Shame or Fame for McCormack.
#41
MCCORMACK, THE MINISTER FOR SOOKING.

‘Steam on’ on short finals.......

Oh McCormack, you self loving, self absorbed, self gratifying piece of pond shit. Mate, you speak to the Australian public as if we are some kind of sediment dwelling amoeba and you are some form of higher being with some sort of might and power. The issue is not ‘keyboards warriors’, as you call them, the issue is that you pathetic political dross are being held to account publicly over the cyber highway AND YOU DON’T LIKE IT! You people sit in parliament, have the authority vested upon you legally to act ‘in and on our behalf’ (yes us, the taxpayers, the Australian citizens), yet you do either nothing or you do a pathetic job.

The fact is that people have had a gutfull and are a wake up to your lies, deceit and obsfucation. You morose pricks blow our taxpayer money on wars we didn’t vote for, on foreign aid to corrupt nations we haven’t voted for, on business class political airfares and perks we don’t agree to, on donating to the UN (buying seats and prestigious jobs for Pollies when they retire) yet when we call you out for not helping our farmers, small businesses and the needy you don’t like it. Well fuck you mate. The anger and disgust being vented at you so-called political leaders is justified and ramping up. A $200m Prime Minister is not what we voted for, successive governments hell-bent in stuffing their snouts in the trough and giving away our financial future is not what we voted for, purposefully shoving our country into insurmountable debt so as to pay your dues and penance to the Rothschilds bankers and the Goldman Sachs of this world is not what we voted for you grotesquely incompetent sleazebags.

No Miniscule McDo’nothing, we will not be silenced by your ilk. You are a useless Nationals twat who only ever lived in the one pissy little town and worked as a reporter for the Presstitues in the MSM, and now you are telling me what I can or can’t do, or what I can or can’t say? Up yours you assclown.

TICK “YOU BETCHA” TOCK.

"K" edit - Uhm, no need to butter him up GD – just tell the parasite plain and straight exactly what you think. (Big smile)…Choc frog.…
Reply
#42
McDo'Naut does naut on airports vs airlines war -  Dodgy

Although probably more an airports and alphabets thread matter I get the feeling that the miniscule may soon be dragged into the fray by his short and curlies... Big Grin 

Via the Oz today:

Quote:Qantas rejects ‘too high’ fees

[Image: 309cb2c2cecaae1a3ed54e69125cc4d4]ROBYN IRONSIDE


Qantas has been accused of holding smaller airports to ransom by refusing to pay ­increased aeronautical fees.

The Northern Territory Airports submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry says the national carrier has ­refused to pay a 2.5 per cent ­increase in charges at Darwin airport levied from July 1 last year.

Qantas had also refused to pay a 3 per cent rise in charges at Alice Springs airport since 2015, and now owed an estimated $1.6 million, it is claimed. The Qantas Group dominates at both airports, operating ­between 55 and 70 per cent of all flights.

About 2.8 million people have used Darwin and Alice Springs airports in the past year, and the fees being sought amount to $19.43 for each domestic and international passenger.

Other airports charged from $11.46 a passenger, in the case of the Gold Coast, to $25.94 a passenger in Melbourne.

A return Sydney-Darwin airfare with Qantas costs about $680, and about $460 with Jetstar.

Northern Territory Airports suggested it was “powerless to counter the Qantas tactic” ­because the airports did not have a commercially viable response. “Qantas refused to pay the 2.5 per cent increase on the basis it does not pay charges it does not agree to,” the submission says.

“This is clear evidence of the exercise of significant market power by an airline group.”

Most other airlines were paying the increase, but options to ­recover outstanding money from Qantas were limited, the submission suggests.

“The debt will continue to ­accumulate, with the options being a negotiated outcome, court ruling or writing the debt off ­because (Darwin) simply does not have the ability to recoup the debt.”

Alice Spring airport was considering legal action as its only ­avenue of redress, the submission says.

A Qantas spokesman said the airline would not pay the increased amount because Northern Territory Airports’ charges were “already too high”. “Darwin and Alice Springs are two of the most expensive airports to fly to in Australia and we want to ensure that our customers are not paying more in airport charges than is absolutely necessary,” he said.

“This mindset of monopoly airports charging customers whatever they can get away with is why we need better regulation of airport pricing in this country.”

Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie said the AAA was aware of the situation relating to Northern Territory Airports, and understood this “short-paying” of invoices had occurred at other airports.

“This demonstrates that airports cannot unilaterally determine charging outcomes and, even when they are not being fully paid, airports leased from the Australian government continue to invest and provide services to all Australians,” she said. “This is an important issue that will be ­explored in the AAA’s upcoming submission to the Productivity Commission.”

The Airports Act requires major airports to provide access to airlines under the terms of their lease, even if charges incurred have not been paid in full. At the same time, airports are expected to maintain airside and landside infrastructure.

A spokesman for Transport Minister Michael McCormack said he would consider the recommendations of the Productivity Commission when its final report is handed to the government next year.

"...said he would consider the recommendations of the Productivity Commission when its final report is handed to the government next year..."

Hmm...we've all heard that kind of statement before, especially in the lead up to another election - FFS!  Dodgy 


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#43
McDo'Naut does naut on Wagga Summit resolutionsDodgy

Only two short months since the Wagga Summit and already it feels like a lifetime... Confused

Here is a rehash, courtesy of AA, on where it ended up... Wink  

Quote:AUSTRALIA’S GENERAL AVIATION UNITES IN PUSH FOR REFORM

written by Australianaviation.Com.Au July 10, 2018

[Image: IMG_1473_1170.jpg?w=1170]

Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) summit delegates after agreeing to the communique to be presented to government.
[/url]


More than 30 industry associations from Australia’s general aviation community have put forward a set of reforms aimed to tackle the administrative and financial burden of regulatory compliance that they say has led to the decline of their sector.

The united call was part of a communique agreed to at the conclusion of a two-day summit in Wagga Wagga on Tuesday that was attended by about 100 delegates and organised by the recently-established Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA).

Summit attendees said the current regulatory stance adopted by Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) was “out of step with contemporary regulatory practice” and contributing to the rapid decline of Australia’s general aviation industry.

“The Australian economy has the opportunity to benefit from pilot and engineering training, aircraft and component maintenance and construction services flowing from the world-wide expansion of air travel and aviation activity – especially in Asia,” the communique said.

“To achieve this, we must be able to respond effectively and be liberated from over regulation.”

Industry associations present at Wagga Wagga included those covering aircraft owners and pilots, maintenance and engineering, parachutists, gliding, hang gliding, recreational aviation, sport aircraft, seaplanes, among many others.

The communique that was agreed to will be handed to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Michael McCormack, who spoke to the gathering on Monday, and his Labor counterpart Anthony Albanese.

It called on the federal government to change the wording of the Civil Aviation Act, which as it currently stood said CASA had to to “regard safety as the most important consideration” in its role regulating the industry.

Instead, the communique proposed that CASA, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, “must seek to achieve the highest level of safety in air navigation as well as maintaining an efficient and sustainable Australian aviation industry, including a viable general aviation and training sector”.

Further, the gathering called for the main object of the Act to be to establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents.

The object of the Act should also recognise the importance of having a strong, efficient and sustainable aviation industry, of enabling more people to benefit from aviation and include an emphasis on “substantially reducing the administrative and financial burden of regulatory compliance”, the communique said.

The communique noted the general aviation sector was of vital importance to Australia, especially regional and rural areas.

In his speech to delegates on Tuesday, Albanese promised a bipartisan approach to the general aviation sector’s proposed reforms.

“Simply put, the future of general aviation in this country should be above politics,” Albanese said.

“This is not about left versus right or old versus new.

“In Government or Opposition, I will work closely with Michael McCormack.

Many of Michael’s political views might not be the same as mine, but I respect the great responsibility he bears and I accept that he is completely sincere in the way he is approaching his role.”

Quote:[Image: glFasscr_normal.jpg]
Australian Aviation@AusAviation

[Image: DhtQlsEUwAATHtS.jpg]

Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development, and Tourism Anthony Albanese addresses delegates on the second day of the general aviation summit in Wagga Wagga, NSW
11:30 AM - Jul 10, 2018

[size=undefined]
McCormack told delegates when he [/size]
[size=undefined]spoke to the summit on Monday he was keen to listen to their proposals for reform.

“I will continue to listen and carefully consider the issues raised by people in the general aviation sector, and the government and portfolio aviation agencies will respond appropriately,” McCormack said.

After his speech, Albanese told reporters he was “very positive” about the discussions he has had with Minister McCormack since he became Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport four months ago, replacing Barnaby Joyce.

“We’re both committed to making sure that this not be a partisan political issue and today’s conference, getting the input from the sector is now something that they will submit to us jointly in coming weeks and we’ll sit down and work out how these issues can be addressed,” Albanese said.
[/size]

Quote:[Image: glFasscr_normal.jpg]
Australian Aviation@AusAviation

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Michael McCormack is speaking at the opening of a two-day general aviation summit in Wagga Wagga, NSW

[Image: DhoHCnHVAAA5kHI.jpg]
11:30 AM - Jul 9, 2018

[size=undefined]The summit delegates also agreed to work on establishing a caucus of federal politicians for the general aviation sector.[/size]

Well apparently there is a few industry stakeholders starting to get antsy and so yesterday Hitch asked the question... Huh 


Quote:[Image: tie-down_caloundra.jpg]


Government still mulling AGAA Resolutions
6 September 2018

A Department of Infrastructure and Transport spokesperson has said that the Federal Government is still considering the resolutions from the July Australian General Aviation Alliance (AGAA) summit.

Speaking in response to a question from Australian Flying yesterday, the spokesperson also said that other government departments would have to be brought in on considerations.

"The Australian Government is currently considering Australian General Aviation Alliance’s (AGAA) list of resolutions developed at the Wagga Wagga Summit," the spokesperson said.
"A number of the matters require consultation with other Government agencies and industry, including the General Aviation Advisory Group established to provide advice on matters impacting general aviation.

"These consultations are underway and a response will be provided to AGAA in due course."

The resolutions were presented to the department for consideration in mid July among promises of bipartisan support from both sides of government and a wave of cautious optimism from many members of the general aviation community.

The centrepiece of the [url=http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/agaa-delegates-finalise-outcomes-package]AGAA resolutions was a change to the wording of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 that would remove the primacy of safety from new regulations.


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...MWhpCKe.99
 
Hmm...typical bureaucratic weasel worded waffle, code for - "we intend to do bugger all" - until at least the next Federal election... Dodgy 


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#44
(09-05-2018, 09:40 PM)Peetwo Wrote: McDo'Naut does naut on airports vs airlines war -  Dodgy

Although probably more an airports and alphabets thread matter I get the feeling that the miniscule may soon be dragged into the fray by his short and curlies... Big Grin 

Via the Oz today:

Quote:Qantas rejects ‘too high’ fees

[Image: 309cb2c2cecaae1a3ed54e69125cc4d4]ROBYN IRONSIDE


Qantas has been accused of holding smaller airports to ransom by refusing to pay ­increased aeronautical fees.

The Northern Territory Airports submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry says the national carrier has ­refused to pay a 2.5 per cent ­increase in charges at Darwin airport levied from July 1 last year.

Qantas had also refused to pay a 3 per cent rise in charges at Alice Springs airport since 2015, and now owed an estimated $1.6 million, it is claimed. The Qantas Group dominates at both airports, operating ­between 55 and 70 per cent of all flights.

About 2.8 million people have used Darwin and Alice Springs airports in the past year, and the fees being sought amount to $19.43 for each domestic and international passenger.

Other airports charged from $11.46 a passenger, in the case of the Gold Coast, to $25.94 a passenger in Melbourne.

A return Sydney-Darwin airfare with Qantas costs about $680, and about $460 with Jetstar.

Northern Territory Airports suggested it was “powerless to counter the Qantas tactic” ­because the airports did not have a commercially viable response. “Qantas refused to pay the 2.5 per cent increase on the basis it does not pay charges it does not agree to,” the submission says.

“This is clear evidence of the exercise of significant market power by an airline group.”

Most other airlines were paying the increase, but options to ­recover outstanding money from Qantas were limited, the submission suggests.

“The debt will continue to ­accumulate, with the options being a negotiated outcome, court ruling or writing the debt off ­because (Darwin) simply does not have the ability to recoup the debt.”

Alice Spring airport was considering legal action as its only ­avenue of redress, the submission says.

A Qantas spokesman said the airline would not pay the increased amount because Northern Territory Airports’ charges were “already too high”. “Darwin and Alice Springs are two of the most expensive airports to fly to in Australia and we want to ensure that our customers are not paying more in airport charges than is absolutely necessary,” he said.

“This mindset of monopoly airports charging customers whatever they can get away with is why we need better regulation of airport pricing in this country.”

Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie said the AAA was aware of the situation relating to Northern Territory Airports, and understood this “short-paying” of invoices had occurred at other airports.

“This demonstrates that airports cannot unilaterally determine charging outcomes and, even when they are not being fully paid, airports leased from the Australian government continue to invest and provide services to all Australians,” she said. “This is an important issue that will be ­explored in the AAA’s upcoming submission to the Productivity Commission.”

The Airports Act requires major airports to provide access to airlines under the terms of their lease, even if charges incurred have not been paid in full. At the same time, airports are expected to maintain airside and landside infrastructure.

A spokesman for Transport Minister Michael McCormack said he would consider the recommendations of the Productivity Commission when its final report is handed to the government next year.

"...said he would consider the recommendations of the Productivity Commission when its final report is handed to the government next year..."

Update to PC's airport inquiry... Confused  

Via the Oz today:

Quote:Pressure mounts on Qantas over fees
[Image: 7a5692b895310e994e1aaaf4343b203e]ROBYN IRONSIDE
More airports attack Qantas over its refusal to pay increased charges that would help fund improvements at regional runways


Airport anger as Qantas refuses to pay higher fees

More airports have targeted ­Qantas for refusing to pay ­increased aeronautical charges designed to raise money for ­redevelopment and other improvements.

Several submissions to the Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports have called out Qantas for using its market power to resist higher fees.

However, the International Air Transport Association said the airports were charging ­excessively for services provided.

Queensland Airports Limited, which operates the Gold Coast, Townsville, Mount Isa and Longreach airports, said Qantas was unwilling to help fund infrastructure that benefited passengers.

Northern Territory Airports suggested Darwin and Alice Springs airports had been left more than $1 million out of pocket because Qantas refused to pay an increase in charges.

The QAL submission said Qantas was the “only major airline not currently in agreement with the redevelopment plan” at Gold Coast Airport to deliver a significant expansion in the size of the passenger terminal.

In relation to Townsville ­Airport, the submission said the terminal upgrade was “unable to move ahead because the Qantas Group has been unwilling to sign up to the $3 per passenger per trip increase in airport charges required to partly fund the re­development”. “The other major airline partner, Virgin Australia, agreed to the deal more than two years ago,” it said.

The Australian Airport Investors Group submission suggested the issue was more widespread, with Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide also in a stalemate with one airline.

“Several airports are now ­recording significant under­payment from this airline group, while the airline group continues to use the same airport services and refuses to support capital ­expenditure projects,” it said.

IATA took a different view, saying “profit-maximising airport operators were not delivering value for money in airport services”. From 2008 to 2017 aeronautical charges at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth rose 58 per cent in real terms.

A Qantas spokesman said the Gold Coast and Towns­ville were proposing “gold-plated” upgrades, the cost of which would be passed on to customers as higher fees. It has said charges were already too high and it did not want to have to raise airfares.

Qantas and Virgin Australia are preparing submissions.


&..

Airlines ‘play up airport costs’

[Image: 01301979a98998378ffad58d5f9e9e0c]ROBYN IRONSIDE
Airlines have been accused of overstating the impact of airport charges on their ability to deliver competitively priced airfares.


Inquiry told airlines play up impact of airport costs on bottom line


Australian airlines have been accused of overstating the impact of airport charges on their ability to deliver competitively priced airfares.

In its submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports, the Airports Council International argues that airline buyer power more than countered any monopoly advantage of airports.

The submission points out that the Qantas Group has more than a 50 per cent market share of air transport services in Australia, followed by Virgin Australia with 25 per cent.

“Airlines are consequently able to exercise a potential buyer power that fully offsets or countervails any market power the airport might enjoy,” says the submission from ACI, which represents 1953 airports worldwide. “These factors have prevented the airport operator from applying a monopolistic behaviour and setting excessive charges.”

The ACI says airport charges represent a “relatively small item” in the airlines’ total cost structures, remaining in the realm of 4 per cent for the past few decades.

“An independent study on the real determinants of airfares noted the static nature of airport charges in contrast with the extremely dynamic pricing techniques used by airlines to set airfares,” the submission says.

“It also found that lower airport charges are generally not passed through to passengers in terms of lower airfares.”

Another submission, from the Australian Airports Investor Group, also argues that airports are not in a position to overcharge for their services.

Made up of superannuation funds and private and institutional fund managers, the group says the present light-handed regulatory regime for airports is operating “efficiently and equitably”.

“(It) encourages right-timed and sized investments into improving the airports’ facilities and services, evidenced by record levels of investment and improved quality of service,” the submission says. “Airports and airlines have consistently been able to reach commercial outcomes for the last 16 years, reflecting a balanced negotiation environment.”

The submission goes on to say privatisation has delivered a “very positive result for the commonwealth government and Australian taxpayers through the reduction in government expenditure and transfer of risks to the private sector”.

“Ongoing private sector investment in airports has enabled public funding to be available for use in other sectors such as healthcare and education.”

On the topic of the airports’ “monopoly power”, the submission says that is balanced by the airlines’ market power and ensures effective negotiation processes for setting aeronautical charges.

“This is demonstrated by the current stalemates experienced at Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Darwin and Alice Springs and Townsville airports, where pricing and capital expenditure agreements have been executed with all but one remaining airline group,” the submission says. “Several airports are now recording significant underpayment from this airline group, while the airline group continues to use the same airport services and refuses to support capital expenditure projects.”

The same issue is addressed in Northern Territory Airports’ submission, as reported in The Australian this week.

The submission identifies Qantas as the group refusing to pay increased aeronautical charges at Darwin and Alice Springs airports because it has not agreed to the increases.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#45
McDo'Naut does naut on airports vs airlines war - Part II

Via the Oz today:

Quote:Airports earn too much: airlines
[Image: 40d408b467edf5cefb2954ebbdba62dd]ROBYN IRONSIDE
Australia’s major airlines say airports have become too profitable since privatisation due to the light-handed monitoring regime.

Australia’s airports have become too profitable since deregulation: airlines

Australia’s major airlines say airports have become too profitable since privatisation as a result of light-handed monitoring, and more regulation would provide significant cost benefits for consumers.

In a detailed submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into economic regulation of airports, Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ), representing Qantas, Virgin Australia, Regional Express and Air New Zealand, said the existing regulatory system was “powerless to curtail the mono­poly power of airports”.

The PC inquiry was established following concerns raised by Australian Competition & Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims about the lack of constraint on airports’ market power.

The ACCC plays a price-monitoring role for the four major airports, publishing an annual report on their performance in the areas of aeronautical charges, retail tenancies, parking and ground transport. But A4ANZ chairman Graeme Samuel said the existing regime was failing to facilitate commercial negotiations between airports and their customers.

“This should not come as a surprise to anyone, as monopolists will overcharge unless faced with a credible threat of regulation,” said Mr Samuel, a former ACCC chairman. “A4ANZ’s position is supported by all the expert advice we received that the current system is not sustainable. It lacks a credible threat.”

He said financial modelling by Frontier Economics had found there could be a cost benefit of $18 billion from more effective regulation.

Among the injustices highlighted in the submission was the price of food and pharmaceuticals at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth airports, which tended to be about 25 per cent higher than at shops a few kilometres away.

The submission also noted the 25 per cent per passenger increase in aeronautical revenue at the four major airports in the past decade.

A4ANZ chief executive Alison Roberts said something had to change if consumers were to be shielded from the impact of what was ahead. “While airlines have been able to keep downward pressure on airfares over the past decade, globally, fares are expected to rise next year,” Dr Roberts said.

The airlines’ call for greater airport regulation was not shared by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, whose submission said any adverse change to the current “light-handed” monitoring could distort investment incentives.

The inquiry is expected to report next year.
Meanwhile in Can'tberra McDo'Naut does naut on anything aviation related... Dodgy

[Image: Dmr26l3U8AAX4Xq.jpg]

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#46
(09-10-2018, 08:18 AM)Peetwo Wrote: McDo'Naut does naut on airports vs airlines war - Part II

Via the Oz today:

Quote:Airports earn too much: airlines
[Image: 40d408b467edf5cefb2954ebbdba62dd]ROBYN IRONSIDE
Australia’s major airlines say airports have become too profitable since privatisation due to the light-handed monitoring regime.

Australia’s airports have become too profitable since deregulation: airlines

Australia’s major airlines say airports have become too profitable since privatisation as a result of light-handed monitoring, and more regulation would provide significant cost benefits for consumers.

In a detailed submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into economic regulation of airports, Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ), representing Qantas, Virgin Australia, Regional Express and Air New Zealand, said the existing regulatory system was “powerless to curtail the mono­poly power of airports”.

The PC inquiry was established following concerns raised by Australian Competition & Consumer Commission chairman Rod Sims about the lack of constraint on airports’ market power.

The ACCC plays a price-monitoring role for the four major airports, publishing an annual report on their performance in the areas of aeronautical charges, retail tenancies, parking and ground transport. But A4ANZ chairman Graeme Samuel said the existing regime was failing to facilitate commercial negotiations between airports and their customers.

“This should not come as a surprise to anyone, as monopolists will overcharge unless faced with a credible threat of regulation,” said Mr Samuel, a former ACCC chairman. “A4ANZ’s position is supported by all the expert advice we received that the current system is not sustainable. It lacks a credible threat.”

He said financial modelling by Frontier Economics had found there could be a cost benefit of $18 billion from more effective regulation.

Among the injustices highlighted in the submission was the price of food and pharmaceuticals at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth airports, which tended to be about 25 per cent higher than at shops a few kilometres away.

The submission also noted the 25 per cent per passenger increase in aeronautical revenue at the four major airports in the past decade.

A4ANZ chief executive Alison Roberts said something had to change if consumers were to be shielded from the impact of what was ahead. “While airlines have been able to keep downward pressure on airfares over the past decade, globally, fares are expected to rise next year,” Dr Roberts said.

The airlines’ call for greater airport regulation was not shared by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, whose submission said any adverse change to the current “light-handed” monitoring could distort investment incentives.

The inquiry is expected to report next year.
Meanwhile in Can'tberra McDo'Naut does naut on anything aviation related... Dodgy

[Image: Dmr26l3U8AAX4Xq.jpg]

& today (11/09/18) in the Oz:


Quote:Airports defend parking prices
[Image: e9d4105cbd87bbd2ee9a1787ae41b2d2]ROBYN IRONSIDE
Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth airports want the consumer watchdog to stop monitoring the cost of carparking.




Airports defend parking prices, insist light oversight is working

Airports Association wants the consumer watchdog to stop monitoring the cost of car-parking at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth airports because of the regu­latory burden involved.

In a 110-page submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports, the AAA argued that overall the current light-handed monitoring regime was working well.

The submission said there was no evidence of market power abuse by major airports, and calls to regulate the pricing activities of small regional ­airports were a “dubious ­proposition”.

The association said it did not believe there was a basis for continuing to monitor the price of ground access and car-parking because there was no evidence of excessive profit-making.

The last airport monitoring report by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission found profit margins for airport car-parking ranged from 52.4 per cent in Perth to 71.9 per cent in Sydney.

In the first six months of this year, Sydney Airport recorded a 2.1 per cent increase in car-parking revenue, to $78.6 million.

Drive-up parking costs at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth airports range from $19.80 to $29 for one to two hours, and from $54 to $102 for up to 48 hours.

The AAA submission said car-parking prices had generally remained stable, with “small ­adjustments” made to reflect changing patterns of demand and congestion.

“With a couple of exceptions, car-parking prices at the airports have increased by less over the last five years than the proportional increase in the value of the land in proximity to the car parks,” the submission said.

Consumer Action Law Centre policy director Denise Boyd said providing the ACCC with information about car-parking should not be a regulatory burden if airports were doing the right thing.

“I would say there’s a general view that the cost of airport car-parking virtually amounts to price gouging and that’s why we need regulatory oversight to keep this in check,” she said.



MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#47
DEFINITION OF GOUGING

You want to know what gouging is, then try this little selection from over the past few weeks. The airlines have gouged my company excessively and most travel has been at short notice due to organisational needs;

Moranbah/Brisbane/Moranbah $1,900
Emerald/Brisbane/Emerald $1,500
Longreach/Brisbane/Longreach $1,600

Absolutely disgusting. When you can buy a ticket from Brisbane/LAX/Brisbane for $1,100 you know that the Bush is being gouged, particularly at regional airports.

It is ansolute thievery by Qantas at all three ports mentioned above and by Alliance at one of the three. And I can confirm that Qantas in particular has been bullying, stalling, pressuring and I’ve been told ‘economically terrorizing’ Regional airports during the annual airports fees and charges negotiations that take place, with this year being the worst.

Perhaps the dickless ACCC might want to examine these types of fares at regional airports that have only one RPT airline servicing it? Qantas loves to force airports to open up their books and apply building block methodology for every cent they charge, yet Qantas won’t open up its books and show what the true costs of airport fees and charges are in its ticket structure.

My intel tells me the pathetic little Irish ponce is shoring up the books, squeezing every drop of blood out of the company that he can as he will be gone late 2019. He wants to make sure he gets a final $20m salary including bonus before he sales off into the sunset with his husband.
Reply
#48
Rev Forsyth's review - dead, buried & cremated??

If you wanted further proof that the Iron Ring is back to 'business as usual' (i.e safe skies are - very definitely - empty skies.. Dodgy ) then go no further than the Dept web-page, formerly dedicated to the ASRR (Forsyth) report, where progress would appear to have stopped more than 12 months ago:


Quote:Progress with Implementing the Government Response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review

On 2 December 2015, the former Deputy Prime Minister provided an update on progress with implementing the Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report.
[size=undefined]
On 29 January 2016 the former Deputy Prime Minister provided advice to the Aviation Industry Consultative Council on progress with implementing the Government's response to each recommendation of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report, as at 31 December 2015.[/size]
  • Former Deputy Prime Minister's update to the Aviation Industry Consultative Council PDF: 411 KB 
[size=undefined]
In September 2016, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Darren Chester MP agreed to the release by the Department of an update on progress with implementing the Government's response to each of the recommendations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report as at 25 August 2016.
[/size]
  • Implementation Progress Report as at 25 August 2016 PDF: 420 KB [Image: readspeaker_listen_icon.gif]
[size=undefined]
In October 2017, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Darren Chester MP agreed to the release by the Department of an update on progress with implementing the Government's response to each of the recommendations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report as at 31 July 2017.

The progress report adopts the terminology of ‘Completed’, ‘Completed— Implementation Ongoing’, and ‘In Progress’.

‘Completed’ means the action requested by the Government has been taken whether in terms of the production of new or revised documentation, or the completion of a required review or report.
‘Completed—Implementation Ongoing’ refers to circumstances where the action requested by the Government has been taken, but giving practical effect to the changes requires the adoption and ongoing use of new arrangements through policies, procedures and practices, largely by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

‘In Progress’ means the action requested by the Government is currently being undertaken. A timeframe for expected completion has been included for those items.
[/size]
  • Implementation Progress Report as at 31 July 2017 PDF: 422 KB 
 
Reviewing that (now shelf-wared) report, what stood out for me was the CASA Iron ring proclamation/response to probably the most important Forsyth (ASRR) recommendations 17 & 18:

Quote:[Image: DmznjPIVAAIUwk8.jpg]
  
If you ever wanted a greater example of how the CASA Iron Ring believe they are simply unanswerable to anybody, including the Minister of the crown over-sighting aviation, then go no further than the 'status of Govt response' to R17 & R18:

Completed – Implementation Ongoing  P2 - Isn't that by definition a bizarre dichotomy? How can something be completed when the implementation is ongoing?

CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy was published on 15 September 2015.


It is acknowledged that implementation of the Regulatory Philosophy throughout CASA is ongoing. P2 - "Please explain" how adopting a 'regulatory philosophy' is ongoing? Why is it not possible for Carmody to simply state.. "that as from - date:day/week/month/year - all CASA staff will adhere to the Govt adopted (ASRR recommended) ' JUST CULTURE' regulatory philosophy - ALL ELSE?" 

Completed – Implementation Ongoing

The use of discretion principles have been incorporated into the CASA Regulatory Philosophy released on 15 September 2015 and appropriate amendments made to the Enforcement Manual published in February 2016. P2 - It is true that the last time there was an amendment to the CASA (Iron Ring endorsed) 'Enforcement Manual' was in January 2016 - see HERE. However I would argue that the 'spirit and intent' of the (above)  statement is sorely tested when you consider that arguably the greatest protagonist for industry distrust still remains as the signatory to the CASA EM published in February 2016:

Quote:[Image: Dmz4yuOV4AEbkqL.jpg]

IMHO the above (still current) 'Foreword' makes it simply impossible to believe that the CASA (Iron Ring) executive have any intention of embracing/adopting the Forsyth recommended, Govt endorsed, 'just culture' regulatory philosophy -  Dodgy 


MTF...P2  Cool   
 


    
Reply
#49
McDo'Naut does naut on airports vs airlines war - Part III


And so while the miniscule continues to do ZIP; the buck passing continues between the airports (AAA) and the Red Rat (Qantas)... Rolleyes

Via the Oz today:

Quote:Airports ‘taking us for a ride’
[Image: 43ce6e72c1d982824d6538fb3749f1f5]ROBYN IRONSIDE

Airports are slugging passengers at every step of their journey, Qantas has told the Productivity Commission.


Airports taking passengers for a ride: Qantas

Airports are slugging passengers at every step of their journey, Qantas has told the Productivity Commission.

In a submission to an inquiry into the economic regulation of airports, Qantas said airport charges were now the fourth largest cost for airlines after fuel, fleet and people.

The national carrier is part of a group of airlines that wants more effective regulation to set pricing prin­ciples for aero­nautical and security services and allow inde­pendent arbitration when commercial negotiations fail.

“Many airports levy unreason­ably high charges, enjoy above-market profits, make inefficient business decisions and engage in poor negotiating conduct,” Qantas says in its submission. “Australian monopoly airports collect a toll at every step of a passenger’s journey — from extracting high hourly and daily rates for car-park­ing, airport tolls for taxis and rideshare vehicles, to baggage trolley rentals, above-market rents for retailers and throughput levies for jet fuel for aircraft.”

The inquiry is the fourth undertaken by the Productivity Commission into airport charges, following on from airports’ privatisation, and the introduction of the current monitoring regime in 2002.

The Qantas submission says airports procure services but ultimately do not have to pay for them, and therefore have “no ­incentive to obtain value for money”.

It points to security services as an example of airports exploiting light-handed regulation for profit. “Airports currently have virtually unlimited discretion as to the types and costs of security services they will procure,” the submission says. “This has contributed to excessive costs, operating inefficiencies and a systemic lack of transparency.”

The submission also accuses airports of making airlines pay for additional security services such as car licence plate readers in carparks; screening of retail goods and staff; and airport employee costs and overheads.

“Unfortunately, airlines are generally not consulted by airports where new security ser­vices are implemented but are simply notified of the increased cost,” the submission says.

The Australian Airports ­Association and its members have supported the continuation of the current regime, saying it has helped foster passenger growth and investment in airport infrastructure.

“Australian airports rate well against their global counterparts and have maintained high-­quality facilities for passengers even as they’ve invested to support significant growth,” said the AAA’s chief executive, Caroline Wilkie.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#50
JOYCE ENTERS CLUB CUCKOO LAND

Bahahahaha, what an effing joke. Joyce is off with the fairies, so to speak. This arseclown is forgetting, or simply doesn’t know, that the majority of regional airports are breaking even or running at a loss. The crap he has spun to the Commisiion is a bad joke.

Maybe Joyce needs to be reminded that while regional airports are in the red, his airline is about to turn a billion dollar profit. And he stands to earn over $20m. And he has the nerve to moan about lisence plate technology?? And BAC has spent billions upgrading terminals, runways, road networks and infrastructure so that businesses like Qantas can keep growing. What an unappreciative little queer.

Dear Allan, piss off back to Ireland you parasite.

As for the AAA, you need to draw a line in the sand with the Irish gnome and fight the Rat hand, tooth and nail. Joyce has thrown down the gauntlet and it’s going to be a fight to the death.


Tick $$$$ Tock
Reply
#51
Send not to know for whom the bell tolls;

GD – “Joyce has thrown down the gauntlet and it’s going to be a fight to the death”.

Aye, but: whose funeral dirge is the band playing? I noted the following headline:-

Wagga wipe-out was a warning of voter anger.  (Miranda Devine).

Never were truer word penned in relation to Wagga, Mc Donaught is now fair and square on the voters hit list; has to be. His abysmal performance at the AOPA indaba enunciated, very clearly, his inability to deal with matters aeronautical, when you add to that fiasco his current lack of leadership on the airport charges wrangle – a crystal clear picture emerges: that of a little lost sheep, who can’t find his Bo-Peep. Folks in the rural centres ain’t anywhere near daft; the ‘life-style’ is very much more relaxed than that of city folk and they pay attention to what their elected member of parliament is doing and the results ‘on the table’.

So far all Mc Donaught has demonstrated is his inability to deal with anything to do with his  role as ‘minister’, let alone resolve problems, like the aeronautical storm in his teacup. I have always found that dealing with any problem early, before it becomes a bigger matter with knock on effects to be a sound policy. If you spill a coffee on the desk; best mop it up straight away, lest the key board ends up in the bin, along with anything else affected.

No matter; I reckon – and hope, for their own protection, the good voting folk of Wagga have been paying attention to the total lack of performance not only on their behalf, but on that of the nation has been a grand exhibition of how to do absolutely nothing of benefit to anyone - bar himself. The only recourse available is through the ballot box.

Toot – toot.
Reply
#52
(09-14-2018, 08:14 AM)Kharon Wrote: Send not to know for whom the bell tolls;

GD – “Joyce has thrown down the gauntlet and it’s going to be a fight to the death”.

Aye, but: whose funeral dirge is the band playing? I noted the following headline:-

Wagga wipe-out was a warning of voter anger.  (Miranda Devine).

Never were truer word penned in relation to Wagga, Mc Donaught is now fair and square on the voters hit list; has to be. His abysmal performance at the AOPA indaba enunciated, very clearly, his inability to deal with matters aeronautical, when you add to that fiasco his current lack of leadership on the airport charges wrangle – a crystal clear picture emerges: that of a little lost sheep, who can’t find his Bo-Peep. Folks in the rural centres ain’t anywhere near daft; the ‘life-style’ is very much more relaxed than that of city folk and they pay attention to what their elected member of parliament is doing and the results ‘on the table’.

So far all Mc Donaught has demonstrated is his inability to deal with anything to do with his  role as ‘minister’, let alone resolve problems, like the aeronautical storm in his teacup. I have always found that dealing with any problem early, before it becomes a bigger matter with knock on effects to be a sound policy. If you spill a coffee on the desk; best mop it up straight away, lest the key board ends up in the bin, along with anything else affected.

No matter; I reckon – and hope, for their own protection, the good voting folk of Wagga have been paying attention to the total lack of performance not only on their behalf, but on that of the nation has been a grand exhibition of how to do absolutely nothing of benefit to anyone - bar himself. The only recourse available is through the ballot box.

Toot – toot.

Speaking of our useless NFI miniscule McDo'naut I see today that he actually mentioned the "A" word in announcing 2 additions to the, Ministerial top-cover, ASA & CASA Boards... Dodgy 

Via the Oz:


Quote:Aviation safety boards boosted


[Image: 0caab30b857d19e62c30aa4a11c25053]ROBYN IRONSIDE

Two key appointments will be announced today to Australia’s peak air safety agencies.


Aviation safety boards boosted

Two key appointments will be announced today to Australia’s peak air safety agencies.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack has appointed Air Chief Marshal (retired) Mark Binskin as deputy chair of the Airservices Australia board, and Michael Bridge to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority board.

Mr McCormack said Air Chief Marshal Binskin would bring “outstanding governance, aviation and military experience” to the Airservices board.

“An active civil aviation pilot, Air Chief Marshal Binskin also brings considerable leadership experience to his new role, together with in-depth knowledge of major projects, finance and governance, especially with the Australian Defence Force,” he said.

“His appointment will provide for strong strategic oversight of Airservices as it continues to work with Defence and contractor Thales on a new national air traffic management system under the OneSKY project.”

Air Chief Marshal Binskin’s retirement from the Royal Australian Air Force was marked last month with a six ship fly past of F/A-18A/B Hornets, over Fairbairn in Canberra.

Mr Bridge also brought “considerable experience” to his role on the CASA board as the former chief executive of Airnorth, a passenger transport and charter services operator in the Northern Territory.

“As a country MP, I know how vital giving a further voice to regional air services is, and I know Michael’s experience in the Territory will bring that perspective to Airservices’ discussions,” Mr McCormack said.

“His wealth of aviation safety expertise and operational experience will be valuable to the board, particularly given he was a pilot for more than 30 years.”

He said the appointment was particularly timely, given CASA’s regulatory reform ­program, which included “modernising flight operation regu­lations”.

Last month, Mr McCormack appointed aviation industry veteran Tony Matthews to the role of CASA chairman, and said he looked forward to continuing to work closely with CASA and Airservices.
  
Hmm...I wonder how much influence his 'aviation adviser' had in the selection of these two individuals? This brings me to my 1st QON for this year's Supp Budget Estimates Q/ How is it not a huge COI that the miniscule has an aviation adviser who was previously an adviser to the CASA CEO Carmody; & prior to that an adviser to the Dept; & prior to that the aviation adviser to former miniscule 6D Chester; and finally prior to that:

Quote:Manager, Part 61 taskforce, Part 141/142
Dates Employed Oct 2015 – Mar 2016

Employment Duration 6 mos
Location Canberra, Australia
Manager of CASR Part 141/142 review team.
Title Standards Officer (Large aeroplanes)
Dates Employed Aug 2013 – Oct 2015

Employment Duration 2 yrs 3 mos
Providing policy guidance and regulation development for the CASR operations suite of regulations.

Does this answer the question on why it is McDo'Naut has done naut on Wagga Summit resolutions and why the Rev Forsyth's review is dead, buried & cremated ??


MTF...P2  Angry
Reply
#53
Says McDo’nothing with a half mongrel in his shorts;

“Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack has appointed Air Chief Marshal (retired) Mark Binskin as deputy chair of the Airservices Australia board”

Wonderful, just wonderful. Yet another brown nosing Government lapdog Air Chief Marshall lands the reward of winning a first class business seat, ringside, at the ASA trough. A reward for being a loyal lapdog, climbing greasy poles and licking numerous Ministers assholes cleaner than a sheet of white A4 paper. At least Sir Anus will tell him which corners of the carpet not to lift and peer under. No doubt Mark Binliner will add naught value to McDonaugts little alphabet soup portfolio.......disgraceful.

Tick tock
Reply
#54
McDo'Naut and the Iron Ring mole within? Dodgy 

(09-14-2018, 12:34 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Hmm...I wonder how much influence his 'aviation adviser' had in the selection of these two individuals? This brings me to my 1st QON for this year's Supp Budget Estimates Q/ How is it not a huge COI that the miniscule has an aviation adviser who was previously an adviser to the CASA CEO Carmody; & prior to that an adviser to the Dept; & prior to that the aviation adviser to former miniscule 6D Chester; and finally prior to that:

Quote:Manager, Part 61 taskforce, Part 141/142
Dates Employed Oct 2015 – Mar 2016

Employment Duration 6 mos
Location Canberra, Australia
Manager of CASR Part 141/142 review team.
Title Standards Officer (Large aeroplanes)
Dates Employed Aug 2013 – Oct 2015

Employment Duration 2 yrs 3 mos
Providing policy guidance and regulation development for the CASR operations suite of regulations.

Does this answer the question on why it is McDo'Naut has done naut on Wagga Summit resolutions and why the Rev Forsyth's review is dead, buried & cremated ??

"P2 clear to backtrack!"

Back to my QON... Rolleyes

Backtracking on SC's conflict of interest timeline, I note that shortly after becoming the 'aviation adviser' to Carmody that, along with CC and other CASA/dept officials, SC attended the 17 November 2017 ASAP meeting as an observer: ASAP meeting minutes, 22 November 2017

Quote:OBSERVERS
Mr Steven Campbell Senior Aviation Adviser, Office of the CEO/DAS
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Mr Shane Carmody Director of Aviation Safety and CEO
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Mr Andreas Marcelja Industry Relations Manager (ASAP Secretariat)
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Mr Jason McHeyzer Regulation Development and Implementation Manager
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Ms Pip Spence Acting Deputy Secretary
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Mr Jim Wolfe General Manager Air Traffic Policy
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

P2 comment: I note that at that meeting amongst issues covered there was discussion about the proposed medical certification policy to be adopted by CASA:


Quote:Meeting outcomes

The ASAP endorsed a policy approach for a number of important aviation issues at the meeting. The main outcomes from the meeting were:
  • Aviation medicals: The ASAP endorsed a proposed policy position for aviation medical certification and noted that CASA intends to implement changes immediately. A further update will be provided once implementation planning has been completed.

  • Radio frequency use in low level airspace: The panel endorsed a draft policy position for radio frequency use in low altitude Class G airspace and noted that CASA would undertake public consultation through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

  • Flying operations regulations: The ASAP supported the principles behind the flying operations regulations (Parts 91, 119, 121, 135, 133 and 138 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998) and noted each Part would be presented in more detail for consideration and advice, together with a recommendation to form technical working groups to review and support finalisation of the rules.

  • Maintenance engineer licensing reform (Part 66): The ASAP endorsed a policy outcomes for the post implementation review of aircraft maintenance engineer licensing. They also agreed to establish a Technical Working Group to develop detailed proposals and support implementation of the reform.
   
Less than 7 months after that meeting SC is mysteriously binned by Carmody, only to land on his feet again as the Senior Aviation Adviser to the new DPM and miniscule McDo'Naut. Less than 2 months after becoming McDo'Naut's aviation adviser SC attends the Wagga Aviation Summit on behalf of the miniscule and in company with Dept bureaucrat Jim Wolfe. Who just so happened to also be an observer at the ASAP meeting?

Quote:In addition, the following Important guests are attending:

1. City of Wagga Wagga Mayor, Councillor Greg Conkey
2. Senate RRAT Committee, Senator Slade Brockman
3. Senate RRAT Committee Secretary, Dr Jane Thompson
4. Senator for Queensland, Senator Fraser Anning
5. Senator David Fawcett, Mr Micah Wright-Taylor
6. Senator Rex Patrick and Mr Jonathan Sharman
7. Department of Infrastructure, Mr Jim Wolfe
8. Department of Infrastructure, Melissa Cashman
9. Aviation Advisor for the DPM, Mr Stephen Campbell
10. CASA Group Manager, Mr Rob Walker
11. Airservices Australia, Mr Stephen Angus
12. University of New South Wales, Prof Ian Hampson
13. iAOPA Secretary-General, Mr Craig Spence
14. AOPA Australia Director, Mr Michael Smith
   
Ironically Mr Wolfe and SC by association would have had close work-related discussions when SC was working for the Dept (prior to Carmody) as an aviation adviser (Western Sydney Airport Division-Airspace and flight path design). Of course prior to that SC was the former miniscule 6D Chester's aviation adviser and the man who was in attendance at the infamous Tamworth Aviation rally - can anyone else see a pattern here?  Angry 

Obviously the Dept and CASA believe this guy is worth the substantial coin they have been paying him to be a ministerial mole within. But what about his ability as an aviation adviser?

Fortunately we have a perfect example of Govt policy/legislation etc. (which we can now review) where this wannabe (Mandarin, pollywaffle??) would have had an influence as an expert 'aviation adviser' to the former miniscule 6D Chester.

Remember this? 


Quote:[/url]
Thursday, 1 December 2016


Mr CHESTER
 
(Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (11:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.
We all recognise the 21 Australian federal leased airports are critical infrastructure assets to our nation's productivity and economic growth. Since privatisation, airport lessee companies have invested significant capital, in the order of billions of dollars, and our airports currently directly employ over 120,000 people across Australia. This is a product of sound government policy and robust and strategic long-term planning by airport operators.

I am proud of the significant progress our airports have made since privatisation in delivering high-quality, economically beneficial investment decisions that respond positively to the current and future needs of the aviation industry and maximise the benefits to the Australian economy and communities.

I am particularly proud of the management of our airports and I recognise their efforts to better integrate and facilitate balanced and coherent planning outcomes with the state, territory and local governments who have responsibilities for planning and infrastructure provision in the areas surrounding our airports.

The government regulates planning and development on our airport sites through the Airports Act 1996. Under the Airports Act, all federal leased airports (except Mount Isa and Tenant Creek) are required to prepare a master plan every five years to establish a strategic direction for efficient and economic development at the airport as well as prepare major development plans for specific major on-airport developments.

The Airports Act sets out the required content of each plan and prescribes the public consultation process an airport lessee company must undertake prior to the plan being submitted for ministerial consideration. On average, the current legislative process requires an airport lessee company to expend significant resources and it can take the company two years on average to develop each plan.

Certain aspects of these processes are generating inefficient outcomes for industry as well as imposing unnecessary and onerous administrative and compliance costs. I also recognise on-airport developments are not immune to fluctuations in the marketplace and the economic climate.

The measures contained in this Airports Amendment Bill 2016 will fine-tune existing regulation and streamline policy intentions; it will not significantly shift policy or regulatory oversight. It reinforces the government's commitment to implement measures consistent with its deregulation and productivity agendas. The bill offers a more proportionate and efficiency based regulatory approach that reduces administrative and compliance costs for operators. It also creates regulatory certainty for industry and maintains appropriate and effective regulatory oversight.
This bill can be considered in three parts.

Part 1 proposes two key changes to the existing master plan process, the first of which is to implement a differential master plan cycle to enable federal leased airports, other than the major airports of Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, and Sydney (Kingsford-Smith), to submit a master plan every eight years instead of every five years.

All federal leased airports are currently required to prepare a new master plan every five years irrespective of the operational, administrative, resourcing and financial capacity of individual airports or the level of impact their operations have on the community. Implementing an eight-year master plan cycle for secondary and general aviation airports, will minimise the impacts of these factors.

I also recognise that implementation time frames of various components of the master plan, including key airport infrastructure projects and other aviation and non-aviation developments, the ground transport plan and environment strategy, generally extend beyond the current five-year submission cycle. Therefore, this amendment aims to enable longer term planning at these secondary and general aviation airports.

It is worth noting that this amendment will not change the current situation for Sydney West airport; it will maintain a five-year cycle along with the other four major federal leased airports, once the airport is operational.

The second change is to mandate the inclusion of a new Australian Noise Exposure Forecast in each new master plan. While the Airports Act currently sets out an Australian Noise Exposure Forecast must be included in a master plan, it does not specify the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast must be renewed for each new plan.

The Australian Noise Exposure Forecast is a computer generated descriptor of aircraft noise widely used by state, territory, local governments and land use planning agencies for long-term planning and development arrangements around airport sites.

Therefore, the government maintains it is essential each new master plan contain the most up-to-date information to facilitate integrated, balanced and coherent planning outcomes and to inform incompatible and sensitive land uses from encroaching too close to airports.

Part 2 of the bill relates specifically to the monetary trigger for a major development plan.

Major development plans are required for each major airport development at federal leased airports, excluding Tennant Creek and Mount Isa. The Airports Act prescribes the circumstances which trigger a major development plan, including a monetary trigger, for certain development where the cost of construction exceeds $20 million.
In 2007 the Airports Act was amended to increase the monetary threshold from $10 million to $20 million due to ongoing increases in building costs since the act came into effect. Further increases to the construction activity costs and inflation since 2007 have resulted in an increased number of on-airport developments unnecessarily triggering the requirement for a major development plan.

Having regard to changes and conditions in the construction industry costs since 2007, and the economic and marketplace conditions, this bill proposes to increase the monetary threshold from $20 million to $35 million.

The bill also proposes the monetary threshold be reviewed and revised via legislative instrument every three years; having regard to changes in construction activity costs and associated indexations to ensure the monetary trigger accurately reflects and keeps pace with economic and marketplace conditions.

The bill proposes an additional legislative instrument to clarify the type of construction activities that should and should not be included when calculating if a project triggers the monetary threshold for a major development plan. For example, airports must include costs of base building fit-out in its calculations. Base building fit-out includes the internal cladding to finish off the base building prior to tenancy fit-out. However, the airport is not required to include tenant specific fit-outs and tenant supplied items. This instrument will remove any confusion for industry and ensure a consistent costing application across all federal leased airports.

Part 3 of the bill relates specifically to major development plan processes.

The first amendment imposes a new 15-business-day statutory decision time frame within which the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport must consider applications from airport lessee companies for reduced consultation periods for major development plans, with such applications deemed approved if there is no ministerial decision within this time frame.

This amendment will not impact the prescribed requirements for public consultation, however it will provide industry with certainty about the ministerial decision time frame, which could then be accounted for in the airport's planning process.
The final amendments proposed in this bill relate to substantial completion of an approved major development plan.

The Airports Act currently requires an approved major development plan to be substantially completed, unless otherwise specified in the approval, within a maximum of five years with only one option for the minister to extend the period by up to a further two years.

While the majority of approved major development plans are completed in the prescribed time frame, on rare occasions some larger or more complex developments, such as a new runway, may be subject to unforeseen delays and exceptional circumstances beyond airports' control. As a result, achieving a substantially complete status may require more than the standard seven-year time frame.

Where an airport is committed to substantially completing an approved major development plan, the airport should be given the opportunity to do so without the threat of legislative penalty. Therefore, the bill proposes to remove the restriction on the number of times the minister may extend the time frame for substantial completion.

In rare circumstances a project with an approved major development plan may become unviable due to exceptional and unforeseen circumstances beyond the airports' control. For such instances, where the project has not commenced, the bill proposes the airport can notify the minister of its intentions of not proceeding with the approved major development plan without the threat of legislative penalty.
These amendments recognise that airports would have already expended significant financial and administrative resources to have a major development plan approved. Therefore, these amendments will minimise regulatory uncertainty for airports and industry and ensure an efficient and streamlined process.

The bill also includes:

a minor amendment to correct an existing error;
a technical amendment to insert a word to complete a provision; and
a technical amendment to remove a provision that has been spent for some time.
On a final note, I would like to acknowledge our airports are nationally significant infrastructure assets that keep us connected to each other and connect Australia to the world. They continue to play a major role in driving the economic development of Australia as enablers of commerce and trade, and the social and economic benefits they provide to all Australians should not be understated.

This bill is yet another example of this government consulting with and responding to the needs of industry to achieve better regulatory outcomes for all.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.
      
Of course the passing of that amendment bill was subsequently delayed due to the tragic YMEN DFO accident less than 3 months later. Well apparently the ministerial concerns back then were unfounded because with little to no fanfare the amendment bill was passed last week in both houses of Parliament: Airports Amendment Bill 2018 

So I guess the verdict is SC did a good job advising the miniscule and the Govt - the real question there is but for WHO did he do a good job? Because it certainly wasn't the victims of the DFO prang or by association certain industry stakeholders (ie aircrew/ATCOs etc) and of course the travelling public... Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool

ps As a perfect counterpoint to the McDo'Naut's gushing CASA/ASA board additions announcement yesterday, IMO one cannot go past Leadsled on the UP this AM: 


Quote:Folks,


It was quite funny reading the actual Ministerial Press Releases, the appointments were all to do with "increasing air safety" or some such S.9A compliant nonsense.

It seem that everything CASA/Airservices does is in the interests of "more air safety" or some such description. There seems to be a never ending supply of " air safety" to tip into the big "air safety" bucket, without it slopping over the edges and being wasted.

I have come to the conclusion that this trend will be really appreciated by the clamorous general public, other politicians and the courts, but the Ministerial media staff are not really taking advantage of the punters alleged incessant and voluble demands for "more air safety".

Accordingly, to comply with the Act and public demand that "safety is our first priority", I expect to see future confirmatory press releases along the following lines:

1) More air safety to result from new and innovative CASA Executive Rubber Plant Maintenance Contract.
2)Air safety to improve with reformed CASA staff coffee and biscuits administration regulation.
3) New and agile flexitime arrangements for CASA staff to add more air safety.

and one that might even have a positive air safety result:

4) CASA extended Christmas/New Year shutdown to enhance Australian air safety.

Come on, PR staff, you know you can do it!! Show how dedicated the Minister really is to air safety as his first priority!!!

Tootle pip!!
  
Big Grin Big Grin
Reply
#55
McDo'Naut does naut on airports vs airlines war - Part IV

Just catching up but what a week of the Oz etc. media coverage on the airport imbroglio -  Rolleyes 

Starting in reverse from yesterday, the pragmatic Breuster is back in the headlines... Wink 


Quote:Costs crippling regional airports
[Image: 2e6223958908cddf8aef3247bc27d6a7]ROBYN IRONSIDE
While Australia’s major airports are among the most profitable in the world, it’s different for regional and remote aerodromes.



Regional airports struggling with costs, call for infrastructure fund

While Australia’s major airports are among the most profitable in the world, it’s a different matter for regional and remote aerodromes.

As the Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports casts a bright light on the industry in Australia, the challenges faced by council-run operations have been laid out.

Although legislation demands these airports meet similar standards of infrastructure, maintenance and security to metropolitan airports, sources of income are generally much fewer.

In a frank submission, former Regional Express (Rex) managing director Geoffrey Breust said a new approach to the funding of Australia’s regional and local airports was needed.

“Regional and local airports are unviable on a fully commercial basis,” Mr Breust said. “The high cost of infrastructure development, heavy repair and maintenance, compliance and general operating costs cannot be covered from the charging levels needed to maintain Australia’s regional and local airport system.”

It is a view shared by Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie.

She said that over the next decade, airports outside the major cities faced an expected 38 per cent increase in costs as a result of new and emerging infrastructure requirements.

At the same time, regional airports were under pressure not to increase charges, with some forced to reduce charges under the threat of airlines withdrawing their services.

In the case of King Island Airport off Tasmania’s northwest coast, increased charges prompted Rex to withdraw 30 per cent of its services.

In its submission to the PC inquiry, King Island Council said the increase was necessary to address mounting financial losses by the airport, which had blown out from $280,000 in 2016 to $470,000 this year.

The submission said the withdrawal of Rex, as the only airline servicing Tullamarine in Melbourne, had made a “dire impact” on tourism operators on the island.

“One business reported lost revenue of almost $150,000 in the month that the changes came into effect,” said the submission.

“This level of impact on a community the size of King Island is significant and the threat of such will hamper council’s decisions in considering how to best manage its assets for the good of the whole community.”

The submission also highlighted other difficulties regional councils faced in operating airports as a result of a federal government decision to hand over control in 1994.

King Island Council said attracting qualified and experienced aviation professionals to regional airports was a considerable challenge.

“Remote island airports such as King Island continue to either appoint good non-aviation people and attempt to train them up, or do the best they can recruiting on the limited remuneration they can offer,” said the council’s submission.

Mr Breust said a National Airport Infrastructure Fund was needed to provide grants to regional and local airports for approved major refurbishment and development works. He said part funding could be provided from a levy of 2.5 per cent on the non-aeronautical revenue collected by capital city airports, in recognition of the benefits they received from the wider air transport network.

Next with two for Thursday: 

Quote:Clip airports’ monopoly: ACCC

[Image: c3afca2e1eac4eeff2b10ece97b8ac90]ROBYN IRONSIDE
The corporate watchdog says more needs to be done to stop airports ­exploiting their market power at consumers’ expense.




The organisation responsible for monitoring prices at Australia’s four biggest airports says more needs to be done to stop them exploiting their market power at consumers’ expense. 

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission’s submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports calls for commercial arbitration to even up the bargaining power in negotiations with airlines.

ACCC chairman Rod Sims said some form of regulation was needed to address high aeronautical charges imposed on airlines, which had no option but to pay to use the major ­gateways.

Figures quoted in the ACCC submission show airlines paid an additional $1.3 billion in aeronautical charges to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth airports over the past 10 years.

“It stands to reason that someone with a monopoly position is going to price and behave accordingly, so what we’re saying is, let’s put a logical curb on that to get a more efficient outcome and benefit consumers,” Mr Sims said. “I don’t think having recourse to commercial arbitration is much of a burden — it really just balances out the bargaining power.”

While airports insisted aeronautical charges formed only a small portion of airfares, Mr Sims was confident lower charges would mean cheaper fares. “If airlines’ cost base goes down I think the logical outcome is that prices would go down,” he said.

The ACCC also wants to expand its monitoring of car-­parking costs.

Mr Sims said it was in an airport’s interest to raise charges on people who provide alternatives to parking, such as hire cars, taxis and off-airport parking.

“We think we can be helpful to consumers by helping them understand their options and also to monitor how the competitors to airport parking are being treated,” he said.



&..

ACCC urges bigger airport stick
[Image: b0f9a6eccc729cb6c71ed44fc129903f]ROBYN IRONSIDE
The ACCC has called for the regulation of “exploitative” airports to halt rip-offs due to abuse of market power.


Australia’s competition watchdog has called for effective regulation of the major airports to stop them exploiting their market power to the detriment of consumers.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has today published its submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports.

ACCC chair Rod Sims said the current light-handed regime was not effective in constraining behaviour because there was no credible threat of regulation.

Mr Sims said the main example of that was high aeronautical charges imposed by airports on airlines.

Over the last decade revenue per passenger had increased in real terms by 59 per cent at Perth Airport, 36 per cent at Brisbane, 31 per cent at Melbourne and 15 per cent at Sydney Airport.

Despite the more subdued rate of increase in Sydney, the ACCC submission said the country’s biggest airport still maintained the highest revenue per passenger of the four airports.

“The increases across the four airports over the past decade represent an additional $1.3 billion in payments from airlines,” the submission said.

“Despite these significant increases in charges, only Perth Airport has materially improved its overall quality of service.

“The ratings for the other airports have changed little over this period, typically ranging from ‘satisfactory’ to ‘good’.”

Mr Sims said a more effective regulatory regime was needed to address high aeronautical charges.

“While commercially negotiated outcomes are preferred, there is an imbalance in bargaining power between monopoly airports and airlines, particularly small airlines,” he said.

“To achieve this, the airlines need better access to information and recourse to commercial arbitration if a commercial deal cannot be struck.”

He also called for the PC to consider whether other major airports, such as Adelaide and Canberra, should be subject to similar types of regulatory oversight as the four monitored airports.

In relation to carparking and landside access costs, Mr Sims said current monitoring arrangements should continue.

“Unlike for aeronautical services, there does not appear to be an obvious more effective approach to regulating car parking and landside access services,” he said.

“Further, monitoring and advising consumers may be more effective in relation to car parking than aeronautical services because there are some other ground transport options available.”

The Australian Airports Association wants an end to the monitoring of airport carpark costs because of the regulatory burden to members.

The AAA’s submission to the PC inquiry also argued the current light-handed monitoring regime was working well as demonstrated by the considerable investment airports had made to facilities.

Last but not least, from a busy Ironsider this week in the Oz:


Quote:Virgin, airport at odds on charges

[Image: 76c3bf63e86c51a0d8310f23952b3d13]ROBYN IRONSIDE
Virgin Australia has called for ­urgent changes to the way airports impose charges.




Virgin Australia has called for ­urgent changes to the way airports impose charges at the same time as Australia’s biggest airport insists it has no ability or in­centive to overcharge airlines or passengers.

In separate submissions to a Productivity Commission ­inquiry into the economic regulation of airports, Virgin Australia and Sydney Airport have laid out divergent views of the current monitoring system.

Virgin Australia says the light-handed regime ­allows airports to increase prices and reduce the quality of services offered. “The cost of airport use is ­becoming an increasingly urgent issue for Virgin Australia as these charges have risen, and are likely to continue to increase, inappropriately in the absence of any ­effective constraint on airports,” the submission says.

However, Sydney Airport, which last month posted a $174 million half-year profit, said the threat of the current regulatory regime was “real and sufficient to constrain any exercise of market power”.

It also suggested the airlines were not shy of exercising their own power by “refusing to pay or delaying payment of charges for aeronautical services while continuing to use airport services”.

“In such circumstances, airports cannot in practice deny ­access to an airline, and must continue to negotiate and compromise until an agreement is reached,” the submission says.

“This shifts the pressure of reaching a timely agreement from airlines to the airport.”

Although Sydney Airport ­acknowledged the need for certain airlines to fly there as the main gateway to Australia, the submission says it was a “mutually dependent relationship”.

“Sydney Airport is beholden to its customers as much as its customers are beholden to Sydney Airport,” it says.

Virgin Australia’s submission argued that airports held all the power in negotiations.

“Airlines cannot credibly threaten to withdraw services from most airports, as doing so would typically inflict much greater harm on the airline than the airport,” its submission says.

“For an airline it would have a significant impact on their network reach and the strength of their customer proposition.”

Meanwhile Virgin’s low-cost partner Tigerair will withdraw its business from a Philippines’ heavy maintenance facility after a 737 had to be grounded for three weeks upon return to Australia from a regular check.

Problems with the cockpit voice recorder and cargo smoke detection system were apparently overlooked by engineers.

The airline had used the SIA Engineering facility for the past two years but is now expected to move its business to Singapore.
 
And finally from tail-end of last week, via the Mildura Weekly:
 
Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5)][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75)]MILDURA TO SYDNEY AIR SERVICES AXED[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5)]Posted by [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75)]editor[/color] | Sep 14, 2018 | [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75)]News[/color] |[/color]
[img=565x0]https://www.milduraweekly.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Rex-out-of-mildura.gif[/img]
[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5)][Image: Rex-out-of-mildura.gif]

By JOHN DOOLEY

IN a second sudden announcement, Regional Express Airlines (Rex) has confirmed it will no longer fly direct from Mildura to Sydney from October 27.

Rex had been running flights from Mildura to Sydney on most days of the week.

The announcement came on Wednesday, with Rex again citing increased Mildura Airport charges as the primary reason for the service cut, while also revealing a new five-year partnership with Griffith City Council that will see the airline maintain and expand its services. 

In July this year, Rex announced that it was reviewing its services into Mildura on all routes as a result of cost structure changes at Mildura Airport, something airport management has strenuously disputed was a valid reason.

In response to Rex’s announcement, Mildura Airport Chair Peter O’Donnell said the airline’s decision to cut its service between Mildura and Sydney was disappointing, but not surprising.
“It’s not surprising because Rex has stated publicly that it is under great pressure due to Australia’s current pilot shortage, and I think that has been a major factor in Rex’s decision,” he said.

“It’s disappointing because it means people in Sunraysia will have reduced choice.

“We haven’t yet heard from Rex officially, so we’re not sure when they plan to stop offering this particular route. I suggest any concerned passengers get in contact with the airline and seek clarification.”

In July, Rex signalled that it was reviewing its services into Mildura due to increased charges at Mildura Airport, charges Mr O’Donnell said were justifiable and not excessive.

“For Rex, our proposed increase is about two dollars on a ticket. We kept it as low as possible – the same as half a cup of coffee – so the impact would be barely noticeable,” he said.

“I’m sure that everyone agrees that it is imperative that Mildura Airport continues to pay its own way. That means occasionally, and reluctantly, we have to increase costs like any other business.”

Member for Mallee Andrew Broad described Rex’s decision to cut the direct link to Sydney as an “appalling loss for the prosperity of our community” and that “Mildura Council has to share some responsibility for this.”

“For the Mayor to say that another commercial operator may take the route up is unrealistic, because getting a slot into Sydney airport is almost impossible and now we have lost that,” he said.

Mr Broad said Griffith has been able to strike a deal for a $129 ‘community airfare’ and yet Griffith is further from Sydney than Mildura is to Melbourne.

“It shouldn’t have been unreasonable for the Mildura Council to have been able to negotiate a similar deal for a special fare of around $125 between Mildura and Melbourne and to similarly make efforts to secure the Sydney route,” he said.

“This about making sure our inland cities are connected and here we are losing connections instead of gaining them. 

“Under my new role as Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister I will be arranging to meet with Rex to ensure the future of regional services to and from Mildura.”

Responding to Mr Broad’s comments, Mildura Mayor Mark Eckel said that Council supports Mildura Airport in relation to its position on air services in our region and will continue to work with its board.
[/color]

Oh Murky and Beaker what have you created -  Big Grin


MTF...P2  Tongue

Ps From the above article it looks like miniscule McDo'Naught has hand-passed the airport bun fight to his assistant??

[Image: f9db9348a5f01f335b05f80107ba1022-e1533084739642.jpg]
Reply
#56
ROD SIMS JOINS ELAINE JOYCE IN CLOUD CUCKOO LAND

P2, nice montage of AAA (Around Australian Airports) issues. Always funny seeing VA, the airline that rides Qantas coattails now buying into the airport pricing saga. And it’s also interesting watching the Cardboard Cutout Miniscule deflecting the issues to his ever so qualified footstool to handle on his behalf. Fool.

This other parasite, Rod Sims, isn’t going away in a hurry is he? The dickless Government stooge said;

“While airports insisted aeronautical charges formed only a small portion of airfares, Mr Sims was confident lower charges would mean cheaper fares. “If airlines’ cost base goes down I think the logical outcome is that prices would go down,” he said.”

Yes Rod, of course the airlines will pass on the cost savings to the customer if the airports lower their fees and charges! NOT. The worst thing Sims did was mention the word ‘logic’ in his dumbass statement. Rod, get out from beneath the airline CEO’s desks, wipe your chin clean from all those secretions and remove your knee pads. You sir, this week, officially join Joyce in that special club; Cloud Cuckoo Land. Alan said your welcome kit is in the mail......

Tick ‘Cuckoo’ Tock
Reply
#57
From P2 - who is suffering NBN- itis.

Dear DPM 21/09/18 - L&Ks BM.

Now to another issue that the miniscule is STILL being advised to ignore...  

Via Wannabe off the AOPA Oz thread...  

From Oz Flying...

[Image: morgan_carmody.jpg]
AOPA calls for Medicals Risk Assessment

21 September 2018

AOPA Australia today called upon CASA CEO Shane Carmody to release a risk assessment that showed it was safe for holders of Recreational Pilot Certificates to fly on self-certified medicals but not for holders of Recreational Pilot Licences or Private Pilot Licences.

RPCs are issued by Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) for two-seat aircraft up to 600 kg MTOW, whereas the RPL and PPL are issued by CASA for VH-registered aircraft.

"If CASA considers it safe for a private ‘recreational’ pilot to operate in small aircraft with one passenger outside of controlled airspace, then why has CASA denied all government regulated RPL and PPL holders of this risk-appropriate permission?", AOPA CEO Ben Morgan asked in the letter.

"Why has CASA implemented aviation medical safety standards that serve to force RPL and PPL holders into a private business (the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited) that exposes them to unregulated monopoly fees and charges? Why are Australia’s aviation safety regulations being used to benefit one specific private business, whilst denying all CASA RPL and PPL holders of their rights?"

In July this year, CASA introduced the medical reforms that created the Basic Class 2 medical, which enabled PPLs to have medicals done by general practitioners to an Austroads standard, rather than by a DAME to a CASA standard. At the time, AOPA described the reforms as a "thundering success" to the general aviation industry, but of late has become concerned that the desires of the PPL population of Australia was not properly represented when the reforms were considered.

During an AOPA internet podcast last night, Morgan accused Carmody of obscuring the truth about why self-certifying medicals have been denied to CASA-regulated pilots.

"The real villain in this is in fact CASA," Morgan said. "The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has been very dishonest, and I'm going to call it out. Shane Carmody ... you've been incredibly dishonest with the people of this country. You need to come clean now and own-up, and put it on the table.

"What are you are doing to Australia's general aviation industry? Are you supporting our industry, or are you selling us out? I think the community are owed some honesty and transparency in what's going on, if in fact it's your intention to privatise our aviation sectors, then come out, come clean and let everyone know.

"But if it's not, then answer the question: why have you denied CASA-regulated RPL and PPLs access to private driver's licence medicals, whilst at the same time you're allowing the glider community and RAAus to do it? Something has to be answered here."

CASA has declined to address Morgan's accusations of dishonesty, but issued the following statement to Australian Flying.

"CASA considers self medical certification to be appropriate for recreational pilots operating in small aircraft (weighing no more than 600kg) with one passenger and outside controlled airspace under licences issued by Recreational Aviation Australia.

"CASA considers medical certification based on an assessment by a medical professional to be appropriate for pilots flying in all classes of airspace, including controlled airspace, under a CASA issued licence."

There has been no indication of whether or not CASA intends to release the risk assessment.

&.. a couple of comments off the AOPA Oz FB page:

Steve Fenech

Steve Fenech FOI Application perhaps? Bet they never release the sweetheart deal they did with RAAus!
________________________________________
Michael Henderson

Michael Henderson A senate inquiry is called for. Casa think they can do what they. I would go as far as to say even a royal commission into CASA for to long they do what they and they are killing GA


Then this (Dear CC & 4G) correspondence from AOPA Oz CEO BM yesterday:

CASA CONFIRMS AND DOUBLES DOWN ON PRIVATE PILOT DOUBLE STANDARDS!
Friday, 21 September 2018

Mr Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety, CASA
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

Mr Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia

Dear Mr Carmody.

Further to our previous correspondence on self-certification private drivers licence medicals for government regulated Recreational Pilots Licence (RPL) and Private Pilots Licence (PPL) holders. In today’s Australian newspaper, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has gone on the record to state;

“…the authority had carefully assessed the safety issues and risks in determining the various classes of aviation medical certificates, taking into account things like other airspace users, aircraft passengers and people and property on the ground… CASA considers self-medical certification to be appropriate for recreational pilots operating in small aircraft with one passenger, and outside controlled airspace under licences issued by Recreational Aviation Australia.”

If CASA considers it safe for a private ‘recreational’ pilot to operate in small aircraft with one passenger outside of controlled airspace, then why has CASA denied all government regulated RPL and PPL holders of this risk-appropriate permission?

Why has CASA implemented aviation medical safety standards that serve to force RPL and PPL holders into a private business (the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited) that exposes them to unregulated monopoly fees and charges?

Why are Australia’s aviation safety regulations being used to benefit one specific private business, whilst denying all CASA RPL and PPL holders of their rights?

Could CASA please provide a copy of its ‘risk-assessment’ that details how the regulator arrived at the conclusion that it is safer for a pilot of a light aircraft with an MTOW of 600Kgs to be flown outside of controlled airspace by a member of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited versus a CASA regulated RPL or PPL pilot?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.

Yours Sincerely,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director

Download a copy of this letter: https://aopa.com.au/…/2018/09/RPLPPLmedi...cation.pdf
NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: http://www.aopa.com.au/membership
AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly
________________________________________
&..
PRIVATE PILOT MEDICAL CERTIFICATION DOUBLE STANDARDS - I FLY AND I VOTE
Friday, 21 September 2018

Mr Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600, Australia

Mr Shane Carmody
Director of Aviation Safety, CASA
GPO BOX 2005
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

Deputy Prime Minister,

Further to correspondence sent today to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and your office, regarding double standards on private pilot medical certification.

Quite simply it is either safe or it is unsafe for a private pilot to operate an aircraft with an MTOW of 600Kgs with one passenger outside of controlled airspace. For CASA to assert that it’s risk-assessments have concluded that it is only safe if the pilot is a member of a private company is ridiculous. CASA RPL and PPL holders are trained to a higher pilot standard than their RAAus counterparts and therefore should represent a much lower risk to aviation safety!

CASA must now come clean and publicly publish its risk-assessments and explain to the Australian public why it has denied pilots with a higher standard of training access to a self-certification private drivers licence medical. CASA should not be abusing its position and power in forcing unfair and biased aviation safety standards that seek to intentionally disadvantage RPL and PPL pilots, so as to force them into a private self-administration business (RAAus) where they are exposed to monopoly fees and charges that do not exist within the CASA system.

There is no doubt that CASA has been influenced into protecting the private business interests of the RAAus, which has reported year on year financial losses, citing stagnant membership growth. During a briefing to their members yesterday at Airventure Australia Cessnock, RAAUs Chairman, Mr Michael Monck, and CEO, Mr Michael Linke, communicated that..

“…should CASA approve self-certification private drivers licence medicals for RPL and PPL holders, the RAAus would close its doors...”.

As a result of this egregious denial of pilot rights, CASA regulated RPL and PPL holders are forced to become customers of a private monopoly business (RAAus) that owns your medical, your licence and your aircraft registration. Pilots are forced to pay fees and charges that are unregulated and are subjected to ad-hoc oversight and disciplinary processes that are at the discretion of the private business and the personalities that run it.

And, to prevent pilots from electing to stay within the government regulated general aviation industry, CASA have denied RPL and PPL holders the right to choose by refusing to provide an equal and unbiased self-certification private drivers licence medical standard.

Are we now seeing the wholesale corruption of our national aviation safety regulator? Ah - yep!    Is pay for regulatory-play the way of the future? Why is CASA creating safety standards that disadvantage government regulated RPL and PPL holders, whilst deregulating the rules for a private business to ensure its financial survival? Does any of this pass the pub test?

Mr Deputy Prime Minister you must end this abuse of power and demand that all Australian private pilots – regardless of their associations - be regulated equally and fairly. You must announce to the Australian public that any pilot seeking to fly an aircraft with an MTOW of up to 600kgs with one passenger outside of controlled airspace can do so on a self-certification private drivers licence medical regardless of the licence they hold.

And, importantly you must affirm to the Australian people that the role of Australia’s aviation safety regulator (CASA) is to provide aviation safety standards that are free of commercial bias and influence.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.

Yours Sincerely,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director

Download a copy of this letter: https://aopa.com.au/wp-content/uploads/…...divote.pdf
NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT
Join today: http://www.aopa.com.au/membership
AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly



MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#58
The separate system for the low weight category is a model of governance that can never be satisfactory, the flaws have never been more obvious. This nonsensical system was designed to relegate pesky private pilots into a category that government could wash it’s hands of, the exercise of shying away from responsibility.

The very notion that encourages the engineering of aircraft down to a weight instead of designing to a purpose is a hopeless situation. No better illustrated by the RAAus push for 750kg and then on to 1500kg. How crazy can you get? Talk about contradictions as well as RAAus has no plans to change it’s medical regime for its system but hasn’t supported self certification for the rest of GA.

CASA and MacCormack?

Utterly incapable.

Ring, write, email; or, otherwise collar your fed MP because there will be zero reform and the administration of GA will get worse without political input from Parliament.
Reply
#59
Been there; done that.

Do we really need yet another inquiry into CASA?

Before you stop reading consider a couple of questions, in terms of tangible results:-

Despite a small fortune being spent over the past decades, what improvements have been seen as a result of 'inquiry' and how have those improvements benefited safety or the industry?

The short answer – IMO – is  that every inquiry has been a waste of time, money and hope. Look no further back than the shameful response to the Pel-Air fiasco. You only need look as far as your bookshelf to see where those ‘high profile’ inquiries have led. A massive collection of ‘paper’ designed to ensure not the safety of air operations; but the safety of CASA, the minister, the board and of course conviction. While you gaze at the bookcase, take a look at the huge volume referred to as the Company Operations Manual; another cunningly manipulated document used as a big stick to ensure ‘compliance’ – not safety – just compliance. The bigger and more complex, the more traps are drafted into the manual, all grist to the lawyers mill; not advice for safe operation.  Problem is, anything worthwhile is treated with the same indifference. Counter productive? You bet.

Why do we put up with it?

How often do you hear “Oh, that’s just some bullshit CASA thing, we just have to do it”. The example that springs to mind is the terminally useless CASA ‘type exam’. I’ve no idea who drafted up this dangerous confection; but whoever did, needs to be strung up, by the balls.. When you add the huge pile of paper which is ‘Part B’ and find a replica of the Aircraft Flight Manual, almost copied whole, you have to start wondering about your own sanity. Yet there they sit, the shelf groaning under the sheer weight of useless paper. Countless man-hours invested providing a manual tailor made to hang you – and you wrote the blessed thing. Why? Because CASA said you have to. Ask what safety benefit is gained from this exercise, if you don’t know the answer already.

But, I digress (wander actually) far from the point. CASA in various forms and guises has withstood and beaten off some very heavy duty inquiries. Seen off some serious allegations and have learned how to beat all and any ‘inquiry’ through constant training and practice. There are calls for a Royal Commission, a Senate inquiry, even a judicial inquiry floating about the place. What will another achieve apart from more of the same old happy horse-shit?

We could save a squillion and sort it all out by taking two very simple, cost effective steps. Step 1 – change the Act. Step 2 – hire a reform CEO and back him up with a team of like minded individuals. The mandate is plain, pure and simple; do not beg CASA to consider – ‘tell ‘em that reform is urgent, real and happening today. Poncing about with ‘inquiry’ is a proven failure; the Senate get the Mickey Bliss taken out of ‘em every time; its embarrassing, not to mention counter productive and expensive.

The mystique of ‘aviation’ safety is a myth, fostered and promoted by those who benefit from it; no one worries about maritime safety, yet by weight, volume and complexity it is larger than aviation and operates within a much more constrained environment than aviation. So why is ‘air-safety’ the big topic? We slaughter thousands on the roads and yet there is no huge outcry when a school bus and a truck collide at speed. No amount of ‘compliance manuals’ will change driving habits, will it. So what makes aviation so much different?

FDS minister; shake the advice monkey off your shoulder, address the core issues, reform CASA and get aviation moving forward; for it is indeed stuck, hock deep in the regulators mud. Save this nation a truck load of money and score some much needed points before the election comes around.

Aye, ‘tis a ramble; but, if it helps to focus on the desperately needed reforms and saves some pennies, then my conscience is clear. Can’t speak for the ministerial version………

Toot – toot.
Reply
#60
TICK...TOCK miniscule McDo'Naught the clock is ticking on? - (fill in the blank)

[Image: Dmr26l3U8AAX4Xq.jpg]

I am beginning to think that our current useless, good for nothing, NFI miniscule and DPM desperately wants to take over 6D Chester's title of Australia's Greatest Aviation Disaster (AGAD)... Confused 

When you add up the growing list of dire aeronautical issues currently residing in McDo'Naught's aviation in-tray; the miniscule is either captured by the self-interested, self-preserving, make work aviation safety bureaucracy; or he is simply ignoring the good advice because he is completely inept and severely inflicted with AIOS and the dreaded Can'tberra disease... Undecided

So for the benefit of 6G (or not -  Rolleyes ) - some live issues that have made appearances this week from the aviation TICK..TOCK list... Wink

First on the pilot training issue, via the Conversation:

Quote:Averting a plane crash: what to do about the global pilot shortage
October 4, 2018 3.05pm AEST

[Image: file-20180927-48641-1shgi3n.jpg?ixlib=rb...8&fit=crop]
Students in Australia who want to undertake a flight training degree need to find close to $35,000 upfront. 

The world is running out of experienced pilots. Supply is not keeping up with the growing demand for air travel. In Australia the effects are already starting to bite.

Even flagship carrier Qantas is having problems. In recent months it has had to perform a very nimble tap dance to crew its vast fleet and maintain its extensive flight schedule.

In response Qantas has plans for one of the biggest pilot training programs in its history. It has just announced its first ever pilot training academy, training 250 pilots a year, will be based in Toowoomba. A second site, to train a similar number of pilots, is still to be announced.

Training this many pilots, though, will be a struggle. The academy will first have to find enough instructional pilots to deliver the required training flights.

Ruptured training pipelines

The reason airlines and other operators are in this predicament stems from the rupturing of the training pipelines that historically supplied pilots across all levels of the aviation industry.

Experience is everything in aviation. Qantas and Australia’s other major carriers – Virgin Australia, Tiger and Jetstar – have mostly employed pilots with high levels of flying experience. Pilots gained that experience flying for regional airlines, charter operators and, critically, as instructors at flight training schools.

As pilots gained experience and progressed to more lucrative flying positions, newly qualified pilots were employed to replace them. Together with a trickle of ex-military pilots topping up the airlines, the whole system had sat more or less in equilibrium.


Read more: http://theconversation.com/one-flies-pla...tion-12753

Reaching a tipping point

This equilibrium has been at tipping point for some time. Almost a decade ago (in 2009) a government white paper (https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/p..._final.pdf ) predicted the training system would fail without remedial action.

Some measures were put in place, but not enough. Most of the weaknesses went uncorrected. It was only because of the Global Financial Crisis, which suppressed global demand for air travel, that crisis was delayed.

A leading indicator of system failure is a dearth of available experienced trainers, as flying school instructors move into airline employment. Without these instructors, flight schools struggle to train new pilots to feed the industry from the bottom up.

In Australia there is no mechanism to maintain this vital pool of flight instructors. There are no formalised career pathways and minimal financial support to those looking to teach others to fly. A bespoke airline training scheme won’t remedy the problem if its pilots all go straight into the airline’s employ.

Taking care of training pathways

In the US the system is somewhat different. Despite substantial evidence to show that airline cadetship programs posed no negative impact to flight safety (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4171790/ar..._final.pdf ), in 2013 the US Federal Aviation Administration chose to stipulate a substantial minimum level of experience a pilot must have to be employed by a major airline.

While this has exacerbated the pilot shortage issue for American airlines, it has also forced the industry to create formal pathways to train new pilots and help freshly qualified pilots progress to an airline career. Such pathways often include a period of employment as a flying instructor (https://news.delta.com/delta-propels-nex...reer-paths ).

A similar “instructing pathway” needs to be a central part of Australia’s airline training programs if they are going to be sustainable.


Read more: http://theconversation.com/were-flying-i...adar-27064


Government also has a role to play, as noted by the expert panel (https://taaaf.org/raaa_site/wp-content/u...0629-1.pdf ) charged with recommending strategies for a sustainable and successful aviation training sector in Australia. A key issue is education funding.

Sky-high student costs

The cost to become a commercial pilot is comparable to that of becoming a doctor or a veterinarian. A university-trained commercial pilot with a flight-instructor rating will pay more than $140,000 in fees.

But unlike those doing medicine or veterinary science courses, trainee pilots have never been adequately assisted by federal student subsidy and loan schemes such as HECS, FEE-HELP of VET Student Loans.

Recent amendments to the Higher Education Support Act cap the maximum debt a student can have under the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) at $104,440. The only exceptions are medicine, dentistry and veterinary science, where the cap is $150,000.

This effectively means students wanting to undertake a flight training degree need to find close to $35,000 upfront. The effect will be profound. Many talented potential pilots will not be able to pursue the career.

Over the horizon

Looking further into the future, we must find more ways to maintain the pilot training pipeline. Encouraging more female and Indigenous students to pursue the career would be a start. The numbers now are woefully low.


Read more: http://theconversation.com/life-in-a-pos...e-ok-70388


Finally, the entire process of pilot training needs to be made more effective and efficient. Practices have remained essentially unchanged since flight training began.

Our future training systems must make pragmatic use of learning technologies and theory to enhance student progression, reduce failure and maximise the use of expensive aircraft resources. This requires investment.

In Canada, the training and simulation giant CAE, in partnership with the national and Quebec governments, is investing C$1 billion (https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/cae...0808-01000 ) over the next five years to develop the next generation of aviation training systems.

In Australia we need to recognise this opportunity for innovation and act now, before our pilot training system completely crumbles.
Then there is the small matter of the ticking drone clock: TICK..TOCK 6G - 2 months and counting?? http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-161...ml#pid9372
Quote:The Westpac Lifesaver rescue helicopter was on a training exercise in the area and landed on the seawall to assess the unfolding situation.

Crewman Tim Wilson said they were preparing to take off when they spotted a drone.

[Image: 7324504-3x2-340x227.jpg]

PHOTO: CASA rules state that drones must stay away from emergency operations. (ABC News: Nadia Daly - file image)


"We sighted a drone probably not more than 10 metres away from the helicopter, buzzing around filming everything that was going on," he said.

Quote: Wrote:
"So obviously it grounded us for a little while — we didn't know where the operator was so we had to wait until they moved off before we could do anything."

While waiting for the drone to leave the area the patient remained trapped inside his aluminium runabout which was being battered by waves.

"He did get knocked around on the rocks a bit," Mr Wilson said.

"We were lucky it wasn't a life or death situation for him.

"A rescue that should have taken less than a couple of minutes made it last well over five minutes."

And on the AOPA war front it seems the rest of the world is leaving us behind with our 19th century draconian pilot medical certification... Blush http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-116...ml#pid9379
Quote:NATIONS UNITE TO MODIFY MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS
IAOPA ADVOCATES AT ICAO HEADQUARTERS
October 1, 2018 By Amelia Walsh
Thirty-six nations around the globe have already moved forward and abandoned costly and burdensome bureaucratic red-tape requirements associated with outdated medical certification processes for general aviation pilots. In a Sept. 24 meeting at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) headquarters in Montreal, leaders representing the International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations (IAOPA) urged officials to keep pace with these changes as they review and update their standards for GA pilots.

Finally, can the ATSB possibly get any worse? Besides being totally non-independent, topcover experts for the Govt and it's aviation safety agencies, it would appear that the ATSB has sunk to a new low and is now in the habit of copying and pasting similar investigation final reports from it's overseas counterparts, in order to support their unsupportable argument of the pilot is solely responsible -  Dodgy 
See: Trivial and inaccurate. - http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-103-post-9373.html#pid9373 &  ATSB: The copy & paste Annex 13 AAI? http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-10-...ml#pid9374  
Quote:As an addendum to my last - [Image: wink.gif] 

LB said: "...What if your assumptions, possible explanations and known unknowns turned out to show substantial differences between the two incidents? Frankly, the latter approach is the one that ATSB should take, rather than jump to a conclusion then find as much stuff to support that conclusion, even if it means making assumptions that may be invalid and positing explanations that could be wrong..."

MTF? Yes MUCH! P2  Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)