[Peetwo]

ASA & the rapidly diminishing trough-  


I take it all back on Harfwit as ASA CEO, he is the perfect, pimped up little sociopath for the job, courtesy Binger on the Oz... :

Airservices Australia cost-cutting plan eyes 900 staff

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM July 8, 2016
  

[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/4c134add4c3a9e4881f7841b69d9ac85/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget[/img]
Airservices Australia chief Jason Harfield. Picture: Ray Strange

Airservices Australia has earmarked up to 900 jobs for redundancy as it begins a wide-ranging transformation process to slash costs more than $100 million.

The organisation will report a loss — its first in two decades — of more than $10m this financial year amid spiralling costs. It made a $4.5m profit last financial year.

Airservices, with more than 4400 staff, manages air traffic at the ­nation’s major airports as well as co-ordinating on-site rescue and firefighting services.

While it continues to pull in more than $1 billion a year in ­revenue — mostly fees paid by ­airlines — costs continue to eclipse its income, blamed on backroom ­inefficiencies and stalling airline fees.

A 12-month plan — internally titled “Accelerate” — to arrest the growth in costs has begun.

In an email to staff last week, Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield said the organisation would accept “at least” 600 voluntary redundancies.

“In support of your decision to express interest in pursuing other opportunities, the Airservices board yesterday resolved that, under the Accelerate Program, we will accept at least 600 voluntary redundancies from permanent Airservices staff excluding operational and rostered air traffic controllers and aviation rescue fire fighters,” it said.

The Australian understands Airservices has already cut more than 250 Level three and four managers from its ranks. Level three managers typically head up specific branches and departments in Airservices while Level 4 managers operate on a rung below that.

Insiders at Airservices say the cuts have come after an eight-year period of unsustainable growth in staff numbers.

Much of that growth had been a result of pressure to implement its $1.5bn OneSKY project to integrate the civilian and military air traffic control and navigation systems with new radar in a state-of-the-art system by 2021.

“Roles across special projects like OneSKY and corporate functions have grown out of control,” said one source. “Unfortunately, it’s a big number of people to go, but it could get bigger if the changes don’t start turning this battleship around.”

A spokeswoman for Airservices declined to confirm the loss of 900 staff, but said “streamlining” its corporate centre was necessary. “Our financial performance over the past five years has declined, and our current operating model and way of doing business that has served our industry well is no longer sustainable,” she said.

“There are no predetermined numbers for the reduction of staff, but up to 600 voluntary redundancies will be offered to permanent staff, excluding operational and rostered air traffic controllers and aviation rescue fire fighters.

“The new operating model has also significantly reduced the number of senior and middle management roles … We recognise this creates uncertainty for our staff and that is why we are moving ­forward with the necessary changes as quickly as possible.”

The cuts come as the organisation’s financial credibility was dealt a blow yesterday when ­Standard & Poor’s downgraded its ­outlook from stable to negative, following its decision to place ­Australia’s prized AAA sovereign debt rating on “negative” watch.

“Any movement on any rating or outlook on the commonwealth would have an identical impact on Airservices,” the ratings agency said.

“Airservices’ stand-alone credit quality could worsen if the ­company were to achieve an unfavourable outcome for the next long-term pricing agreement with airlines or if the timing of its OneSKY program were to ­increase its capital expenditure materially higher than our base case.”

 
If I were the PM in the next government, I'd be seriously considering the flogging off of ASA before Harfwit (& his grubby executive team) totally decimate the estimated sale price that the FER were originally working with:

ASA at Estimates 05/05/16 - Hansard

...Senator STERLE: Are you able to point us in what areas they are at this stage?

Mr Mrdak : In terms of the department itself, they predominantly range around some specific functions which could be considered for no longer continuing. Some areas that have been identified include the performance of some functions such as the administration of financial assistance to local government and other payment processes, which could be considered for centralisation in other areas of government such as the Department of Finance; and ceasing areas such as the department's performance of activities in maritime regulation, and whether that better sits with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. It also indicates areas where government may wish to consider larger structural changes, such as considering the future of Airservices Australia.

Senator STERLE: How?

Mr Mrdak : Whether the government wishes to consider future options for different governance and ownership arrangements for some of our statutory bodies, including Airservices Australia.

Senator STERLE: So that could be outsourcing?

Mr Mrdak : It could be or it could be looking at taking it into different ownership structures to what they currently are.

Senator STERLE: What could they be? The reason I am asking is: we all know for Airservices Australia there is no competition, and it is quite a bit of a money earner for the government. Could you shine a light for us on how that could be done in a different way?

Mr Mrdak : The Functional and Efficiency Review did look at international examples of where governments have placed their air traffic control provider—air services provider—in different governance structures, particularly the United Kingdom and Canada, where they have been placed in either part-private ownership or a not-for-profit government body. They were models that were looked at in the scope. The Functional and Efficiency Review recommended that we consider further options for the future of Airservices Australia..

   
While contemplating the sale of ASA it is also becoming quite obvious that the flow of funds to the OneSKY trough is rapidly drying up. This potentially could mean either a long drawn out and expensive project (much like the NBN) that never really matches expectations; or  the OneSKY project is doomed to be discretely but permanently shelf-wared, along with all the other grandiose infrastructure thought bubbles -  

This would still leave Airservices without a program of future development to be able to manage the forecast increase capacity of air traffic in the future. However perhaps with a little thinking outside the box, with far less trough-feeding going on, there is some very real & affordable options available: 

One of the major stumbling blocks to harmony seems to be the great airspace debate.  Lots of clear sky, little enough traffic and miles and miles of sweet bugger all.  A huge area with ego’s to match and no one willing to concede an inch of it.  I’m no expert – trying to stay out of bother is the best I can do; but there are some.  Anyway – as part of an exploratory gambit, prompted by the One-Sky white elephant I wasted a little time looking about the net and I found the UK CAA had some very informative stuff related.  

I can’t debate the ‘concept’ – not qualified – however as a well constructed, informative service to dunderheads I thought it terrific.  The Brits move a shed load of traffic and seem to have done the best they can with what they have.  Their attitude, approach, model and proposed changes make sense to me.

FWIW, the link will take you – HERE – if you have an interest in ‘airspace’ the site is worth a visit.

Toot toot.

Just saying -  



MTF...P2