proven the need for a dedicated Chidlren's Helicopter… it should be considered a commercial operator's work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You would hope that it will always go to those that are best equipped and best prepared to do the job. You are in a very good position with your machinery, location, amenities and I would guess, crew, but a bit behind the eight ball in the funding department. Get out there, campaign, make stratergies, tell us all when you save a little life, show the Victorian people and the Government the success of your transfers and the importance of your existence. It is the communities responsibility to protect their babies by funding your existence, and it is your responsibility that those funds are utilised in the best possible way to provide the best possible service and response back to the community.
The answer is not to gain extra finance by unfairly competing in a commercial market. You didn't have to buy the machinery, you don't have to pay the staff, you don't have to pay for maintenance. You just have to manage the funds to make sure that this all happens efficiently on behalf of the community. In light of that, if you are campaigning as hard as you can, then you are not campaigning hard enough.
The fact that this arrangement was made right at the very beginning with obvious indications of being underfinanced and in particularly, knowing that a full SPIFR upgrade was part of the terms and conditions, is partly negligent and very poorly constructed.
Were you hoping to enhance sponsorships?
When did you obtain your approval to conduct commercial work? Have you had that since the beginning?
Was it planned in the arrangement to pickup any short falls in the funding by doing commercial work?
Why would you have the need to upgrade an aircraft to SPIFR when you don't have the funding to run it 24/7?
Surely the $1 a year rent or the free fuel isn't what has sent you broke.
There is no reason why the tax paying aviation community should have to accept this poorly constructed arrangement and it is very much up to you, your board and the government to resolve the issue.

[CYHeli]

Not having a dig.

Brett, if you had to put a figure on it, how much do you need per year to just do NAETS/HEMS?
Considering the success each year of the RCH appeal, can you get some support from that?
Does the contract need to be re-tendered, due to financial changes? What happened with the Epworth? I made inq's re joining your outfit a few years ago when Mike M was around and the Epworth seemed to be a major player at that stage. Did they move the goal posts?
As stated, I'm not having a dig, just trying to understand. Happy to pm or drop in next week.
I also though it a bit rude to compare you with Tim C, I remember the time he though that VH-EMS was his at the time of it's refit at Yungers.
Col.

[4 PER]

Ho Hum.

Post deleted.



Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of his arguments, Brett Rankin has come onto the forum and given his side when many people in his position don't.

If what he says is BS, show why it is with reasoned arguments, not abuse.




Heliport

[ems01]

STOP HE BS

Sorry all, very close to the industry, all I can say is what BS. I am so frustrated that this crap is going on and nobody from the industry can reply to all this emotive crap that is going on with lifeflight.. Sorry, Lifelight is a 9 to 5 operation, sure they are an IFR machine, big deal if your crew are asleep at home, so much for a 15min turnout...get real SPINWING.

Originally Posted by spinwing

Overwait...

Well done .. according to my sources, you are correct the N3 were checked out last week and yes they COULD carry the Neonate Cot.... providing all of the paramedic equipment currently carried for ambulance tasks was removed.

With time required to remove/re-install that necessary Ambulance mission equipment, AND a NETS mission requiring an average of 4Hrs of dedicated time ...I put it to you would NOT be the best way to serve Melbourne with either type of service!

The Bk is available for service after 5PM ...albeit by prior arrangement (due to crewing requirements).

The contract for a 24 Hr service was subject to need and funding be made available ... It is an IFR service NOT restricted to daylight hours!!!

I understand the corporate support does STILL exist but is finite and thus needs topping up from other sources.

It still is a not for profit organisation!

I also know about the "players" here in Melbourne ... on ALL sides!

Cheers

[ems01]

stop the BS

AAAAAHHHHH the politics ..... get real mate!

Very much in the industry but hands tied........

IFR machine, get real, how long does it take to get the crew in from home in the middle of the night when the kids are dying mate, its a 9 to 5 operation and that's all, can you all understand 9....to....5. Sorry who did you say does the NETS after hours? Must be the guys who can't do them....yeah that's right mate, there available 24/7 and yes there the ones that are called, not you.

Sorry, what was THAT, YOU WANT TO GO FIGHT FIRES .............thats ok, tell the NETS people you are no longer available..... your fighting fires, what about the sick and dying kids mate?????

Politics, who's playing the politics mate. Good connections at ch 9 but, very impressive.
SOOOO sick of the BS,.................................. spill your guts mate.

[vpaw pilot]

I wish I could comment, but politics prevents me!

Well,

This is a very robust and interesting discussion !

[Overwait]

What's stopping you

At last some of the players are speaking up.....

EMS01...why the GAG order? It's an anonymous formum....In spite of what BR says and does, unless you slander (or is it libel???) him mercilously and as long as you stick to the facts and they are truthful...he can't ask the moderators to reveal who you are. If you are in a government job and are close to the action, don't give any indication as to who you are...or use your computer at home .

His Collins Streets lawyers won't bother with this rubbish....

4PER, unfortunately I got out of bed too late this morning and missed your post before it was deleted. Pity...it must have been juicy....

One thing that EMS has picked up on though is the fire fighting aspect...Who will think of the children when the BK is off in Canberra again at $3500 an hour? (Did LifeFlight pass the RFS audit this/last year????)

Oh that's right, the VPAW or CHC or RFDS who DO carry kids...Maybe not in a Neo-cot, but they do still do it....SEVERAL (in fact more than 20) pilots I have spoken to have all carried mum/dad and tot to hospital from regional centres over the past 25 years. They may not be weeks/hours old, but they have been very young and very small.

Anyhow, what is going on...I thought a decision was supposed to have been made last Monday???

Rant over...time to read the paper and get off the horse...

[Brett Rankin]

Unnecessary angst

Originally Posted by Overwait

One thing that EMS has picked up on though is the fire fighting aspect...Who will think of the children when the BK is off in Canberra again at $3500 an hour? (Did LifeFlight pass the RFS audit this/last year????)

The Powercor Children’s Helicopter is dedicated to the NETS workload.
Other helicopter is the Fire Fighter and we charged >$3,600 per hour... however hoping not to have to do this anymore... or are you unable to read?

Originally Posted by Overwait

Oh that's right, the VPAW or CHC or RFDS who DO carry kids...Maybe not in a Neo-cot, but they do still do it....SEVERAL (in fact more than 20) pilots I have spoken to have all carried mum/dad and tot to hospital from regional centres over the past 25 years. They may not be weeks/hours old, but they have been very young and very small.

The role you're talking about here is for PETS retrievals and primary accident workload, which is undertaken by AAV, helicopters.... not us!
The Powercor Children’s Helicopter is contracted from 8am to 6pm for Newborn Emergency Transportation (NETS).
I understand AAV helicopters (VPAW helo) are capable and have always transported 1 NETS member and 1 bag. This is and has been their capability to date, although I understand AAV are investigating the installation of the NETS ICU system onboard the VPAW N3's and will be able to take a standard NETS team (2 NETS) along with them, but cannot accommodate the full NETS team (3 NETS), or the full ICU system, or accommodate a parent onboard the return flight. Not having a go at VPAW or AAV helicopters... its just reality that you cant be all things to all people all of the time!
I also understand the MICA Paramedic and some equipment will have to be removed to achieve this, leaving it unavailable for primaries during the 7-8 hour duration of average NETS mission.
VPAW Pilot - chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.....
Not ideal for a primary Air Ambulance helo.... but is AAV's proposal for after hours NETS operations, and/or replacement should LifeFlight discontinue the Children’s Helicopter operations.
To date, we've made ourselves available outside of the contract hours when AAV helicopters are unable to do the minimum of transporting 1 NETS member and 1 bag. Not having a go at VPAW or AAV helicopters... its just reality that some of the busiest primary response HEMS services in Australia aren't always available for NETS/PETS retrievals.
VPAW and CHC/AAV helicopters provide excellent services to the public of Victoria, and our publicity is not meant to take away from their very important activity or professionalism. We’re not saying we’re better than VPAW or CHC/AAV helicopter operations, we’re saying we can provide a better level of service to NETS, because we can dedicate our helicopter and focus upon their needs solely!
The NETS Director publicly stating LifeFlight’s dedicated Children’s Helicopter has “improved the responsiveness and effectiveness of the states Newborn Emergency Transport Service” reinforces this.
EMS01 - You're full of ASSumption and misinformation! Anyone who creates his profile simply to post misinformation and sling sh#t is not worth the time of day!
Collins street is intrigued by the level of professionalism displayed upon this post, and very interested in following up on several of the individuals! Make no mistake about this... doesnt matter if you use home or work computers... you apparently leave a cyber trail that can be followed!
Thankyou Mr Overweight!

[USACJ]

Well it's very sad to read all this rubbish.. Do you all know how badly you sound and how unproffesional the Australian helicopter industry is viewed around the world because of the few people who post on this forum?? No I didn't think so, because you are so focused on pulling down the people who are trying to do the right thing.

I am fortunate enough to be involved with a reasonably larger operator in the USA, where we undertake commercial operations for a variety of clients and one of those clients gets their services for free... Yes we mix commercial operations with providing a NETS helicopter for free.

Stop wasting your energy trying to bring down others and get on with life.

If the indivduals who post here are a reflection of the Australian industry, then I'm not sure I want to come back there to work with or in competition with; such a spiteful group of people..

Seen any posts from other parts of the world that rip into one another like ones that originate from Australia??

[Overwait]

Not enough to do

MR. BR, me thinks you spend far too much time on the phone and computer, whingeing champ.

If you think mine or other contributors comments warrant the men in suits going after us then so be it... Let's just hope that you are squeaky clean as well old mate...squeaky clean!!!

USACJ, what you do is perform a charitable act as a commercial operator. Not vice-versa. What this organisation does is use the charity act and all its benefits and supplement this with commercial work...

The reason why we seem a bit put out by this is that it is not doing the Australian industry any favours...This has been explained in previous posts by Bellfest, squeaks etc....It drives down the market meaning we pay our drivers less.....I'm not going to go into it...

Brett, comments that are deemed slanderous/libellous are removed by the moderators...This is why we have them...Your energies would be better directed at keeping your company afloat...