Article: QR hires jet for company tour

[ozbob]

From Courier Mail click here!

QR hires jet for company tour

QR hires jet for company tour
Article from: The Courier-Mail

Steven Wardill

April 30, 2008 12:00am

QUEENSLAND Rail executives hired a luxury jet from one of the state's richest men for a first-class tour of company facilities.
The jet hire was for the QR heads fly themselves and industry analysts on the tour.

While commuters are forced to pack into CityTrain services that regularly arrive late, the State Government-owned company has defended the two-day jaunt, saying it would have taken more than four days on commercial flights.

The trip, on April 14 and 15, was taken on billionaire waste king Terry Peabody's $25million Falcon 2000EX, which carries up to 10 passengers in plush leather seats and comes complete with a bar and entertainment system.

However, Queensland Rail yesterday refused to release the costs, claiming the fee for chartering the jet through Hawker Pacific was "commercial in confidence".

QR chairman John Prescott and chief executive officer Lance Hockridge headed the jet jaunt to Sydney, Newcastle and Mackay.

The trip also included analysts from leading stockbroking firms and journalists, including one from The Courier-Mail.

The revelation comes on the heels of the so-called "gravy train affair" in which QR officials put on a private train so the Labor Party's transport committee could tour stations.

QR said a decision was taken to hire the jet so the trip would be reduced to two days, which was in line with normal commercial practices.

"Using scheduled flights would have taken more than four days, which would have been unacceptable and made the trip logistically unfeasible," a statement said.

QR denied the decision to take analysts signalled a sell off, saying informing the market and the media about the company's efforts was a potential money-spinner. "QR has a great story to tell but to date it's not been represented as strongly as it could be," the statement said.

Transport Minister John Mickel last night said he was aware of the trip and it was crucial that QR spread the information about its capabilities in the face of competition.

However, Opposition transport spokesman Tim Nicholls dubbed the trip the "gravy plane affair", saying the Government should reveal the cost.

"I am sure there are plenty of commuters in southeast Queensland who would appreciate a trip on a luxury jet," he said.

[ozbob]

Not sure what the real point of this article is.  I think under some circumstances it may be more cost effective to hire a jet and conduct the business affairs in the quick time.

Such tours would take a while by rail   

Particularly in view of the limited passenger services at this time  .....

Cheers
Ozbob

[Derwan]

While commuters are forced to pack into CityTrain services that regularly arrive late, the State Government-owned company has defended the two-day jaunt, saying it would have taken more than four days on commercial flights.

I'm not necessarily defending the jet-hire, but it is unfair to relate decisions made by corporate-funded QR with the inaction of the tax-payer funded government.

Funds for public transport come from tax-payers.  Funds for the jet trip came from revenue generated by QR's corporate functions.

[Fares_Fair]

Hello Derwan,

Just playing the advocate here ...

How do QR corporate functions generate income ?

They certainly don't make any money out of sponsoring the Queensland Reds Rugby Union
team using tax-payer funds do they ?

[Derwan]

Just playing the advocate here ...

How do QR corporate functions generate income ?

They certainly don't make any money out of sponsoring the Queensland Reds Rugby Union team using tax-payer funds do they ?

By "corporate functions" I mean the corporate/business arm of QR (e.g. general freight, coal transport, etc).  This was the idea of "corporatising" QR.  It generates and runs off its own revenue.

Sponsorship can be a way of improving the awareness and image of a business.  QR would not be using tax-payer funds for sponsorship.  It would be revenue they've raised from their corporate arm.

[Fares_Fair]

By "corporate functions" I mean the corporate/business arm of QR (e.g. general freight, coal transport, etc).  This was the idea of "corporatising" QR.  It generates and runs off its own revenue.

Sponsorship can be a way of improving the awareness and image of a business.  QR would not be using tax-payer funds for sponsorship.  It would be revenue they've raised from their corporate arm.

Thank you for the clarification, Derwan.

I appreciate your point, but will agree to disagree.
I believe that those monies should go towards improving passenger commuter services.
Not for private plane flights for QR elites, the money should be put back into the network.

Are you sure that that is the case re: tax-payers money and sponsorship ?

It was the government's decision to 'corporatise' public utilities and I disagree with such actions on principle, primarily because the Government should not market basic public services as user-pays services, it is to provide these services with the taxation remuneration that it extracts from us all.

I believe that sponsorship of private rugby league by QR, a government utility, is reprehensible.
They are a monopoly, there is no need for that type of 'awareness'.
There is no competition to compete for the public fares.

That's my firm view.

[Derwan]

Thank you for the clarification, Derwan.

I appreciate your point, but will agree to disagree.
I believe that those monies should go towards improving passenger commuter services.
Not for private plane flights for QR elites, the money should be put back into the network.

Are you sure that that is the case re: tax-payers money and sponsorship ?

Without details, I am not able to form an opinion on the hiring of the jet.  We were not advised why the trip took place - only that it did.  It could have been for some very important business meetings that could potentially land QR some multi-million-dollar contracts.  It could've just been a joyride!

Regarding money for sponsorship, this is only what I assume - so no I'm not sure.  I don't even know if income from different sources (e.g. from government for Citytrain services verses income from freight) is kept separate or goes into one big pile that they use for everything (including sponsorship).