kandm wrote:Firehawk, as an ambassador, you certainly paint a professional picture.
It would be near impossible attempting to look at your position from a critical point of view, and he is who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
I have read the annual reviews; I don't pretend to know the 'grey' financial workings that occur in the background, however, you can quickly see the charity side of things is a relatively small contributor to your bottom line.
Reading the glitter words of the original News article is annoying. But hey, that is just News in general. What other option do you have though? Admit that it was a poor decision to place the aircraft in location because of the restrictions that come with the lease arrangement? Do penalties now apply? Is it now going somewhere warmer/drier? Imagine if Toll turned around tomorrow, pulled a 139 from the Gong' and replaced it with a second hand 412, citing this would be more suitable for the operating environment (perhaps a little cheaper, too). No. The NSW Government would probably make their money back with the penalties that would accompany that sort of decision.
As you've said, I'm sure you're doing a great job with the money that was on the table, could it have been done better? Maybe. It's these sort of decisions without proper, holistic oversight and accountability that continue to breed mediocrity.
I don't work for them, but I do like to correct the fiction that gets tossed around as fact on social media these days.
You've changed your tune though now that your incorrect opinion has been called out. Why the 'professional' change of tune?
Is there a contractual requirement for a 139 on the Sunny Coast? Be interesting to know!