Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Things that go bump in the night,
(06-06-2017, 11:51 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: Update on Trumps plan to 'make air traffic control great again'

In a parallel world still far far away, Trump Announces Plan To Privatize Air Traffic Control

In part, the article about the FAA and El Presidento said;

President Trump announced Monday a plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system — a move that would remove the job of tracking and guiding airplanes from the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration. "Today we're proposing to take American air travel into the future, finally," Trump said.
The nation's air traffic control system was designed when far fewer people flew, Trump said, calling it "stuck, painfully, in the past." He also called the system "ancient, broken, antiquated" and "horrible" and said his reforms would make it safer and more reliable.
The FAA has worked to upgrade its system, but Trump and other critics say it was taking far too long. "Honestly, they didn't know what the hell they were doing," Trump said. "A total waste of money."

Link here;

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574945/...ic-control

Interesting article as the similarity with Australia's issues are comparable. I guess the difference is that at least Trump seems to understand the issues. That's what happens when a real businessman knows his shit from the ground up, unlike the pole sliding Houston, blue blooded Turdball and the sheltered workshop pedicure loving Harfwit. These Muppets wouldn't to know an ATC controllers screen from a barium enema!

Can you imagine the spineless Malcolm Turdball, the trough addicted Houston or the conceited Electric Blue Harfwit bowing to such a proposal?? I agree, very unlikely...

"Safe, protected, bureaucratic troughs for all"

Good catch Gobbles - Wink

Here is another article courtesy USA Today:

Quote:In infrastructure push, Trump seeks to privatize air traffic control system

David Jackson and Bart Jansen , USA TODAY Published 10:25 a.m. ET June 5, 2017 | Updated 10 hours ago





President Donald Trump plans to lay out his vision for overhauling the nation's air traffic control system, outlining his goals to privatize the system. USA TODAY

[Image: 636322520798810950-AP-TRUMP-FINANCIAL-RE...391236.JPG]

President Trump(Photo: Alex Brandon, AP)

WASHINGTON – As President Trump braces for potentially explosive congressional testimony this week from ex-FBI Director James Comey, the White House on Monday kicked off a week-long promotion of various infrastructure proposals, starting with a long-shot plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system.

Hailing "a great new era in American aviation," Trump said his plan would reduce the number of flight delays and wait times that cost consumers millions of dollars. "We live in a modern age," Trump said during a ceremony at White House, "but our air traffic control system is stuck, painfully, in the past."

While specifics on how to upgrade the nation's roads and bridges are still being developed, Trump on Monday said he would urge Congress to pass a plan to put the nation's air traffic control system in private hands. It calls for creating a private, nonprofit corporation, with airlines contributing fees rather than the taxes they now pay the government to cover the approximately $10 billion annual cost for air-traffic control.

“After billions and billions of tax dollars spent, and the many years of delays, we’re still stuck with an ancient, broken, antiquated, horrible system that doesn’t work,” Trump said. “Other than that it’s quite good.”

In the coming days, Trump and other administration officials will call on states, cities, and private companies to pay more for rebuilding roads, bridges, railways, airports, and other types of infrastructure. The schedule includes meetings with members of Congress, a Wednesday speech in Cincinnati, and an "infrastructure summit" Thursday with various governors and mayors at the White House.

Some Democratic lawmakers said Trump really doesn't have an infrastructure plan. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said in a tweet that Trump "is NOT proposing money for infrastructure. It's tax cuts for financiers, privatizing public property. Not infrastructure."

And the Senate's top Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Trump's infrastructure ideas boil down to "privatization," which means "less construction and far fewer jobs, particularly in rural areas. It means Trump tolls from one end of America to the other."

Thursday is also the day Comey is set to testify before Congress, a high-profile event likely to center on the ongoing investigation into links between Trump's presidential campaign last year and Russians who sought to influence the election by hacking Democrats.

In firing Comey last month, Trump cited performance issues, while critics accused him trying to close down the Russia investigation. The Justice Department later appointed ex-FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation.

Associates of Comey said the former director kept notes of his conversations with Trump, including of a February meeting in which the president asked Comey to lay off an ongoing investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – a topic that is sure to come up at the hearing.

Trump, meanwhile, reportedly told Russian officials in an Oval Office meeting that Comey was a "nut job," and that his dismissal would help get the Russia issue behind him.
With Comey on Capitol Hill, the White House appears to be trying to change the conversation.

Moving air-traffic control out of the Federal Aviation Administration has been debated periodically since the 1990s, but never approved by Congress. Trump’s proposal would be modeled on Canada’s system, which is run a private board of industry stakeholders rather than the government.

Trump’s principles seek to improve legislation approved in 2016 in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that never got a vote in the full House or Senate. The debate resumed as part of renewing FAA legislation that expires Sept. 30.
Hearings are scheduled Wednesday in the Senate and Thursday in the House.

The corporation’s 13-member board would begin with eight members appointed by the transportation secretary, with two representing airlines, two for unions, one for airports, one for general aviation and two for the government. Those eight would choose a chief executive officer, and then that board would choose another four independent board members. But no seats would be assigned to specific interests after the initial board is seated.

“There will not be designated seats by interest group," said D.J. Gribbin, special assistant to the president for infrastructure.

Airlines and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association supported the 2016 bill as a way to have more predictable funding than provided by annual spending fights in Congress that have led to furloughs and shutdowns in recent years.

“I strongly support the president’s continuing recognition that modernizing our country’s air traffic control service is one of the most important infrastructure investments we can make,” Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., whose 2016 bill laid the groundwork for Trump’s proposal, said May 24 of Trump’s budget.

Besides smoother funding, airlines and supportive lawmakers contend that the corporation would modernize equipment and training faster than FAA. Government watchdogs have criticized FAA for slow progress on shifting controllers from directing planes by ground-based radar to satellite-based GPS.

But the proposal has critics among airlines, general-aviation groups and in Congress.

“There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between President Trump’s plan and Chairman Shuster’s proposal, both of which would hand over America’s skies to a private corporation, free of charge,” said Rep. Donald M. Payne Jr., D-N.J.

The top Democrat on Shuster’s committee, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., worried about how the corporation would set fees on airlines, general aviation and business jets. While FAA had problems a decade ago, the agency is modernizing now in ways that could be hurt by privatization, he said.

“The bottom line is this could be very disruptive,” DeFazio said.  “I fear that actually this could set us back in deploying new technology.”

Delta Air Lines opposed the 2016 bill because of concerns it would disrupt air-traffic control at a time when FAA is making improvements.

General-aviation groups opposed the legislation because of concerns about how they would be charged under the private system and the possibility that airlines would be favored over private pilots at busy airports.

In describing the plan, a statement from the Trump administration said all users of the system would pay their fair share, but it assured access to general aviation and to rural communities.

The leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which decides with House counterparts how much to spend each year on FAA, said the proposal doesn’t appear to make sense. Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in a Feb. 28 letter that consumers would have no recourse for complaints or mistreatment as they currently enjoy through the Transportation and Congress

Meanwhile in a parallel hemisphere where (much like the "A-word") it is not PC to talk about the "P-word"... Dodgy - Muppet 6D effectively announces that the government has full faith in the Harfwit administration & Sir A oversight of Airservices, while giving the green light to more wanton, ATP funded, OneSKY trough feeding Undecided :

Quote:Sir Angus signs to stay with Airservices Australia
Media Release
DC150/2017
02 June 2017

  • Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Rtd) reappointed to Airservices Australia (Airservices) Board as the Chair.
  • Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell reappointed for two-year terms.
The Australian Government has reappointed Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Rtd) as the Chair of the Board of Airservices Australia for a further one year term.

Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said Sir Angus Houston brought extensive aviation experience to this critically important role, ensuring Airservices future delivery of safe and efficient air traffic services.

“In addition, Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell have been reappointed for a further two years, to help the Board oversee the acquisition of a new air traffic management system for Australia,” Mr Chester said.

“These reappointments will also ensure valuable finance, safety and governance expertise is retained. - Code for the OneSKY trough fund will be nurtured and greedily protected... Dodgy

“Airservices is moving to replace its air traffic management system as part of a major capital expenditure and investment program of more than $1 billion over the next five years, to enhance the safety, efficiency and capacity of the national network, and meet anticipated growth in the industry.

“That is why having strong leadership will be essential in meeting the goals of Airservices Australia and why I am delighted to make this announcement,” Mr Chester said. - UDB! Does this Muppet have the first blind clue about what's been going on in the other house... Huh

Here is a reminder: Hansard 2nd Estimates session Australian National Audit Office


Quote:Senator GALLACHER: The CEO's contention was that specialist people looking at specialist areas discussing these matters did not resolve that, but they had had the appropriate discussions at their level but did not actually minute it and say why they were going a particular way.

Ms Mellor : That is clearly what we found. The organisation proffered to you that we did not talk to anyone. We are looking for records in procurement that evidence decision making and are contemporaneous to the decision-making process. Interviewing people after the fact—there were many involved—is not quality evidence against our standards.

Senator GALLACHER: That is exactly what I was trying to capture when I had that line of questioning. If you ask me for my recollections of a meeting six months ago, without contemporaneous notes they are unlikely to be accurate. That is just human nature. That is why we have minutes of notes.

Dr Ioannou : The key is the contemporaneous record of course. While the procurement rules do not apply in this case they set some good guidance, even for entities of this sort, around how to maintain transparency and accountability. In these sorts of processes, good record keeping is the basis for that and contemporaneous record keeping is, of course, the basis for an evidence based process such as an audit.

Mr Simpson : If I could just elaborate on that specific issue of monetising the risk assessment. The relevant section is on page 38 of the report. What we were looking for were clearly defined processes and communicated processes about how that would be undertaken and then the documentation of the delivery of that process—so the two elements that you would expect in a procurement process. Tender evaluation plans generally set out quite detailed arrangements and requirements to be complied with and then normally they are assessed against that.

In relation to the exercise undertaken by the tender evaluation committee, we found that there was no planned methodology for how this analysis would be undertaken. We could not identify that it had been clearly flagged to tenderers or set out in the tender evaluation plan that such an analysis would be undertaken. Further, the risk adjustment activity undertaken by the committee was not subject to probity scrutiny—so another key control in a procurement process that if you are undertaking an activity, then it is part of the probity considerations. As we mentioned earlier in the report, that element was not considered. When we raised this matter with Airservices, they advised us that there was limited evidence that the tender evaluation committee members agreed to the method of the cost risk adjustment activities. Again, not just going on paperwork; we went back to the organisation to confirm the understanding that we had and the confirmation we got that there was limited evidence to indicate that that had been the agreed methodology.

We also go on to highlight some of the inadequacies in the records in paragraph 3.57, where we lead-in by saying:

Further, the TEC's adjustment of tenderer prices to reflect its assessment of risk and contingency was not undertaken through a transparent and accountable process.

While there were minutes taken of those meetings, they were generally setting out 'the duration of each meeting, the people involved and the decisions reached'.

Importantly, 'The meeting minutes provided little insight into the analysis that was undertaken, or the factors taken into account.' So we can see a decision that has been taken from the records, but what informed that decision was not available from those records.

I think the other point that I would make is that later on, when a board member questioned the process, that board member was advised that the relevant information that he needed to refer to was in the attached spreadsheets. As part of this audit, we analysed those spreadsheets, and there is quite a detailed table, table 3.1 on page 40, which highlights what the financial evaluation working group's findings were and then the changes made by the tender evaluation committee. We can see, in a number of cases, no evidence to indicate why amounts were changed or why risks were changed between those two assessments. As Ms Mellor and Dr Ioannou indicated, our understanding is that, for a procurement process of this complexity, there are a number of requirements around contemporaneous record keeping, and we were not able to see those to form our judgement. On that basis, we cannot confirm the appropriateness of those processes, because we do not know the underlying decision-making process.

Senator GALLACHER: Was the board member satisfied at the direction to go to the spreadsheet?

Mr Simpson : We say in paragraphs 3.61 and 3.62:

In response, the TEB was advised by a member of the TEC that: 'the complete analysis was presented in annexes to the Phase 3 TEC Report' … The TEB relied on the TEC member's assurance for the criterion 4 evaluation method and subsequently approved the TEC's recommendation.

That highlights that they relied on that advice.

Senator GALLACHER: All board members are different, but they might have seen that as validation of a correct protocol which you found not to be substantially visible. It might be visible and it might be appropriate, but you cannot see it in hindsight. There are no notes or decision-making records.

Mr Simpson : Again, the end decision is not enough in itself unless you can understand what factors contributed to that decision.

CHAIR: The only people, it would seem, who could mount the case for the process despite the lack of transparency and the failure to communicate properly would be those individuals who are defending their own decision. There is no way to independently evaluate. We know that, because you have given evidence to that effect. So, even if we go back now to interrogate individuals on this issue to try to dig down, we can only work with individuals who made the decisions.

Ms Mellor : I think that is part of the difficulty when you do not have clean records with reasons for decisions in them. People's recollections are framed against the passage of time.

CHAIR: Confession is good for the soul, but it is not often practised. I think we have to ask some serious questions here. Let me ask these question, first of all, before I put something to you. Knowing what you know about the evaluation process, can this process be backed up—before I ask you whether it should be backed up—without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, if they have to go back to a point where, up until then, everyone is reasonably satisfied that due process has delivered a fair and equitable assessment? I have a thing that I do with my son in business. We get a blank sheet of paper and one of those big black felt pens and, for everything bad about something we are about to make a decision on, we put a dot on the page. It soon becomes evident that maybe this is not something you should pursue. This here has so many features, going all the way back to the governance issues in the first tranche of your work. I am just at a point where I am concerned. With a billion-dollar tender, we are now negotiating with the only one left standing. We do not even have competitive tension left in the place. Is there a way that this process could be rewound back a notch, or two or three notches, back to phase 2, and for us then to move forward again with better processes?

Ms Mellor : I might get Dr Ioannou to speak to that. I think the difficulty is that we cannot call it either way because of the lack of evidence. Whether a procurement can be unwound is a difficult sort of technical question for procurement specialists that work in the law and the guidelines more deeply. Dr Ioannou might have a view about that. The difficulty is that it is hard to see without the evidence about the pricing adjustments what actually went on other than that there were prices or amounts put against different risk factors as per table 3.1.

CHAIR: Do you know whether Mr Bradfield is still involved in this part of the process?

Ms Mellor : I think we can cross-reference between the timings on the two reports—

CHAIR: I think there is evidence that he was and that it was only—

Ms Mellor : I think Mr Harfield said in his earlier evidence that the contract with that person ended in October 2015. Some of this was happening in that time frame.

CHAIR: I think he said he was there past phase 4. There is some talk that he—as a consultant.

Ms Mellor : I have to say against the background that the governance structure—by having multiple committees, multiple people, evaluation criteria et cetera—puts in place some risk mitigation for some of the issues that were raised before.

CHAIR: It does Ms Mellor, but wouldn't you agree that if you were designing a system—and they have been alerted to the potential conflict; I do not want to reflect upon Mr Bradfield; he may be a wonderful man—to leave someone in the process all the way to the end, you can influence processes without apparently having a conflict or demonstrating a conflict of interest? You can build relationships and subtly do things and make a suggestion, plant seeds and do all sorts of things.

It is of real concern to me that we are now about to spend a billion dollars that this process is here to oversight and we have got all these features left in it. I used the term earlier that it was 'untidy'. You cannot give us an assurance that we got value for money. You cannot give us an assurance whether there was subjective behaviour on the part of decision makers because you do not have sufficient records to do it. There are important issues in your evidence that is contradicted by Airservices. They are not in total agreement with your findings. We are not going to ask you to express an opinion but—

Ms Mellor : I certainly would not give you one.

CHAIR: No, I appreciate that, otherwise I would have asked you by now. The fact of the matter is, I suppose, technically can it be rewound to a point where we think we are back onto safe sand?

Remember that particular ANAO session ended with this:

CHAIR: All right, thank you ladies and gentlemen. We appreciate your attendance, and safe travel back to wherever you are going. Just before you call Airservices back, Mr Mrdak, we have had some private discussions about this. We do not want to just go round and round in circles, and so I think we might elevate this and invite the board of Airservices to come along and discuss this national audit report. I do not see any benefit in going round with the Airservices personnel at the moment.



 


More information about Airservices Australia is available at www.airservicesaustralia.com.
   
Hmm...I would suggest that Muppet 6D's scriptwriters should be given the bureaucratic 'long drop' because they have now effectively got the miniscule to sign a confession of complicity on the government's ownership of the OneSKY tender duck-up... Confused

MTF...P2 Cool  

Ps
Quote:Senator XENOPHON: ...I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield : I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield : If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield : I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield : There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield : I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield : We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.
 How any Crown miniscule in their right mind would blindly state that they have full faith in the governance procedures and executive administration of ASA when the CEO can't even demonstrate compliance and/or transparency with his obligations to the FOI Act is beyond me... Undecided
Reply
The cleanest anus in Parliament House

Minister for Bryl cream, selfies, pedicures and manscaping said;

"Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said Sir Angus Houston brought extensive aviation experience to this critically important role, ensuring Airservices future delivery of safe and efficient air traffic services.

“In addition, Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell have been reappointed for a further two years, to help the Board oversee the acquisition of a new air traffic management system for Australia,” Mr Chester said."


Yes Miniscule NFI 6D, the Board have done a wonderful job - issues with Staib, issues with Electric Blue, credit card fraud, a monopoly LOSING money, One Sky farce, unflattering audit reports, a gutting and restructure of the organisation in which virtually no safety risk assessment was undertaken, million dollar Consultants, fu#ked up Tender process and damning evidence of antiquated and non conforming infrastructure in various parts of Australia. And what does the Minister do? APPOINTS HARFWIT AS CEO, AND THEN REHIRES HOUSTON AND TWO OF THE OTHER BOARD MUPPETS AGAIN!!

The only two things Harfwit and the Board have achieved is a) taking a profitable organisation into the red, and b) making sure Chester has the cleanest Ministerial anus in Can'tberra and certainly Parliament House. If you did a DNA swab of 6D's anus you would find traces of the Board's saliva.

The wheels on the bus go round and round.........
Reply
The wheels on the bus go round and round........Looking for a suitable 'bump'; the ASA bus stop is looking good. Class action for a ' no class' act.
Reply
Spokesmuppet said;

"It would be inappropriate to comment on individual matters. Airservices is willing to engage with relevant parties to resolve any outstanding employment issues."

The old chestnut of 'no comment' gets pulled out of the pile yet again. It's a weasel method that the gutless Houston has used many many times throughout his bottom cleansing career. I wonder if that other corporate arse licker and author of complete shite, Creepy, has a rock solid contract just like ASA's executive tier?? I'm sure he does.....

Tick 'lick lick' Tock
Reply
But; it’s last years model dear,.

When the time comes to look at the maintenance bills for your old car, you do the sums. Particularly when the needed repairs will come at serious cost; then, even when you have spent the money; you still have the same old vehicle with a new transmission and tyres and a grim forecast for the next needed repairs. Two options; complete refit, rebuild and paint – or a new machine; with a warranty, compared to the uncertainty of reliability from the old machine.  Yep: trade in time – provided you can finance the new model.

When you take a long, realistic look at ASA you realise it is decision time. The time, labour and expense required to return the service to what it was, to finish up with the same vehicle; seems pointless. The ‘government’ was quite prepared to support the finance for a brand new one, with all the latest bells and whistles; so, unless the vehicle is a ‘classic’ and restoring it to mint condition improves the value – why would you contemplate restoration?

ASA is in a complete shambles - from soup to nuts; tea  lady to top brass – disarray. There will never be a better time, politically or operationally to draw a line on the ledger and start again. Estimates makes mention of some AUD 84 millions invested in ‘investigating and assessing’ a new system of air traffic management. I say that amount and more, is wasted through inefficiency every year. ASA lay claim to 11% of the worlds airspace - it does not manage 11% of the worlds traffic – far from it. In fact, if you took the total area of ‘airways’ managed, the picture would show a different proportion. ASA manage lots of wide open, thinly trafficked airspace – which hardly ever has an aircraft operating in it; let alone ‘traffic’.  I am certain Alan Joyce could magic some figures to show what delays and holding cost his company, across the fleet, on a daily basis – I’d even bet the ‘numbers’ would shock even Darren 6D into action.

There is a veritable fortune spent on the ‘top layers’ of management for this decrepit system. Yet the ‘big savings’ are made by reducing staff numbers; provided the mooted class action does not get up; which will, if it gets up, take the shine off even that small, faux saving.

I could rattle on about ineptitude, cronyism, perks, waste, loss of revenue, costs to air services etc. there is quite a long list of repairs needed. Would it not be better to put together a small panel to simply sit at home and review the modern systems available now and even some of those slated for the future; develop a plan, get government approval and ‘financial’ backing for the company which came up with the best deal and then privatise the thing as a not for profit enterprise. Can’t work you say; well, let me direct your attention to Canada a very similar nation – aviation wise – but with lots more ‘terrain’ and weather considerations than Australia. No, not ‘the’ perfect system – but streets ahead of this sorry wreck Australia should be ashamed of.

Can the minister provide a master plan for taking Australia into the 20th century, if he can’t envision the 21st.  Wacha mean – wrong tree – bark where it best pleases me, least I’m not chasing cars anymore…..

Toot – woof – toot.
Reply
(06-07-2017, 08:33 AM)Peetwo Wrote:
(06-06-2017, 11:51 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: Update on Trumps plan to 'make air traffic control great again'

In a parallel world still far far away, Trump Announces Plan To Privatize Air Traffic Control

In part, the article about the FAA and El Presidento said;

President Trump announced Monday a plan to privatize the nation's air traffic control system — a move that would remove the job of tracking and guiding airplanes from the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration. "Today we're proposing to take American air travel into the future, finally," Trump said.
The nation's air traffic control system was designed when far fewer people flew, Trump said, calling it "stuck, painfully, in the past." He also called the system "ancient, broken, antiquated" and "horrible" and said his reforms would make it safer and more reliable.
The FAA has worked to upgrade its system, but Trump and other critics say it was taking far too long. "Honestly, they didn't know what the hell they were doing," Trump said. "A total waste of money."

Link here;

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574945/...ic-control

Interesting article as the similarity with Australia's issues are comparable. I guess the difference is that at least Trump seems to understand the issues. That's what happens when a real businessman knows his shit from the ground up, unlike the pole sliding Houston, blue blooded Turdball and the sheltered workshop pedicure loving Harfwit. These Muppets wouldn't to know an ATC controllers screen from a barium enema!

Can you imagine the spineless Malcolm Turdball, the trough addicted Houston or the conceited Electric Blue Harfwit bowing to such a proposal?? I agree, very unlikely...

"Safe, protected, bureaucratic troughs for all"

Good catch Gobbles - Wink

Here is another article courtesy USA Today:

Quote:In infrastructure push, Trump seeks to privatize air traffic control system





Meanwhile in a parallel hemisphere - Muppet 6D effectively announces that the government has full faith in the Harfwit administration & Sir A oversight of Airservices, while giving the green light to more wanton, ATP funded, OneSKY trough feeding Undecided :

Quote:Sir Angus signs to stay with Airservices Australia
Media Release
DC150/2017
02 June 2017

  • Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Rtd) reappointed to Airservices Australia (Airservices) Board as the Chair.
  • Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell reappointed for two-year terms.
The Australian Government has reappointed Sir Angus Houston AK, AFC (Rtd) as the Chair of the Board of Airservices Australia for a further one year term.

Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said Sir Angus Houston brought extensive aviation experience to this critically important role, ensuring Airservices future delivery of safe and efficient air traffic services.

“In addition, Mr David Marchant and Mr Tim Rothwell have been reappointed for a further two years, to help the Board oversee the acquisition of a new air traffic management system for Australia,” Mr Chester said.

“These reappointments will also ensure valuable finance, safety and governance expertise is retained. - Code for the OneSKY trough fund will be nurtured and greedily protected... Dodgy

“Airservices is moving to replace its air traffic management system as part of a major capital expenditure and investment program of more than $1 billion over the next five years, to enhance the safety, efficiency and capacity of the national network, and meet anticipated growth in the industry.

“That is why having strong leadership will be essential in meeting the goals of Airservices Australia and why I am delighted to make this announcement,” Mr Chester said. - UDB! Does this Muppet have the first blind clue about what's been going on in the other house... Huh

Here is a reminder: Hansard 2nd Estimates session Australian National Audit Office

Quote:


 
   
Hmm...I would suggest that Muppet 6D's scriptwriters should be given the bureaucratic 'long drop' because they have now effectively got the miniscule to sign a confession of complicity on the government's ownership of the OneSKY tender duck-up... Confused

Ps
Quote:Senator XENOPHON: ...I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield : I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield : If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield : I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield : There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield : I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield : We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.
 How any Crown miniscule in their right mind would blindly state that they have full faith in the governance procedures and executive administration of ASA when the CEO can't even demonstrate compliance and/or transparency with his obligations to the FOI Act is beyond me... Undecided

Update: US ATC privatisation debate rages on - Shy

By Joan Lowy, via the Washington Times:


Quote:Q&A: The pros and cons of privatizing air traffic control

[Image: trump_air_traffic_control_36517_c0-434-5...0a96408f18]
President Trump is looking to shift responsibility for the air traffic control system from the government to a private, nonprofit corporation run by airlines and other aviation interests. (Associated Press)
Print
By JOAN LOWY - Associated Press - Tuesday, June 6, 2017

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. air traffic control system, the world’s largest and most complex, is in the midst of an era of unsurpassed safety. There has not been a fatal crash of a domestic passenger airliner in the U.S. in eight years.

Now President Donald Trump is looking to shift responsibility for the system from the government to a private, nonprofit corporation run by airlines and other aviation interests. The handover of about 300 airport towers and other flight tracking centers would be one of the largest transfers of U.S. government assets. About 35,000 workers, including 14,000 controllers and 6,000 technicians, would be affected.

Privatization supporters, including some Republican lawmakers, say it would improve efficiency and modernize the air-traffic system. But congressional approval isn’t certain. Some lawmakers in both parties are reluctant to give up oversight. Some politically influential business aircraft operators, private pilots, small aircraft manufacturers and medium- and small-sized airports fear airlines will dominate the corporation’s board, resulting in higher fees for them and less service.

There are also concerns about whether the air traffic system would suffer during the transition.

Some questions and answers about what’s at stake:

WHY MESS WITH A GOOD THING?

The idea is to remove air traffic control from the vagaries of the government budget process, which has limited the Federal Aviation Administration’s ability to commit to long-term contracts and raise money for major expenditures.

That’s hampered the agency’s “NextGen” program to modernize the air traffic system by switching from radar and radio communications to GPS surveillance and digital voice and text communications. Recent controller furloughs and government shutdowns have worsened the problem.

___

WHAT IS THE SITUATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES?

Many countries have created government-owned corporations, independent government agencies or quasi-governmental entities. Canada is the only country to create what is clearly a private nonprofit air-traffic corporation. NavCanada can raise private capital, make long-term financial commitments, and it recently lowered the fees it charges airlines.

But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported last month that there appears to be no conclusive evidence that any of those approaches is better or worse than government-run services, including the FAA’s, in terms of productivity, cost-effectiveness, service quality, and safety and security.

___

WHO WANTS TO DO THIS?

The U.S. airline industry has been campaigning since the 1980s to privatize air traffic control to try to gain greater control over the system, reduce their costs and replace airline passenger ticket taxes with user fees based on takeoffs, landings and other operations. The Clinton administration proposed spinning off air traffic operations into a government corporation but ran into congressional opposition.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., has proposed using NavCanada as a model. But he couldn’t win enough support to bring legislation to the House floor last year, and he faced even greater opposition in the Senate. Trump administration officials have cited Shuster’s bill as a starting point for their efforts.

Shuster received $148,499 in airline industry campaign contributions last year, making him the industry’s top recipient in the House, according to the political money tracking site Opensecrets.org.

___

IS NEXTGEN IN TROUBLE?

The FAA has been working for more than a decade on NextGen. Early on, it predicted the program would be completed by 2025, but officials now describe NextGen as an evolving effort with no end date.

The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2015 that the original vision for NextGen of transforming the air traffic system has devolved into a series of incremental changes that primarily emphasize replacing aging equipment and systems.

But FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said recently the agency has made “tremendous progress” revamping the system with the latest technology, and is poised to switch from ground-based radar to GPS surveillance. The switch is expected to save time and fuel and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Huerta has predicted $13 billion in benefits to the government and aircraft operators by 2020, with greater gains after that.

Calvin Scovel, the Transportation Department’s inspector general and a frequent NextGen critic, recently told the House transportation committee that even though the program hasn’t met expectations, it’s not broken.

___

WOULD PRIVATIZATION HELP?

Privatization supporters complain that the FAA’s procurement process is so cumbersome that new equipment is no longer the latest technology by the time it’s acquired. Also, delays in updating landing and takeoff procedures to incorporate technological advances make the system less efficient. Airlines say that costs them billions of dollars in flight delays each year.

A corporation would be free of such government regulations and could act faster and with more flexibility, supporters say. The FAA would still provide safety oversight.

Opponents say there’s no evidence a corporation run by airlines would do a better job. Major U.S. airlines have suffered massive computer outages in recent years that have roiled air travel.

___

WHERE DO AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS STAND?

Their union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, endorsed Shuster’s bill after winning assurances that controller wages, benefits and collective bargaining rights would be protected. Union leaders say controllers are tired of working with outdated equipment and are concerned about government shutdowns and furloughs

Still got a long, long, way to go but unlike our NFI, AIOS inflicted miniscule and government..
Quote:AIOS - & the 21st Century??

...The industry has "acquired institutionalised ostrichitis syndrome" (AIOS).

[Image: crisis.gif]

 ...at least they're having the debate... Dodgy  



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Harfwit's FOI disclosure log update -  Blush  

Reference:

(03-02-2017, 08:19 PM)Peetwo Wrote:




Quote: Wrote:Senator XENOPHON: ...I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield : I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield : If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield : I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield : There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield : I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield : We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.

How any Crown miniscule in their right mind would blindly state that they have full faith in the governance procedures and executive administration of ASA when the CEO can't even demonstrate compliance and/or transparency with his obligations to the FOI Act is beyond me... [Image: undecided.gif]   


..Yet when it comes to the FOI Act it would appear he (Harfwit) firmly plants his middle finger to both the Act and Airservices responsibility to the Act...
Quote:Description of Documents

07 June 2011 Flights conducted by private jets in 2010

10 June 2011 Radar Terrain Clearance Charts

21 September 2011 Radar information in relation to aircraft VH-CIV

24 October 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

08 December 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

19 December 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

15 March 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

18 June 2012 Documents in relation to UFO sightings

21 June 2012 Flight data over Kurnell NSW

20 July 2012 Environmental assessments carried out by Airservices in relation to flight paths over Fingal Head

13 August 2012 Documents in relation to ATC short break procedure

16 August 2012 Documents in relation to Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS)

29 August 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

12 September 2012 Documents in relation to radar and radio transmitter sites

30 November 2012 Documents in relation to the report into the review/audit the board carried out into the expenses of the former CEO of Airservices

5 December 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

3 December 2013 Documents in relation to Air Traffic Control local instructions and training material used by Air Traffic Control.

23 December 2013 Details of the remuneration rates for all senior leadership team members (3rd level managers) in Airservices Australia, including their total remuneration and total.

9 January 2014 Documents in relation to Air Traffic Control local instructions.

11 March 2014 Correspondence from Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston of Airservices Australia to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development – since 8 September 2013 to January 2014.

9 April 2014 Documents relating to the radar replay in relation to the “near miss” event between an aircraft and an “unknown object” over metropolitan Perth at 0913 WST on the 19th of March, 2014.

30 September 2014 Documents relating to any primary and secondary radar contacts over the town of, and regional area surrounding Armidale, New South Wales on the night of Sunday the 21st of September, 2014.

1 October 2014 Documents relating to consultation done regarding changes to Airservices work performance framework.

20 October 2014 Documents relating to noise monitoring around Busselton Regional Airport (BRA).

6 December 2014 Documents relating to Airservices tender number ASA RFT PRN4811 (ARFF modular fire station) Port Hedland WA.

9 February 2014 Documents relating to the contract and relationship between International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) and Airservices Australia.  
2 July 2015 Transcript of audio between air traffic control and pilot in command.

14 July 2015 Documents relating to aircraft noise around Ashgrove QLD.

30 July 2015 Documents relating to Geelong Planning Permit PP879 2014 helicopter landing site (Victoria).  

25 August 2015 Primary radar data for Cairns International Airport for 18 August 2015.

28 August 2015 Primary radar data for Tullamarine Airport Melbourne for 23 August 2015

(P2 comment - Note date of last input to the ASA FOI disclosure log, this roughly corresponds to when Harfwit took over in the acting CEO role at ASA.. Dodgy  )

Now it could be that Harfwit has received NIL FOI requests since 28 August 2015?? Unfortunately for Harfwit we already know that the other Aunty's Sveen & Sturmer have already had a successful FOI request, that by (FOI Act) definition should already be fully disclosed? So where the duck is it??

Now it could also be the ASA FOI crew are part of match fit Harfwit's accelerate (cull) me program?? However IMO this would appear to be a direct conflict of interest with the ASA SMS and the ICAO approved Australian SSP. This is because, as everyone in the SMS world knows, the integrity and effectiveness of an SMS is dependent on the full and frank disclosure of all safety sensitive information or reports as per ICAO/CASA endorsed 'just culture' principles... Rolleyes  

In the last couple of days Harfwit's FOI minion has been bizarrely busy adding yet more entries to the previously neglected ASA FOI disclosure log... Shy

(Recent entries in red)

Quote:28 August 2015 Primary radar data for Tullamarine Airport Melbourne for 23 August 2015.

03 September 2015 Primary radar data from Cairns International Airport.

14 September 2015 Primary radar data, tracks, returns, sourced from Tullamarine Airport, Melbourne.

30 November 2015 Flight plans and/or flight records for January 2014 onward for:
– the helicopter VH-FOX
– the aircraft VH-LEP, VH-LEF and VH-LZP
– the aircraft VH-CCD, VH-CCX and VH-CCV.

07 December 2015 Guidelines under which an environmental assessment is completed and documents related to the incomplete trial over Canning Vale.

02 March 2016 Instructions/procedures and correspondence in regards to how air traffic controllers at Melbourne airport should respond to ‘double go-arounds ‘ situations during Land And Hold Short Operations (LAHSO).

02 March 2016 Copies of all advice provided by Airservices to Hon Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister on the now approved Gold Coast ILS.

10 March 2016 Documents between elected members, Perth Airport, Airservices and AECOM.

22 March 2016 Documents related to Tethered UAV Operations.

19 April 2016 Documents related to Trips Airservices Australia staff have made to France for discussions regarding OneSKY.

27 May 2016 Expenditure details of corporate credit card or cards on the Airservices Australia account held by acting CEO at the time.

23 June 2016 Airservices Australia ATC Workplace Assessment Brisbane Operations Room.

09 November 2016 Radar replays and flight information for Saturday 9 Jan 2016 (4.20pm to 5pm) and Friday 26 August 2011 between 5.30 pm and 5.40 pm.

12 November 2016 Flight plan lodged and any recordings with air traffic control regarding a private helicopter.


16 December 2016 (stage 1) and 22 December 2016 (stage 2) Documents related to branch assurance assessments, DRE assurance assessments, OLR unit assurance assessments and ToM (Target Operating Model) risk assessments.
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
(06-15-2017, 08:09 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Harfwit's FOI disclosure log update -  Blush  

Reference:

(03-02-2017, 08:19 PM)Peetwo Wrote:




Quote: Wrote:Senator XENOPHON: ...I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield : I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield : If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield : I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield : There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield : I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield : We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.

How any Crown miniscule in their right mind would blindly state that they have full faith in the governance procedures and executive administration of ASA when the CEO can't even demonstrate compliance and/or transparency with his obligations to the FOI Act is beyond me... [Image: undecided.gif]   


..Yet when it comes to the FOI Act it would appear he (Harfwit) firmly plants his middle finger to both the Act and Airservices responsibility to the Act...
Quote:Description of Documents

07 June 2011 Flights conducted by private jets in 2010

10 June 2011 Radar Terrain Clearance Charts

21 September 2011 Radar information in relation to aircraft VH-CIV

24 October 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

08 December 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

19 December 2011 Flight plans for various aircraft

15 March 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

18 June 2012 Documents in relation to UFO sightings

21 June 2012 Flight data over Kurnell NSW

20 July 2012 Environmental assessments carried out by Airservices in relation to flight paths over Fingal Head

13 August 2012 Documents in relation to ATC short break procedure

16 August 2012 Documents in relation to Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS)

29 August 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

12 September 2012 Documents in relation to radar and radio transmitter sites

30 November 2012 Documents in relation to the report into the review/audit the board carried out into the expenses of the former CEO of Airservices

5 December 2012 Flight plans for various aircraft

3 December 2013 Documents in relation to Air Traffic Control local instructions and training material used by Air Traffic Control.

23 December 2013 Details of the remuneration rates for all senior leadership team members (3rd level managers) in Airservices Australia, including their total remuneration and total.

9 January 2014 Documents in relation to Air Traffic Control local instructions.

11 March 2014 Correspondence from Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston of Airservices Australia to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development – since 8 September 2013 to January 2014.

9 April 2014 Documents relating to the radar replay in relation to the “near miss” event between an aircraft and an “unknown object” over metropolitan Perth at 0913 WST on the 19th of March, 2014.

30 September 2014 Documents relating to any primary and secondary radar contacts over the town of, and regional area surrounding Armidale, New South Wales on the night of Sunday the 21st of September, 2014.

1 October 2014 Documents relating to consultation done regarding changes to Airservices work performance framework.

20 October 2014 Documents relating to noise monitoring around Busselton Regional Airport (BRA).

6 December 2014 Documents relating to Airservices tender number ASA RFT PRN4811 (ARFF modular fire station) Port Hedland WA.

9 February 2014 Documents relating to the contract and relationship between International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM) and Airservices Australia.  
2 July 2015 Transcript of audio between air traffic control and pilot in command.

14 July 2015 Documents relating to aircraft noise around Ashgrove QLD.

30 July 2015 Documents relating to Geelong Planning Permit PP879 2014 helicopter landing site (Victoria).  

25 August 2015 Primary radar data for Cairns International Airport for 18 August 2015.

28 August 2015 Primary radar data for Tullamarine Airport Melbourne for 23 August 2015

(P2 comment - Note date of last input to the ASA FOI disclosure log, this roughly corresponds to when Harfwit took over in the acting CEO role at ASA.. Dodgy  )

Now it could be that Harfwit has received NIL FOI requests since 28 August 2015?? Unfortunately for Harfwit we already know that the other Aunty's Sveen & Sturmer have already had a successful FOI request, that by (FOI Act) definition should already be fully disclosed? So where the duck is it??

Now it could also be the ASA FOI crew are part of match fit Harfwit's accelerate (cull) me program?? However IMO this would appear to be a direct conflict of interest with the ASA SMS and the ICAO approved Australian SSP. This is because, as everyone in the SMS world knows, the integrity and effectiveness of an SMS is dependent on the full and frank disclosure of all safety sensitive information or reports as per ICAO/CASA endorsed 'just culture' principles... Rolleyes  

In the last couple of days Harfwit's FOI minion has been bizarrely busy adding yet more entries to the previously neglected ASA FOI disclosure log... Shy

(Recent entries in red)

Quote:28 August 2015 Primary radar data for Tullamarine Airport Melbourne for 23 August 2015.

03 September 2015 Primary radar data from Cairns International Airport.

14 September 2015 Primary radar data, tracks, returns, sourced from Tullamarine Airport, Melbourne.

30 November 2015 Flight plans and/or flight records for January 2014 onward for:
– the helicopter VH-FOX
– the aircraft VH-LEP, VH-LEF and VH-LZP
– the aircraft VH-CCD, VH-CCX and VH-CCV.

07 December 2015 Guidelines under which an environmental assessment is completed and documents related to the incomplete trial over Canning Vale.

02 March 2016 Instructions/procedures and correspondence in regards to how air traffic controllers at Melbourne airport should respond to ‘double go-arounds ‘ situations during Land And Hold Short Operations (LAHSO).

02 March 2016 Copies of all advice provided by Airservices to Hon Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister on the now approved Gold Coast ILS.

10 March 2016 Documents between elected members, Perth Airport, Airservices and AECOM.

22 March 2016 Documents related to Tethered UAV Operations.

19 April 2016 Documents related to Trips Airservices Australia staff have made to France for discussions regarding OneSKY.

27 May 2016 Expenditure details of corporate credit card or cards on the Airservices Australia account held by acting CEO at the time.

23 June 2016 Airservices Australia ATC Workplace Assessment Brisbane Operations Room.

09 November 2016 Radar replays and flight information for Saturday 9 Jan 2016 (4.20pm to 5pm) and Friday 26 August 2011 between 5.30 pm and 5.40 pm.

12 November 2016 Flight plan lodged and any recordings with air traffic control regarding a private helicopter.


16 December 2016 (stage 1) and 22 December 2016 (stage 2) Documents related to branch assurance assessments, DRE assurance assessments, OLR unit assurance assessments and ToM (Target Operating Model) risk assessments.

Breaking News:

Houston we may have a problem - again... Blush


Extract from today's Senate Hansard:


Quote:COMMITTEES

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Reference

 Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (12:29): At the request of Senator O'Sullivan, I move:

That—
(a) in accordance with standing order 25(2) (a), the performance of Airservices Australia be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report; and
(b) in conducting its inquiry, the committee have the power to consider and use the records of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee appointed in the previous Parliament.

Question agreed to.

MTF...P2 Confused
Reply
How many re-re's does a clusterduck make?

Going back in time there has been many a re-iteration of inquiry/review of the performance of CASA, with the Forsyth review being the latest to suffer from delay, obfuscation and a total Iron Ring rejection of reform... Dodgy

The ATSB has also its share of broken reform action and re-investigation with PelAir after nearly 8 years still on the books, again for little or no noticeable positive change.

Now we have the ASA entering the ranks of rejected review with a re-referral/rerun of the Senate performance inquiry:

Quote:Performance of Airservices Australia

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is conducting an inquiry into the performance of Airservice Australia under Standing Order 25 (2) (a).

On 9 May 2016, the inquiry lapsed with the dissolution of the Senate and House of Representatives for a general election on 2 July 2016.  

On 15 June 2017 the Senate agreed to re-refer the inquiry.

Submissions and additional information received are available on the inquiry webpage.

Committee Secretariat contact:
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 3511
Fax: +61 2 6277 5811
rrat.sen@aph.gov.au
  
Totally UDB!  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
PFOS contamination remains a concern at Cairns airport and further testing will commence soon;

http://www.cairnspost.com.au/news/cairns...8df68033e2

I hope Harfwit and Bus driver Houston have a bucket of money tucked away somewhere for when the contaminated airports issue finally explodes because it is going to cost Air Shortages Australia a heck of a lot of money. And when you consider the current Board and CEO are presiding over a money printing machine that is now running in the red after losing 90% of its profits in less than 3 years it seems unlikely they will be able to pay for this giant national clusterf#ck....

TICK TOCK
Reply
 
Harfwit QON of interest - Rolleyes

From the Budget Estimates QON released today (PDF 661KB):

Quote:103
000246
AA
XENOPHON
PUBLICATION OF FOI DOCUMENTS ON WEBSITE


Senator XENOPHON: I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield: I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield: If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield: I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield: There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield: I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield: We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.

Well we all know about that QON don't we Wink : Harfwit's FOI disclosure log update.

Next another QON on match fit Harfwit's accelerate me program:

Quote:104
000247
AA
XENOPHON
COMPLAINTS - ACCELERATE


Senator XENOPHON: Have there been many complaints about the Accelerate Program? Is there a complaints mechanism or is there a hotline to ring? Usually people complain to their immediate superiors about an issue with the Accelerate Program. How do you know how many complaints there have been about the Accelerate Program? If it stops at the supervisor level, you may not know about it. How can we be assured that it is filtering up to the upper echelons of Airservices?

Mr Harfield: Because there are a range of mechanisms that can be used. It is well known within the organisation that, if you report something to your supervisor and you do not get the resolution that you require, then you have the ability to go above that person. You have also got the fact that we have an ethics hotline. It can be done anonymously. We have also got what we call a confidential word, where you can put in something confidential that goes straight to the executive level, to report it. There are a range of mechanisms so that, if there is a case where someone feels that the supervisor, for example, is not reporting it, there is a mechanism—

Senator XENOPHON: In terms of those various mechanisms that you have described, could you give details, on notice, about how many complaints to those various hotlines and mechanisms there have been, say in the last two to three years? Do you do the reporting on a financial or calendar year basis?

Mr Harfield: Yes, we can report on how many reports we got through those mechanisms.

Senator XENOPHON: And in the last, say, three years whether there has been an increase since the Accelerate Program. That might be useful.

Mr Harfield: Just so I can clarify what you are looking for: you just want to see whether there has been an increase in those areas at the time of the Accelerate Program?

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, insofar as you have a number of reporting mechanisms—the ones that you have described and if there are any others—what the numbers have been, say going back from three years ago.

Mr Harfield: Coming through that period, absolutely.

Senator XENOPHON: Going back to 2014-15, 2015-16 and this year.

Mr Harfield: We will take it back to 2014.


After that QON 105 to 116 are all Senator Rice getting on her 'noise pollution' bandwagon...('yawn', 'retch' Sleepy )



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Airservices class action heats up... Confused

Via the SMH/Canberra Times today:

Quote:Lawyers look to expand Airservices Australia class action

[Image: 1484020750659.jpg]

Steven Trask

A looming court battle involving Airservices Australia is set to expand to cover allegations of "sham contracting" and the use of outlawed "zombie agreements".

In June The Canberra Times revealed almost 80 employees had registered for a class action against the government entity, centred around a controversial redundancy process that slashed more than 500 jobs last year.
  
[Image: 1499677785599.jpg] Former staff of Airservices Australia are launching a class action against the government entity. Photo: James Morgan  

At the time lawyers alleged that a number of staff members had been made redundant while employed on unlawful contracts, and could therefore be eligible to claim up to $130,000 in additional payouts.

Rory Markham, the employment litigation director at the Canberra-based Chamberlains law firm, said the class action was now likely to expand to cover additional concerns.

"We have multiple claimants that have raised concerns about sham contracting arrangements being undertaken at Airservices in the period of 2010 to date," he said.

"In certain situations, people have been made redundant after between 10 and 30 years of employment with Airservices and then re-employed in a matter of weeks on the same or comparable duties under an independent contractor agreement."

Impacted workers could be due additional compensation for the alleged use of such "strictly forbidden" practices, Mr Markham said.

A further 10 individuals had come forward with allegations that the redundancy program was used to make them accept cheaper contracts while performing the same job, he added.

By submitting your email you are agreeing to Fairfax Media's terms and conditions and privacy policy .

"We have received instructions from at least 10 individuals that the redundancy process was in fact no more than an option to take a pay cut of approximately $20,000 to do the same duties, or to be made redundant without further consultation."

If true, such allegations showed the redundancy program was a cost-cutting exercise with little connection to whether jobs were actually needed or not, Mr Markham said.

Lawyers were also investigating the alleged use of so-called "zombie" Australian Workplace Agreements, a form of individual contract discontinued by the Federal Government in 2008.

"The only relevance for the existing AWAs appear to be to prevent employees becoming a part of the enterprise agreement and receiving higher redundancy benefits," he said.

"It would be highly embarrassing to the Commonwealth to continue to engage people on AWAs in these circumstances."

The total bill for the action, including corporate penalties, could sting Airservices as much as $12 million.

To date 116 individuals had registered for the class action, with Chamberlains currently retained by 45 individuals.

Mr Markham said he was currently engaged with representatives of Airservices in a bid to resolve the dispute before it went to the Federal Court.

If no settlement was reached in these discussions, it was likely the class action would be filed in late July, he said.

A spokeswoman for Airservices Australia said the entity was, and always had been, a responsible employer.

"We have a total commitment to our duty of care for all Airservices employees," she said.

"As The Canberra Times is fully aware, a number of issues have been foreshadowed as part of potential legal actions and these issues will be examined and determined as part of that process.

"We are not aware of any additional claims of the nature you raise."

At this rate Harfwit and Houstoblame will be filing for insolvency by Xmas - err hang on they can't, because their the government... Blush


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
ASA AQON & Harfwit's FOI admission - Blush

Via the Senate RRAT committee Estimates page: PDF 58KB*

Quote:Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: I just want to go to the question of the publication of documents on your website. If you had documents that have been released under FOI, there is a protocol that you are required by law to publish them on your website; is that right?

Mr Harfield: I am unfamiliar with that, but it is supposed to be that, once you have published them, they should be available to everyone.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't there a legal requirement? Maybe, when Senator Rice is asking some questions, I will do a quick bit of research to find the relevant section if there is.

Mr Harfield: If there is, we need to comply.

Senator XENOPHON: The stories that were published by the ABC on the accelerate program, back in February of this year—they do not appear to be online, as I understand they are required to be.

Mr Harfield: I will check that, because there should be no reason that they are not.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us go back a step, though. Is there a protocol to ensure that documents that have been released under FOI are on your website?

Mr Harfield: There should be a protocol that we should be publishing them as per the FOI legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: And who can tell me what that protocol is? Is anyone here—

Mr Harfield: I do not have the FOI protocol in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: Could you provide an explanation as to why the documents that were released under FOI that the ABC obtained for their stories earlier this year do not appear to be on the website? If they are on the website and I have not been able to find them, I apologise, but they do not appear to be on the website.

Mr Harfield: We will find them, and we will give you an explanation of that.

Answer:
Airservices Australia (Airservices) is required to publish information about documents released under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). Airservices has established a protocol, also known as an agency plan, which outlines the information we propose to publish, how we will publish it and how we will ensure compliance with the Information Publication Scheme. This agency plan is accessible on Airservices website at: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/about/agency-plan/.

Airservices has published information about documents released under the FOI Act on its disclosure log on the Airservices website from 1 May 2011 when the requirement came into effect. Airservices has reviewed the disclosure log and identified a number of entries which were missing, including information related to the ABC request, which have now been added to the disclosure log. The omissions appear to be an inadvertent oversight.

Airservices is undertaking a review of FOI processes, including the provision of relevant training, to ensure staff are aware of FOI obligations. - Right, so it's the minion's fault - UDB! Dodgy
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Harfwit tops up OneSKY trough fund at ATCO & GA expense - Dodgy

Via the Oz:

Quote:Airlines the winners as Airservices proposes to cut fees

[Image: 6884bcfdaee45fbdee7081e78a5fff9f?width=650]Airservices Australia chief executive Jason Harfield. Picture: Jonathon Searle. Airservices Australia boss Jason Harfield has foreshadowed a potential cut to the fees it charges airlines, a move that would provide a fillip to Qantas Airways, Virgin Australia and a slew of other carriers.

The boss of the nation’s air traffic control and aviation rescue firefighter services said Airser­vices was set to outperform its 2016-17 corporate plan with its 2017 profit.
He also hit back at previous claims that job cuts at Airservices had posed a risk to safety, saying safety performance on key metrics had improved while the cost-cutting program called Accelerate was rolled out.

Last year, Airservices froze its fees after dumping a five-year proposal that would have seen it increase fees for air traffic control and firefighting services.

“We’re now in a position where I’m going to hold prices for another 18 months,” Mr Harfield said in an interview with The Australian. “The reason for holding it for another 18 months is I want to make sure the changes we’ve made have traction and are bedded in and are sustainable, with the intent that after that 18 months, that we will be going out to industry to offer a price decrease and still deliver on our commitments such as OneSKY.”

The move would benefit all domestic and international airlines that land at Australian airports and fly into Australian airspace and must pay Airservices for its monopoly services.

He said he did not want Airservices “economically distorting the industry because of our pricing”. “We have an obligation to help grow the industry and sustain the industry,” he said.

“That means as an organisation I don’t want to be an organisational or economic impediment to that growth. All carriers are all dealing with their own pressures ... It isn’t just because we’re trying to be altruistic, it’s actually about how do you continue the growth.”

Airservices began cost-cutting because it was facing flat revenues and rising costs. The number of full-time equivalent staff had increased from 3770 in 2011 to 4483 in 2013. It reported a loss in the 2016 financial year.

Mr Harfield said Accelerate, which finished on June 30, had returned the government-owned monopoly to profitability. Net profit after tax for the 2017 financial year would surpass the $20.6 million forecast in the organisation’s corporate plan for 2016-17. In a new corporate plan, the organisation is forecasting an NPAT of $24.5m for 2017 and $59.2m for 2017-18.

Among changes from the program, Airservices has changed from a ratio of 4:5 operation to support staff to a ratio of 5:4.

The cost-cutting program saw about 1100 people made redundant, although there were some new recruits with “new capability”, so in net terms, Airservices has cut its head count by about 800.

Earlier this year there was media reporting of fears of a risk to public safety because of job cuts at the organisation. Mr Harfield, who has previously criticised this suggestion, said “the issue with aviation safety is it’s a very emotive topic”.

“The big focus in downsizing was back of house because I quarantined operationally rostered air traffic control and the fire fighters from it because at the end of the day, that’s our core business.”

Arguing safety performance had maintained or improved through Accelerate, he said the overall loss of separation rate attributable to air traffic control had gone from 2.97 incidents per 100,000 aircraft movements in the March 2016 quarter to 1.14 incidents per 100,000 in the June 2017 quarter.

Some $177.5m in annualised costs have been stripped out and business groups consolidated.

Mr Harfield said that “we’ve seen continued improvement in our safety performance and operational performance”.

“Our core business and refocusing the organisation was all about we’re here to do two things, air traffic management and aviation rescue and firefighting. And if we don’t do that well, then what’s the point of business?”
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
RRAT committee back to work next week - Rolleyes

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:[Image: Angus_Houston-1.jpg]Chair of Airservices Australia Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston AK (Retd). (Steve Hitchen)

Airservices to face the Senate Committee next Week
4 August 2017

The Senate committee investigating the performance of Airservices Australia will recommence next week with the first public hearing since September 2015.

Airservices chairman Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston is due to face the committee in Canberra on Wednesday 9 August.

The committee, chaired by Senator Barry O'Sullivan, held its first public hearing in November 2014, but had not completed its work by the time parliament was dissolved in May 2016, causing the inquiry to lapse.

In June this year, the Senate referred the inquiry back to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

Over the 20 months since the inquiry opened, only three other public hearings have been held, dealing with several issues including the OneSKY air traffic management system, the introduction of ADS-B and the failure to fully implement the National Airspace System (NAS).

At this stage there is no indication if public submissions will be re-opened.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...Zu46sTy.99
Performance of Airservices Australia
        Status: Submissions Closed
        Date Referred: 15 June 2017
        Next Hearing: 09 August 2017

Quote:[Image: Untitled_Clipping_080417_010013_PM.jpg]
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)