onetrack Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Rex Airlines has advised the ASC of a trading halt in their shares as they call in a Deloitte "restructuring team" to apparently address major operating and financial issues. It looks like someone has just presented the books for the FY just gone, and the red ink is overwhelming. The CEO grabbed his bags and did a runner last month, maybe he saw the financial tsunami coming. https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02832356-2A1537758&v=70bc033a22188bdfefb8a0b8ad3c24897ef2837d Rex Airlines enters trading halt after Deloitte reportedly called in — Capital Brief WWW.CAPITALBRIEF.COM The news: Regional Express Holdings has entered a trading halt on the ASX, after a media report claimed the regional airline has appointed Deloitte's restructuring services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Been around a long time. Be a shame if they go belly up. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 No sympathy - they and or their insurers, have forced some (??) rural airfields to keep ASIC. This is after the airfield/owners has been told they can dispensed with it. Rex has told owner they will not service their community without ASIC (blackmail!) being continued. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Bit hard on them aren't you? I'm SURE they were under pressure to comply. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted July 29 Author Share Posted July 29 REX's problems are far bigger than requiring airports to have security control and ASIC cards. They are burning up money like a problem gambler at the pokies. They've managed to increase their turnover in the hope of increasing their profits - but the losses continue - and are increasing. They're now trying to compete with Qantas and Virgin on the Melb-Perth-Melb run, using 737's. They've got 10 of them, but I'll wager their profitability is low. REX is "technically insolvent", and without a major corporate revamp and a substantial re-capitalisation, I can see them going the way of Bonza and Compass. Is Regional Express Holdings (ASX:REX) Using Debt In A Risky Way? SIMPLYWALL.ST Howard Marks put it nicely when he said that, rather than worrying about share price volatility, 'The possibility of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 You have to operate the Mel-Syd-Mel run to make the money. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 Fair bit of discussion about this today. Connellan was always subsidised. Had more air Route miles than BEA.. Remote stuff will never pay otherwise. I had a fair bit of respect for Eddie Connellan. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 So you are all okay with an airline (private/commercial operator) essentially forcing an ASIC security environment, where the authorities have decided it's not required??? If you don't comply and get charged, you may have to pay $5k in fines - still okay?????. ASIC, for most rural airfields is a crock of excrement - that a commercial/private operator, can force its implementation, against all reason, is forcing the Australian private pilots, to eat the very same excrement and you're okay with that😈.????? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 I don't think it's the KEY issue here which you seem to want to make it. and don't verbal people if you want a worthwhile debate.. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano747 Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 What 'authorities' decided it's not required ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 3 hours ago, Deano747 said: What 'authorities' decided it's not required ............. Griffith Council/Airfield provided the information - I will try & find the reference and let you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted July 30 Author Share Posted July 30 Rex has currently ceased selling air tickets between capitals until the company problems have been sorted out. They are still taking bookings for regional flights. It is believed that the directors were preparing to appoint EY as Administrators, but the Albanese Govt has been in crisis talks with the company and the Deloitte restructuring team, to ensure that regional cities aren't left without an air service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 There was some kerfuffle at Tulla recently because some feeder Airline PAX weren't Checked. I've experienced a Bomb scare and welcome all security measures that help. Bomb scares are no fun. As to the effectiveness of an ASIC, how it's done is up to the mob who run the Airport and it didn't count for any points towards my last Passport. Rex is a feeder Airline NOT necessarily a Budget one. It goes to the more remote places that wouldn't get any service if they didn't do it and it costs much more per seat kilometer to operate and where there's no servicing of the Plane IF it goes US. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano747 Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 (edited) 2 hours ago, skippydiesel said: Griffith Council/Airfield provided the information - I will try & find the reference and let you know. So a local airfield 'owner' can decide that it's OK for an airline (and REX is an airline) to take passengers from an unsecured airfield and deposit them airside at an international airport ................ Every would be terrorist would be salivating at the thought................ I suspect that the original statement from REX read something along the lines of "We cannot operate out of your airport if it's not ASIC controlled rather that we won't." If an airport operator wants the ability to service major centres, then it must comply with Aviation Security measures. Edited July 30 by Deano747 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Deano747 said: So a local airfield 'owner' can decide that it's OK for an airline (and REX is an airline) to take passengers from an unsecured airfield and deposit them airside at an international airport ................ Every would be terrorist would be salivating at the thought................ I suspect that the original statement from REX read something along the lines of "We cannot operate out of your airport if it's not ASIC controlled rather that we won't." If an airport operator wants the ability to service major centres, then it must comply with Aviation Security measures. You are wrong - Griffith Council had been told that their airfield need not continue with the ASIC requirements. The airline, on threat of ending service, forced Griffith to continue/reinstate the security control measures. It realy doesn't matter what the wording was/is in this case. The take home message is that Griffith airfield (possibly many others) was no longer required to maintain security controlled status - it was the airline that forced this ridiculous ineffectual costly system to be continued. "..........must comply with Aviation Security measures" No offence mate, ASIC has no part to play, in the any effective security of aviation, at small regional airfields, within Australia. There is no logical reason for continuing the ASIC type security requirements at most small regional airfields. Up until recently I thought the continuance of ASIC was due to bureaucratic/political inertia. That an airline is forcing its continuance, is a further descent into unreasoned paranoia, which impacts negatively on private pilots freedom to safely navigate within Australia. Edited July 30 by skippydiesel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 "So a local airfield 'owner' can decide that it's OK for an airline (and REX is an airline) to take passengers from an unsecured airfield and deposit them airside at an international airport ......" It's a quite a while, since I flew overseas or used public transport, to fly between Australian major cities - I have no recollection of small doemstic aircraft, being allowed to disembark passengers onto the airside tarmac UNSUPERVISED!!!!. No offence but this sounds BS. In my imperfect memory, no passengers have ever been allowed airside, without a security escort and that goes way back to the 1950's, long before September 11 & hysterical political responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 I would expect ASIC and checking facilities to be at any airfield with SHEDULED RPT flights. Overseas flights coming to Australia must do it through a Customs facility which is equipped for that also.. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano747 Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 (edited) 55 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: I have no recollection of small doemstic aircraft, being allowed to disembark passengers onto the airside tarmac UNSUPERVISED!!!!. Supervised on the tarmac until unscreened airside entry into domestic terminal. Different into international terminal where they are bussed to the ground side - screening required then to get airside.. I did this for nigh on 39 years until retirement 10 years ago - maybe it's changed since then. ASIC is not for passengers - it determines who is allowed to approach the airplane unsupervised. Still feeling that it was not REX's decision to have an ASIC requirement - it would have been forced upon them by Capitol city airport security requirements. Edited August 1 by Deano747 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Or their Insurers. . Ansett and TAA did these routes with F 27's. No security whatever. At Tennant Creek there were Bars of gold just lying around everywhere and just loaded into the forward cargo hold. Bloody HEAVY and no one thought much about it. Progressive Load summary had you working like a bookmaker's penciller.. Had to carry enough water Meth for 3 takeoffs. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 "Still feeling that it was not REX's decision to have an ASIC requirement - it would have been forced upon them by Capitol city airport security requirements." I certainly don't know the answer, inherent in our question - Who is forcing the continuance of ASIC at small regional airfields? My principal point is - I think most, thought ASIC continuance was/is simply the result of bureaucratic/political inertia. Now we find that big business (airline/ capitol city airports possibly combined with insurers) is forcing the issue . This is a bad to worse situaton, in that we (private pilots) have little if any influence, when big business dictates what we can and can't do when wishing to accessing a public facility (airfield). There is something inherently undemocratic about this situaton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 You're hijacking the main discussion to push your own agenda. Give it a break. There are people out there who need to get to places. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano747 Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 2 hours ago, skippydiesel said: My principal point is - I think most, thought ASIC continuance was/is simply the result of bureaucratic/political inertia. This is a bad to worse situaton, in that we (private pilots) have little if any influence, when big business dictates what we can and can't do when wishing to accessing a public facility (airfield). There is something inherently undemocratic about this situaton. Political - yes, sort of. Security services are generally reactive and need to be seen to be doing something. But if you think that 'they' give a monkeys about GA, then you are in for a world of hurt. GA is collateral damage in the attempt to give the paying public the best security that they can come up with. Is it flawed - yes, but I am really pleased that it is not my job to fix it - merely live with whatever measures are put in place. Oh, and BTW, there are a whole host of public facilities that have various levels of restrictions placed upon them. And yes - back to REX Airlines - I feel for the people affected - I have worked with many fine crew members whose families have been torn apart from this type of fall out from Compass 1 & 2, 1989, Ansett mk2, Bonza .... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 10 hours ago, Deano747 said: Political - yes, sort of. Security services are generally reactive and need to be seen to be doing something. Agreed But if you think that 'they' give a monkeys about GA, then you are in for a world of hurt. Never thought that airlines give a monkey about GA - we are just in the way. GA is collateral damage in the attempt to give the paying public the best security that they can come up with. Nothing to do with security - this is simply BS Is it flawed - yes, but I am really pleased that it is not my job to fix it - merely live with whatever measures are put in place. Baaaaa! Oh, and BTW, there are a whole host of public facilities that have various levels of restrictions placed upon them. Hopefully with obvious good reason And yes - back to REX Airlines - I feel for the people affected - I have worked with many fine crew members whose families have been torn apart from this type of fall out from Compass 1 & 2, 1989, Ansett mk2, Bonza .... I agree, particularly for those in the later years of employment who may have great difficulty finding similar positions elsewhere The point is - ASIC is no longer a knee jerk reaction by our security service/politicians, which gave some level of perverse authority/legitimacy - it's now being enforced by business (airline) which to my mind, is without any legitimacy at all. It's quite possible that your second point " ...if you think that 'they' give a monkeys about GA, then you are in for a world of hurt." may have had some bearing on the forcing the local owner/authority to continue with ASIC, after all it's far easier for a commuter airliner to come screaming in, for a straight in approach, down wind, if there are no/ fewer GA aircarft in the circuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano747 Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 15 hours ago, skippydiesel said: The point is - ASIC is no longer a knee jerk reaction by our security service/politicians, which gave some level of perverse authority/legitimacy - it's now being enforced by business (airline) which to my mind, is without any legitimacy at all. There is one crucial word in your sentence, and that is OUR. ASIC has nothing to do with requirements here in Oz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 3 hours ago, Deano747 said: ASIC has nothing to do with requirements here in Oz. Please explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now