NSW EMS (NGO or Private operator)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foreward thinking
I have been reading the discussion points and the nsw ambulance web site and careflight site.
I have come to the view that the NSW Govt has the people of NSW first in there mind to provide a greater service by expanding the service we have and the capacity of the current arragement with just one provider.
As in business having to deal with one provider would help everyone.
I have come to the view that the NSW Govt has the people of NSW first in there mind to provide a greater service by expanding the service we have and the capacity of the current arragement with just one provider.
As in business having to deal with one provider would help everyone.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 45
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations to CHC
Well done to CHC for winning the contract. The people of NSW can expect a fully functional, robust, safe helicopter service.
It’s a shame Careflight is resorting to propaganda in order to discredit the winning company. The only real outcome for Careflight if they continue this misinformation is the tarnishing of their name and service, which I might add is already questionable within the industry. The comments coming from Careflight management are ridiculous, unsubstantiated and wouldn’t stand up to any careful scrutiny.
I am pleased to read that the current crews with the various organisations within NSW will be offered employment with CHC. At least they will be paid appropriately and on time. I only encourage the crews to apply quickly.
It’s a shame Careflight is resorting to propaganda in order to discredit the winning company. The only real outcome for Careflight if they continue this misinformation is the tarnishing of their name and service, which I might add is already questionable within the industry. The comments coming from Careflight management are ridiculous, unsubstantiated and wouldn’t stand up to any careful scrutiny.
I am pleased to read that the current crews with the various organisations within NSW will be offered employment with CHC. At least they will be paid appropriately and on time. I only encourage the crews to apply quickly.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations CHC Helicopters (Australia)
Congratulations to CHC Australia. Not that great canadian company across the pacific. I am sure the australian born and bred boys, not seal clubbers, will do a fantastic job, oh and just as safely and professionally as Careflight could ever provide.Well done to the boys of careflight and westpac, you fliers have done a great job, pity your CEO is now mudslinging to save his behind and dragging all your hard work down to his level.
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the NSW Govt has the people of NSW first in there mind" 
careful there coolaroo, big mistake to think politicians and public servants give a rat's about the tax payer. More likely what's in it for them?
careful there coolaroo, big mistake to think politicians and public servants give a rat's about the tax payer. More likely what's in it for them?
Last edited by PPRuNeUser0212; 12th Dec 2006 at 03:14. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sandblaster,
After reading your rant (you do realise that bold in email speak is yelling don't you), I have come to the opinion that you have an axe to grind in this debate. As I said, service provision is the name of the game and if the NGO is doing a good job (and I haven't seen any stats to say they were poor providers), why change it when the other major factor is cost. If it was only a few bucks difference in cost, then okay. But when it is Millions (70 to 100 have been bandied about), something is up because the the government usually goes with the cheapest bid.
CHC are good operators and will do a good job, but the company is not in it for anything but the money. For example, the CHC Air Ambo in WA will cost the taxpayers of WA about 20Mill for 5 years, of which about 8 Mill is profit. At the end of it, the money is 'dead' with nothing to show. If I was a taxpayer in NSW, I would be asking questions about the money unnecessarily spent. As I can reasonably balance my pennies(or credit card), the best solution would be:
Thus sandblaster, I actually do get it and can stand back an judge with an impartial eye. Fly safe.
After reading your rant (you do realise that bold in email speak is yelling don't you), I have come to the opinion that you have an axe to grind in this debate. As I said, service provision is the name of the game and if the NGO is doing a good job (and I haven't seen any stats to say they were poor providers), why change it when the other major factor is cost. If it was only a few bucks difference in cost, then okay. But when it is Millions (70 to 100 have been bandied about), something is up because the the government usually goes with the cheapest bid.
CHC are good operators and will do a good job, but the company is not in it for anything but the money. For example, the CHC Air Ambo in WA will cost the taxpayers of WA about 20Mill for 5 years, of which about 8 Mill is profit. At the end of it, the money is 'dead' with nothing to show. If I was a taxpayer in NSW, I would be asking questions about the money unnecessarily spent. As I can reasonably balance my pennies(or credit card), the best solution would be:
- The NSW govt buy the new helicopters reqd outright and give them to Careflight and Westpac to operate. That way they own them, can do what they want, and can trade them in later for newer ones.
- merge the infrastructure under one umbrella to minimise the duplication
- Staff would remain in the organisation as now flying better aircraft with no profit going overseas.
Thus sandblaster, I actually do get it and can stand back an judge with an impartial eye. Fly safe.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 70
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whitehawkup
You are right to put balance in this discussion a rumour forum needs balance, and at times I need anger management. Fundamentally I have an issue with the NGO method of doing business I have a great deal of respect for those individuals that form the air crews as all are professional in their actions and capabilities.
Media release Ministers office 8/12/06
CHC Australia has 37 years experience providing helicopter service in Australia, and made winning bid based on providing more aircraft, SOONER.
You asked why should anyone compare the availability of a 50% or less funded operation to the fully funded future one.
Did not the NGO model lobby the Government, last time round when they used political pressure to trow out CHC. In doing this they down graded the service requirements and the community have suffered with limited service ever since. The Government of the Time needs to be questioned as to why they let down the community with a second rate service that could not deliver what was required.
How many hours have each helicopter base in the greater Sydney area been without helicopter services since the commencement of the current contract.
This is not an irrelevant argument as if you look at the example above then we will see that the NGO’s inhibited the system from having a fully funded system, with the contract penalties that would enforce compliance. So because of the charity mentality we have a helicopter system that fails the community and by placing the contract in their hands again we will continue to have limited capabilities in the future.
How long did it take the NGO’s to provide the service that they were contracted to?
The point is, the world has changed and will continue to change. 10, 15 years ago the helicopter system was very different IFR NVG GPS were all unheard of in an EMS system. Dedicated helicopter and medical teams did not exist in Australia. Like it or not, vinyl records were replaced with CD’s and CD’s will be replace with electronic downloads etc. My point is that the track record of NGO’s implementation of the changes required is poor. SO again I stand by my question how long did it take Careflight and Westpac to be fully compliant to the current contract, simple question I would think.
As far as why CHC was the winner, I don’t have the answer any one out there able to advise Whitehawkup of this?
I would suspect that by being able to provide greater capabilities in May, could be the reason but that is speculation on my part so confirmation would be reassuring.
Winch capabilities
Ah, fully funded apples Vs oranges again. Fixation or obsession.
Once again this gets back to fully funded and 50% funded. So again we get back to the question of a charity being able to provide what is required. THIS CONTRACT WAS CALLED FOR THE PROVISSION OF HELICOPTERS AND MAY BE, JUST MAYBE, THE GOVERNMENT WONTED TO ENSURE THAT SERVICE PROVISION WAS AVAILABE AND ACCOUNTABLE, so it may be because some of he oranges were rotten
As for the partially funded 412 at Careflight impossible to run on funding levels.
Did not Careflight convince the government of the day that NGO’s could provide the service required via donations and their charity management? They had a 412 at the commencement of the contract however because of poor accounting, Tax implications or down right stupidity they sold the 412. Careflight tended and lost the last EMS contract, they then lobbied the government and overturned the decision and then complain because they f**ked up the costs required.
If this applies to this future contract the Greater Sydney area will be flying around in squirrels.
CHC is said to be contracted as of MAY to provide 4 x 412’s for its interim measure, is this not now immediately increasing the range, lift and weather capabilities of the current fleet
AW 139 would arrive seven months before CHC, I find it difficult to believe that a NGO could have grater bidding power that CHC when it comes to aircraft acquisition. If this was true and I doubt that it is, we are only talking about one aircraft. So how long would it be before the community receives any change in SERVICE?
CHC has been awarded the contract because they can provide the helicopters required. I would assume that the GOVERNMENT IS COMING IN LINE WITH OTHER STATES (SA, VIC, and QLD) BY PROVIDING ACCOUNTABLE CONTRACTS THAT CAN DELIVER SERVICES WHEN REQUIRED.
We talk slander, well facts are facts and if you won’t slander and miss-truths read the papers and watch the news and don’t forget to log onto the Careflight web site. Anyone would think that there is no other helicopter rescue services in Australia, Careflight failure is that they believe the b*** S*** that they are preaching. As for Doctors well resign Well get on with it. I am sure that the community will cope without them.
Whitehawkup
I fail to see anything that I have stated that has not been available by printed or available via electronic media. So thanks for the reply
You are right to put balance in this discussion a rumour forum needs balance, and at times I need anger management. Fundamentally I have an issue with the NGO method of doing business I have a great deal of respect for those individuals that form the air crews as all are professional in their actions and capabilities.
Media release Ministers office 8/12/06
CHC Australia has 37 years experience providing helicopter service in Australia, and made winning bid based on providing more aircraft, SOONER.
You asked why should anyone compare the availability of a 50% or less funded operation to the fully funded future one.
Did not the NGO model lobby the Government, last time round when they used political pressure to trow out CHC. In doing this they down graded the service requirements and the community have suffered with limited service ever since. The Government of the Time needs to be questioned as to why they let down the community with a second rate service that could not deliver what was required.
How many hours have each helicopter base in the greater Sydney area been without helicopter services since the commencement of the current contract.
This is not an irrelevant argument as if you look at the example above then we will see that the NGO’s inhibited the system from having a fully funded system, with the contract penalties that would enforce compliance. So because of the charity mentality we have a helicopter system that fails the community and by placing the contract in their hands again we will continue to have limited capabilities in the future.
How long did it take the NGO’s to provide the service that they were contracted to?
The point is, the world has changed and will continue to change. 10, 15 years ago the helicopter system was very different IFR NVG GPS were all unheard of in an EMS system. Dedicated helicopter and medical teams did not exist in Australia. Like it or not, vinyl records were replaced with CD’s and CD’s will be replace with electronic downloads etc. My point is that the track record of NGO’s implementation of the changes required is poor. SO again I stand by my question how long did it take Careflight and Westpac to be fully compliant to the current contract, simple question I would think.
As far as why CHC was the winner, I don’t have the answer any one out there able to advise Whitehawkup of this?
I would suspect that by being able to provide greater capabilities in May, could be the reason but that is speculation on my part so confirmation would be reassuring.
Winch capabilities
Ah, fully funded apples Vs oranges again. Fixation or obsession.
Once again this gets back to fully funded and 50% funded. So again we get back to the question of a charity being able to provide what is required. THIS CONTRACT WAS CALLED FOR THE PROVISSION OF HELICOPTERS AND MAY BE, JUST MAYBE, THE GOVERNMENT WONTED TO ENSURE THAT SERVICE PROVISION WAS AVAILABE AND ACCOUNTABLE, so it may be because some of he oranges were rotten
As for the partially funded 412 at Careflight impossible to run on funding levels.
Did not Careflight convince the government of the day that NGO’s could provide the service required via donations and their charity management? They had a 412 at the commencement of the contract however because of poor accounting, Tax implications or down right stupidity they sold the 412. Careflight tended and lost the last EMS contract, they then lobbied the government and overturned the decision and then complain because they f**ked up the costs required.
If this applies to this future contract the Greater Sydney area will be flying around in squirrels.
CHC is said to be contracted as of MAY to provide 4 x 412’s for its interim measure, is this not now immediately increasing the range, lift and weather capabilities of the current fleet
AW 139 would arrive seven months before CHC, I find it difficult to believe that a NGO could have grater bidding power that CHC when it comes to aircraft acquisition. If this was true and I doubt that it is, we are only talking about one aircraft. So how long would it be before the community receives any change in SERVICE?
CHC has been awarded the contract because they can provide the helicopters required. I would assume that the GOVERNMENT IS COMING IN LINE WITH OTHER STATES (SA, VIC, and QLD) BY PROVIDING ACCOUNTABLE CONTRACTS THAT CAN DELIVER SERVICES WHEN REQUIRED.
We talk slander, well facts are facts and if you won’t slander and miss-truths read the papers and watch the news and don’t forget to log onto the Careflight web site. Anyone would think that there is no other helicopter rescue services in Australia, Careflight failure is that they believe the b*** S*** that they are preaching. As for Doctors well resign Well get on with it. I am sure that the community will cope without them.
Whitehawkup
I fail to see anything that I have stated that has not been available by printed or available via electronic media. So thanks for the reply
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC vs Careflight
Im guessing its just sour grapes over loosing the tender. But what gives careflight the right to the monopoly over EMS operations within NSW just because they have done it for the last however many years.
Im sure their record is nothing like it states on the website, and how many times can you make statistics look good with only half the information passed to the public.
Im sure their record is nothing like it states on the website, and how many times can you make statistics look good with only half the information passed to the public.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes sunnywa has a point you have been a bit loud with your headings Sandblaster (in chat room talk) just drop the big headings and keep the content coming. In regards to Careflight and the selling of the 412, I do recall hearing about a large taxation issue at the time something to do with the way they paid their doctors I also believe that there was a large fine attached.
Can anyone expand on this?
Can anyone expand on this?
Most of you know where I work and who I am, so I can expect a bit of flak. However, I do have some organisational loyalty and I guess some of the above is really beginning to grate on me. I am not going to get into the who should win debate as the government are solely responsible for that and in case you hadn't noticed - have made their decision. But I would like to answer a few critics whom are really insulting both CareFlight and LifeSaver, and by extension, the people who work there.
Before I start, let me say that each organisation is different. Trying to classify the VFR NGOs in QLD as the same animal as LifeSaver or CareFlight is like comparing an B206 tourist operation to CHC. Lets keep the huge generalisations out of it and keep it a little fairer shall we?
The particular sting that gets up my nose is this:
I don't know your background Sandblaster, but please feel free to email me so I have a better understanding. I think the point white hawk was making was that the helicopters were provided free of charge 10 to 15 years before they were contracted, not what the system was like 10 to 15 years ago. What follows here is not a comparison of CHC V CareFlight, it is a reaction to the provocative statements you have made about the systems of NGOs.
Lets be clear about this: an NGO was solely responsible for:
a. introducing the helicopter to EMS in Australia.
b. introducing night capabilities to EMS in Australia.
c. introducing twins to EMS in Australia (although I concede this may be debatable with NSCA).
d. introducing IFR to EMS (although I concede this may be debatable with NSCA).
e. introducing GPS to EMS.
f. introducing GPS/NPA to the Australian aviation industry, and completing the design criteria that is now in use world wide. Westmead hospital was the first GPS/NPA in Australia, and one of the first in the world.
g. introducing trauma doctors and then paramedics to EMS helicopters.
h. founding member of the first integrated safety management system in Australia.
i. Supplying and supporting 5 out of the 6 members of the NVG Industry working group. CHC (until recently) supplied the sixth member.
j. Full motion simulator, integrated flight crew LOFT and CRM courses for EMS in Australia.
That doesn't even begin to illuminate the medical innovations that are equally impressive.
So next time you get paid to strap into your EMS IFR twin with GPS and NVG, or head off to Dubai for some sim training - throw some credit to those who helped make that possible for you instead of piling crap and spouting **** about the system that enabled it all, and more importantly, the people who went the extra yard to make it happen.
Not only did they do it for significantly less money than the market rate, they now face the end of thirty years of work with two weeks notice.
Lastly, I did log into the CareFlight website. For those that want to it is
http://careflight.org/
Obviously I cannot comment, but you pointed out that it was full of lies. We are all waiting for examples.
CHC are a fine company who will do a good job and it is probably not just my opinion when I say that a few rants and raves on Pprune will not get the decision reversed! Nor will the points made on the CareFlight website.
But, if you think that writing provocative crap here is going to achieve anything but personal insult - you need a reality check.
Before I start, let me say that each organisation is different. Trying to classify the VFR NGOs in QLD as the same animal as LifeSaver or CareFlight is like comparing an B206 tourist operation to CHC. Lets keep the huge generalisations out of it and keep it a little fairer shall we?
The particular sting that gets up my nose is this:
The point is, the world has changed and will continue to change. 10, 15 years ago the helicopter system was very different IFR NVG GPS were all unheard of in an EMS system. Dedicated helicopter and medical teams did not exist in Australia. Like it or not, vinyl records were replaced with CD’s and CD’s will be replace with electronic downloads etc. My point is that the track record of NGO’s implementation of the changes required is poor. SO again I stand by my question how long did it take CareFlight and Westpac to be fully compliant to the current contract, simple question I would think.
Lets be clear about this: an NGO was solely responsible for:
a. introducing the helicopter to EMS in Australia.
b. introducing night capabilities to EMS in Australia.
c. introducing twins to EMS in Australia (although I concede this may be debatable with NSCA).
d. introducing IFR to EMS (although I concede this may be debatable with NSCA).
e. introducing GPS to EMS.
f. introducing GPS/NPA to the Australian aviation industry, and completing the design criteria that is now in use world wide. Westmead hospital was the first GPS/NPA in Australia, and one of the first in the world.
g. introducing trauma doctors and then paramedics to EMS helicopters.
h. founding member of the first integrated safety management system in Australia.
i. Supplying and supporting 5 out of the 6 members of the NVG Industry working group. CHC (until recently) supplied the sixth member.
j. Full motion simulator, integrated flight crew LOFT and CRM courses for EMS in Australia.
That doesn't even begin to illuminate the medical innovations that are equally impressive.
So next time you get paid to strap into your EMS IFR twin with GPS and NVG, or head off to Dubai for some sim training - throw some credit to those who helped make that possible for you instead of piling crap and spouting **** about the system that enabled it all, and more importantly, the people who went the extra yard to make it happen.
Not only did they do it for significantly less money than the market rate, they now face the end of thirty years of work with two weeks notice.
Lastly, I did log into the CareFlight website. For those that want to it is
http://careflight.org/
Obviously I cannot comment, but you pointed out that it was full of lies. We are all waiting for examples.
CHC are a fine company who will do a good job and it is probably not just my opinion when I say that a few rants and raves on Pprune will not get the decision reversed! Nor will the points made on the CareFlight website.
But, if you think that writing provocative crap here is going to achieve anything but personal insult - you need a reality check.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vicpol/NVG
Hi Jim,
Yes, VicPol conducted the CASA approved (and attended) NVG trial, though the NVG Industry working group has done a significant amount of recent work in this area. VPAW is not a member of this group, however I believe we were invited.
Just to clarify your post, Vic EMS helicopters, VPAW and CHC carry MICA Paramedics.
Cheers...
Greg - I feel your pain m8
Yes, VicPol conducted the CASA approved (and attended) NVG trial, though the NVG Industry working group has done a significant amount of recent work in this area. VPAW is not a member of this group, however I believe we were invited.
Just to clarify your post, Vic EMS helicopters, VPAW and CHC carry MICA Paramedics.
Cheers...
Greg - I feel your pain m8
Thanks vpaw.
Jim, my comments re the VFR NGO were purely to expose the inaccuracies of generalisations and it was purposely meant not to pass any kind of comment on those organisations. It was quite clear to me that there were inferences from previous posts that these organisations were somehow proof that the NGOs were slow to innovate. I refute that.
I didn't know that either Jim, nor did I say it at any stage. Where on earth did you get that from????
VicPol, as vpaw points out, conducted the trial following more than 10 years of work by Mike Tavcar. Do a simple search here on Pprune for the report and all it's information. They should be (or already are) leading this industry out of the brail method and into Night Vision Ops.
Jim, my comments re the VFR NGO were purely to expose the inaccuracies of generalisations and it was purposely meant not to pass any kind of comment on those organisations. It was quite clear to me that there were inferences from previous posts that these organisations were somehow proof that the NGOs were slow to innovate. I refute that.
I didnt know that Careflight had conducted a CASA approved trial of NVGs, i thought Vic Pol were the ones who did that.
VicPol, as vpaw points out, conducted the trial following more than 10 years of work by Mike Tavcar. Do a simple search here on Pprune for the report and all it's information. They should be (or already are) leading this industry out of the brail method and into Night Vision Ops.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have resisted joining in this debate as so much crap is being spoken by Sandblaster et al about the NGO's - C/F in particular.
JI for your info:
C/F introduced SA365C in October 1988 - I did my initial MECIR 23 April 1990.
I've got 20 years experience in the Military (all three Australian Services plus three or four foreign ones!) and 20 years experience as a civvy - I've done just about everything you can do in a helicopter in and out. I can assure you outside of the Military, CareFlight has one of the tightest Check and Training systems going - equal to any in the world thanks to one man's drive only - the Chief Pilot of the last 20 years.
Just so there is no misunderstanding - the difficulty of Mil helo flying and the standards maintained outstrip the civvy world by miles - daylight is second.
GAGS
E86
JI for your info:
C/F introduced SA365C in October 1988 - I did my initial MECIR 23 April 1990.
I've got 20 years experience in the Military (all three Australian Services plus three or four foreign ones!) and 20 years experience as a civvy - I've done just about everything you can do in a helicopter in and out. I can assure you outside of the Military, CareFlight has one of the tightest Check and Training systems going - equal to any in the world thanks to one man's drive only - the Chief Pilot of the last 20 years.
Just so there is no misunderstanding - the difficulty of Mil helo flying and the standards maintained outstrip the civvy world by miles - daylight is second.
GAGS
E86
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet Fire I substantially agree with your comments above....NGO EMS operators, such as, NRMA Careflight and Surf Life Saver in the NSW area have in the past 15 years certainly contributed to making HEMS more professional by introducing ME IFR 24/7 ops...as it should be. I hope that the majority of the HEMS crew in the Sydney area will continue to be employed by the new contractor as your expertise will be hard to replace.
As to IFR HEMS...I believe that on 01 July 1986 Vic Pol (other than NSCA) commenced operating a dedicated IFR EMS helo on an ambulance MOU with the Vic Health Commission. That is they were operating 24/7 IFR EMS over 20 years ago before any NGO started 24/7 IFR EMS.....I stand to be corrected of course, anyone?
As to IFR HEMS...I believe that on 01 July 1986 Vic Pol (other than NSCA) commenced operating a dedicated IFR EMS helo on an ambulance MOU with the Vic Health Commission. That is they were operating 24/7 IFR EMS over 20 years ago before any NGO started 24/7 IFR EMS.....I stand to be corrected of course, anyone?
A thank you to all concerned
As past owner/editor of Heli-News for 18 years, and past HAA President for three years, I have watched you all grow and mature over three decades. I would like to say thank you here to all those who have brought us to where we are today.
Change does cause pain – there is a training industry explaining why it is so.
I was part of the many Queensland changes; my first experience was as a base manager of an SES Base in Cairns. We had a host of SES volunteers, who gave so much and did so well. They were progressively replaced by professionals, and as we moved up the political chain (to higher HQ) we seemed to lose that closeness with the community. That does not mean we did not get better, we did with new equipment and training based on the mistakes of the past; but that contact with the coal face was a great sounding board for ideas; and sometimes brought us back to reality; as any bureaucrat knows when stepping away for the city office and spending time in the bush during a crisis.
It is sad when change means booting out old traditions and many famous names become faded history with the passing of time; as new people, new owners and different client expectations drive what appears to be a successful system into oblivion.
All the best and well done to those who set the foundations of our industry.
You know who you are - so have a beer on your past efforts.
In conclusion, today’s news says a formal bid for QANTAS has been made by a consortium (overseas?).
Nothing is sacred? Who now owns Vegemite?
Change does cause pain – there is a training industry explaining why it is so.
I was part of the many Queensland changes; my first experience was as a base manager of an SES Base in Cairns. We had a host of SES volunteers, who gave so much and did so well. They were progressively replaced by professionals, and as we moved up the political chain (to higher HQ) we seemed to lose that closeness with the community. That does not mean we did not get better, we did with new equipment and training based on the mistakes of the past; but that contact with the coal face was a great sounding board for ideas; and sometimes brought us back to reality; as any bureaucrat knows when stepping away for the city office and spending time in the bush during a crisis.
It is sad when change means booting out old traditions and many famous names become faded history with the passing of time; as new people, new owners and different client expectations drive what appears to be a successful system into oblivion.
All the best and well done to those who set the foundations of our industry.
You know who you are - so have a beer on your past efforts.
In conclusion, today’s news says a formal bid for QANTAS has been made by a consortium (overseas?).
Nothing is sacred? Who now owns Vegemite?
Quite right NASUS.
It's funny, I was teetering on the edge of changing NGO to non commercial, and I guess I should have! What I meant to highlight in my response was that innovation has seldom come from the private sector in spite of the attacks on this thread. And before I get shot down, seldom does not mean never.
NOR do I mean to infer that private sector operators are not innovative - after all I have spent some years doing just that! Its just that private sector providers have to convince each client to pay for the innovation without a tangible return in most cases. On the other hand, a public sector provider can often fund the innovation despite the "client" and thus demonstrate by example why it was necessary.
It's funny, I was teetering on the edge of changing NGO to non commercial, and I guess I should have! What I meant to highlight in my response was that innovation has seldom come from the private sector in spite of the attacks on this thread. And before I get shot down, seldom does not mean never.
NOR do I mean to infer that private sector operators are not innovative - after all I have spent some years doing just that! Its just that private sector providers have to convince each client to pay for the innovation without a tangible return in most cases. On the other hand, a public sector provider can often fund the innovation despite the "client" and thus demonstrate by example why it was necessary.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet Fire you are quite right! Don't expect innovation to generate from a contractor who will only do what they are contrated to do so. Anything more will eat into their profit margin and lets face it a commercial operator is primarily interested in maximising their profit. Of course if the client wants to do something innovative with the contractor's aircraft the contractor is only to happy to oblige but at their price and terms. The price can be high enough to make you think twice about continuing on with the idea.
Innovation usually comes from the non-commercial organisations, such as, government and NGO's and as I said above, if through a contractor, it will come at a hefty price tag as contractually it is usually not possible to obtain other quotes for work to be done on 'their' aircraft. Not owning your own aircraft can make things difficult if not contractually tied up before hand.
Innovation usually comes from the non-commercial organisations, such as, government and NGO's and as I said above, if through a contractor, it will come at a hefty price tag as contractually it is usually not possible to obtain other quotes for work to be done on 'their' aircraft. Not owning your own aircraft can make things difficult if not contractually tied up before hand.