Airports - Buy two, get one free.
Gobbledock said :-

Or,  WHO IS BOARDING THE PLANE???
WILL THE REAL PASSENGER PLEASE STAND UP

This is a very good question. Let me try to show you where I am coming from;
You see, Gobbledock is meant to fly, booked and paid for his ticket, but suddenly the Styx River Houseboats Diesel engine needs repairing. So Gobbledock checks in on line, including one bag. He used his mate Kharon’s mobile number and email address and Kharon receives the boarding pass via text. He heads to the airport, checks the bag in at the automatic bag drop. Heads through security and up to the boarding gate. Flight is called and he uses the boarding pass on his phone to board the flight. Not one airport staff member has seen Kharon, talked to him, noticed him or interacted with him. The doey flight attendant at the boarding gate is the only person to actually eyeball Kharon, whom she assumes is Gobbledock. It’s then straight onto the plane....

It’s a complete joke. Yet Miniscule Dutton from Homo Affairs wants to waste money on body scanners and enforcing the ludicrous ASIC red background farce to ‘enhance security’, while in the meantime any mug can board a plane using someone else’s details!! That leads us to this;

“Top policeman can't say what will happen if people can't show their ID at airports”. Link here;

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-23...id/9790794

Yep, what a complete farce. Dutton, Turdball and McDo’nothing are a complete joke and a waste of oxygen. As if the bad guys are going to be stopped by these contrite and useless processes.

TICK TOCK MORONS
Reply
A4ANZ and AAA go to war?  Confused  

Interesting airport related media coverage yesterday in the Oz:

Quote:The Oz:

Time to rein in monopoly airports
[Image: 26d06007769baf6659a8fda9528b9d77]GRAEME SAMUEL
Australia’s airports use their market power to set excessive prices and provide service of dubious quality for the travelling public.



We need tighter regulation of monopoly airports

It shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone to hear this week that Australia’s monopoly airports are earning excessive profits. Market analysts note that airport profit margins are growing and will continue to do so at an even higher rate than they have done historically.

Despite the airports’ claims that their charges are reasonable to cover costs, the evidence suggests otherwise. Independent analysis undertaken by Frontier Economics confirms that the airports are using their monopoly position to earn excessive profits.

Over the past decade, Australian airports’ margins have grown significantly higher — in some cases more than double — than those of other airports around the world operating in competitive markets or with greater regulation.

The ACCC wouldn’t have been surprised by this finding either. As part of the light-handed regulatory model under which our airports operate, the ACCC Airport Monitoring Reports document the fact that the major airports are collecting over 25 per cent more revenue for every passenger than 10 years ago, in real terms. At the same time passenger numbers have increased by nearly 20 per cent, delivering an even bigger revenue boost for airports. Yet the ACCC found no commensurate increase in overall quality.

We ought to be surprised by this, shocked even, but it’s become part of our passenger experience to park our cars at expensive carparks, walk through the shiny new facilities at the airport that are revenue generating, such as retail and food outlets, and then find our experience in bathrooms and other parts of the airports far less glamorous.

This situation has arisen because Australia’s airports are indisputably monopoly operators and are able to use their market power to set excessive prices and provide service of dubious quality for the travelling public.

Airports’ monopoly status gives them a natural bargaining advantage over airlines and retail operators, which can lead to some of the following behaviours:

●Adopting a “take it or leave it” position;

●Delaying or refusing to disclose necessary background information or material facts, thus delaying agreement;

●In other ways protracting negotiations;

●Developing agreements that fail to provide contractual certainty as to service quality, or lack clarity and transparency;

●Using media to put pressure on airlines to accept deals; and

●Withdrawing unrelated services during negotiations and disputes.

These experiences were a driving force behind the establishment of A4ANZ last year. While fiercely competitive, what A4ANZ’s member airlines all have in common is the challenge of dealing with monopoly airports and rising charges.

So what to do about this?

A4ANZ’s efforts go beyond an attempt to balance the ledger. A vibrant aviation sector will drive efficiency and innovation, which in turn is good for consumers and the economy. It is clear, however, that one part of the sector is capturing the majority of the benefits that this growth brings.

More effective regulatory pressure is required to prevent excessive profits by airports and return more value to consumers and the economy. Unfortunately, the current regulatory system does not create the right environment for airlines and airports to work in partnership to ensure these gains can be achieved. Instead, they foster the monopoly power of airport owners.

The development of commercial relationships between airports and their customers would be encouraged by the existence of a credible ability to seek arbitration, by the competition regulator, the ACCC. A4ANZ is not alone in suggesting that Australia could benefit from such regulatory change. The Grattan Institute has made similar suggestions, and New Zealand is considering amendments to its regulatory regimen. We need to catch up.

Our members are committed to building, maintaining and improving constructive relationships with airports. We also want to see airports and the whole aviation sector prosper. It is not only in the airlines’ interests but also in their passengers’ interests, as well as the interests of tourism and export sectors, and the broader economy for this to occur.

Graeme Samuel is chairman of A4ANZ and former chair of the ACCC

&..


Airport charges restrict airlines’ ability to invest in fleet renewal

Airport charges are “one of the biggest roadblocks” to airlines’ ability to reinvest in fleet, say local carriers, as they ramp up a push for changes in airport regulation.

Firing a salvo over rising fees, a paper commissioned for Airlines for Australia and New Zealand warns that charges are getting in the way of new routes.

The paper also says that while the aviation sector is enjoying growth, “it is quite clear that at the moment, the airports are capturing a disproportionate share of this growth”.

But the Australian Airports Assoc­iation hit back, saying airports had invested $11.5 billion on improvements over the past decade “without a single tax payer dollar being spent”.

The paper is significant as it has been released ahead of an ­expected review of the economic regulation of airports by the Productivity Commission.

A4ANZ’s members include Qantas and Virgin Australia, their budget arms, Air New Zealand and Regional Express.

Under a plan outlined in the paper modelled on a scheme in use in the US and Canada, it would be made easier to bring in the competition regulator to ­adjudicate on airport charges.

While stopping short of calling for price controls, the report proposes changing the Airports Act 1996 so services from airports with a “substantial degree of market power” would be deemed “declared” — meaning the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission could be called in to arbitrate when airports and airlines cannot strike a commercial deal on charges. The arbitration would be a “final offer” method whereby the regulator chooses between two final offers to settle a dispute.

A4ANZ chairman Graeme Samuel said analysis by Frontier Economics, which was provided for the report, showed “the notion that airlines, and indeed any airport user, can enter into genuine commercial negotiations with a monopoly airport operator in Australia’s cities and regions is clearly nonsense”.

But AAA chief executive Caroline Wilkie said the claims about the airports’ use of market power ignored “robust” negotiations ­between carriers and airports over the delivery of runways, terminals and technology that would meet passenger needs.

“Airlines benefit from higher airfares to support higher profits, and we are concerned the domestic airline duopoly disadvantages the passenger — particularly in the regions,” Ms Wilkie said.

“To suggest airport charges have a major impact on airfares is simply wrong, with charges making up less than 10 per cent of airfares.”

The paper finds that while airfares fell between 42 per cent and 52 per cent in real terms from 2008 to 2017, airport passenger charges on the average airfare rose 15 per cent to 59 per cent.

“The fact Australian airports are now collecting more revenue per passenger and generating significantly higher profit than their international benchmarks stands in stark contrast to the flat or ­declining airfares offered by domestic airlines,” the report says.

“These charges are one of the biggest roadblocks to the airlines’ ability to introduce new and grow existing routes and to reinvest in product and fleet.”

Anyone else spot the fact that Rex is playing on both sides of the airport perimeter fence?  Rolleyes

While on the subject of possible changes to the Airports Act, I note that the Dept 'Aviation & Airport' division seemed to be primed for Bear at Senate Estimates but were bizarrely knocked off early before they could even get a proper "..look what we've been up to.." presented to the 'don't give a RRAT's arse committee' to review... Dodgy

However there was small passage of Q&A that Senator Rice inadvertently unearthed that shows there is stuff going on behind the scenes on the matter of airports and aviation safety:


Quote:Senator RICE: My final issue is, what status does the National Airports Safeguarding Framework have as a guide to zoning and planning issues around airports? It's a document that I've been alerted to on your website, and I'm keen to know how it's used in airport planning.
Mr McRandle : I might ask Mr McArthur to come to the table and assist with this one. There are a number of guidelines that operate around the National Airports Safeguarding Framework. These have been developed over several years, and it's been a focus of the Transport and Infrastructure Council, which is a ministerial council of state and federal governments. You'd recognise that a lot of the planning aspects are beyond the airport boundary and really sit with local government and state government to implement. Mr McArthur may be able to provide some additional advice.
Ms Spence : I can jump in a little bit. By way of context, the National Airports Safeguarding Framework is a commitment from Commonwealth, state and territory governments, with involvement of local government, to address a number of issues associated with airports. It's supported by the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group, which is a forum that brings together transport and planning officials to work through issues—whether it be noise, whether it be the public safety zones or whether it be technical issues such as wind shear—to make sure that planning approvals and processes can actually take into account how to factor in airport operations with the amenity of the community.
Mr McArthur : As has been indicated by Ms Spence, the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group is formed with both the Commonwealth and the states and territories, basically around land use planning off airports, because essentially land use planning still falls within the purview of the state and territory authorities to actually manage the off-airport parts of that. There are a number of guidelines that basically sit under that. As Senator Patrick alluded to, the public safety zone guideline is now out for consultation at the moment publicly. That's been endorsed by the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials' Committee and is going to the Transport and Infrastructure Council for the ministers' endorsement later this year—that is the anticipation around that one.
Senator RICE: That's all of these guidelines or just the—
Mr McArthur : There are a number of guidelines that actually fall under that in a number of areas that have been indicated: public safety zones, wind shear, aircraft noise, helicopter landing sites—there's a guideline that's been put out currently around that one—and wind turbine risk to aircraft. There's also pilot lighting distraction, managing airspace intrusion, and protection of airspace facilities around communication, navigation and surveillance.
Mr McRandle : Some of these have been dealt with previously. The current issues before the council will be around the public safety zone and the helicopter strategic landing facilities.
Senator RICE: The helicopter strategic landing facilities?
Mr McRandle : This is around protecting access for emergency helicopters, such as medical helicopters coming into hospitals, so that the planning in cities takes account of the fact that these aircraft need to get into hospitals and landing pads safely.
Senator RICE: So they're signed off by the—I can't remember the—
Mr McRandle : The ministerial council.
Senator RICE: The ministerial council. But, even after they're signed off, they are still guidelines? They're not mandatory?
Mr McRandle : They are guidelines, and it's the responsibility of the relevant state or territory to actually implement those.
Senator RICE: Do they apply to all airports or just the major airports?
Ms Spence : They actually apply to all airports, not just the federally leased airports. As we were saying, it's a matter for all the states and territories to implement through their planning regimes, but they should apply to any airport.
Senator RICE: So states and territories should be applying them around the more secondary airports?
Ms Spence : Yes.
Senator RICE: Good. Thank you very much.
 
Hmm...anyone else notice that there is a lot of Mc's related to aviation safety and the related bureaucracy these days -  Huh


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
ACCC - The Kings Of The Wet Lettuce Leaf

You’ve got to laugh that the ACCC has bought in to the ‘he said she said’ debate. They truly set the benchmark for the wet lettuce leaf approach as has been noted repetitively when it comes to fuel, telco’s, electricity, infrastructure fees and charges and everything else!!

As for Softcock Samuels comments about airports, perhaps he would care to explain how the airlines double their fares in locations where they have the monopoly route? Why is it dearer to fly return from Moranbah to Brisbane than fly to L.A? Nothing to do with the Red Rat being the only RPT. Why is it dearer to fly from Devonport to Tulla than it is from Hobart and Launceston? Nothing to do with the fact that only the Red Rat flies that route?

Let s face it, they are all money spinning shonks looking to capitalise on weaknesses or vulnerability and turn a profit for shareholders and Managers bonuses - both the airlines and airports.

“Robust lettuce leaf slapping for all”
Reply
More on A4ANZ vs Airports war -   Confused

Via Oz Aviation (ps congrats AA on new format for the website -  Wink ):

Quote:Passengers “paying the price of airport privatisation” says A4ANZ

written by Jordan Chong May 25, 2018

[Image: 737-700_VH-VBY_SYDNEY_28DECEMBER2012_SET...RSKI-2.jpg]
Australia’s airlines say light-handed airport regulation is not working. (Seth Jaworski)

Light-handed regulation of Australia and New Zealand’s airports has been ineffective at protecting consumers from higher charges due to their monopoly power, a report says.

The findings are in the “Performance and Impact of Australia’s Airports Since Privatisation” report prepared by Frontier Economics and commissioned by recently-formed lobby group Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ).

The report, released at Parliament House in Canberra on Thursday, called for changes to the current way airports are regulated, which has been in place since the start of the century.

“Australian passengers and our economy are paying the price of airport privatisation in the absence of appropriate constraints on monopoly power,” the report says.

“More effective regulatory pressure is required to prevent excessive profits by airports and return more value to consumers and the economy.

“Monopoly infrastructure operators have the ability to raise prices above a level that would prevail in competitive markets and little incentive to improve services above a minimum standard of service quality, to the detriment of economic efficiency and the living standards of consumers.”

A4ANZ’s membership comprises Australia’s and New Zealand’s major airlines – Air New Zealand, Jetstar, Qantas, Regional Express, Tigerair Australia and Virgin Australia.

The organisation was formed in March 2017 to represent the airline industry’s interests and lobby against including lobbying efforts to fight infrastructure constraints, high taxes and other matters of aviation policy.

The report cites figures from IATA Economics, the independent economic consultancy of the International Air Transport Association, that passengers would have saved $180 million through lower charges if airport passenger charges had remained at their 2008 levels instead of increasing over the past decade at the four Australian airports of Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.

A4ANZ chief executive Alison Roberts said the report showed airports have been using their monopoly position to earn excessive profits “in the absence of a credible regulatory threat”.

“This is a trend that began over a decade ago and shows no sign of stopping,” Dr Roberts said in a statement.

“A4ANZ is not a lone voice in suggesting that our economy could benefit from a change in the regulatory settings for airports, to mimic the effects of a competitive market.

“As others have noted, Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world in protecting air travellers from monopoly airports.

“Our report makes it clear that it’s time for Australia to catch up and ensure our regulatory system can do what it is supposed to, which is to protect consumers from monopolies.”

The report put forward a “negotiate-arbitrate” model as one that would be “most likely to result in genuine commercial negotiations between airlines and airports to effect fair outcomes for airport users”.

Under the proposed scheme, the ACCC would give consideration to “final offer arbitration”, a method the report said had been used in various sectors in Canada and the United States.

“The final offer chosen by the arbitrator binds the parties to the dispute and in most applications, forms the basis of an agreement between them for the provision of services,” the report said.

“In Australia, the adoption of final offer arbitration would be unlikely to require legislative direction but could be adopted by the ACCC through an amendment to its guidelines, providing an indication to the parties as to its approach to arbitrations.”

“With the arbitrator selecting one party’s final position (or parts of each party’s final position) without the possibility of compromise or variation, the risk of arbitration is raised and therefore, increases the incentives for the parties to bargain and negotiate on reasonable terms prior to the regulator’s involvement.

“In other words, creating a highly credible threat of intervention.”

A4ANZ chairman Graeme Samuel said it has been consumers that have lost out from the current setup and change was in everyone’s interests.

“In the absence of an effective regulatory regime, airport privatisation has ultimately resulted in higher costs for both airlines and passengers,” Prof Samuel said.

“Consumers are the ones who ultimately lose in this scenario, whether it’s the exorbitant landing and service fees paid by airlines on the passenger’s behalf, their car parking fee, taxi surcharge, or the bottle of water they buy in the terminal.

“No one is suggesting the airports don’t deserve to make a decent profit. But the current levels of profit are excessive, and it’s ultimately being paid for by the travelling public.

“Given the importance of air travel to the national economy, A4ANZ and its member airlines are committed to maintaining positive, constructive commercial relationships with airports.”

The A4ANZ commissioned report follows the latest release of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) Airport Monitoring Report for 2016/17, which said average revenues per passenger had increased by 25.9 per cent in real terms across the four airports of Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney over the past decade.

Further, the ACCC report said Brisbane and Perth were rated “good” in terms of quality of service, while Melbourne and Sydney were given a “satisfactory” rating in that category.

Australian Airports Association backs current regulation regime

The industry group representing the nation’s airports, the Australian Airports Association (AAA), said in response to the Frontier Economics report that Australian airports had spent $11.5 billion spent on airport improvements over the past 10 years to increase efficiency, enhance the experience and attract new services.

“Attracting international airlines and growing competition has been key to the rise of the tourism industry as a power house of Australian small business and regional economies,” AAA chief executive Caroline Wilkie said in a statement.

“The current regulatory regime for Australian airports has served airlines, airports, Australian and overseas travellers and the broader economy extremely well.

“Airports have enabled significant economic growth since privatisation, giving passengers access to more of the world than ever before and supporting our growing visitor economy.”

[Image: Off-the-runway.jpg]
A4ANZ says airports have been using their monopoly position to earn excessive profits.

Canberra Airport incident highlights tensions that can exist between airports and airlines

The tension that can exist between an airline and an airport was in sharp focus earlier in May when reports emerged of a March 2017 incident where a Qantas Boeing 737-800 had been delayed from departing Canberra Airport after diverting there while en route from Auckland to Sydney due to weather.

Qantas claimed the incident was Canberra Airport “essentially ransoming an aircraft full of passengers on the tarmac by parking a car behind it”.

Canberra Airport labelled the claims that aircraft and the 170 odd people on board were held hostage until a diversion charge was paid “absolute baloney”.

The reporting of a March 2017 diversion more than a year after it occurred came amid Canberra Airport’s efforts to seek an improvement in the number of flight cancellations on key trunk routes from the nation’s capital to Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.

The airport, owned by Terry Snow’s privately-held Capital Airport Group, has been vocal about the high rate of cancellations, even calling for the government to become involved.

In late 2017, the airport announced an incentive payment for airlines to try to get the percentage of cancelled flights down close to the national average, as measured by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE).

Next from the other Aunty:

Quote:Graeme Samuel speaks to The Business
4 days ago 6:02 


Episode homeSeries homePublic Feed

Australians are being gouged by under-regulated monopolistic airports abusing their market power, according to former competition watchdog boss Graeme Samuel. Airlines are demanding the government regulate airports to bring down costs which they estimate are increasing ticket prices by 10 to 20 per cent for the premium airlines.
And a Skynews version off Twitter:
Quote:.@A4ANZ Chairman Graeme Samuel says monopolists are rarely efficient because they don’t have to be and attributes their profits to competition.

'Sydney and Auckland airports are the highest profitability airports in the world.'

MORE:
https://bit.ly/2GLGBvX   #Ticky

Again via the ABC, a bit more on the Canberra airport vs Alan Joyce bunfight -  Confused
Quote:Qantas boss Alan Joyce likens Canberra Airport to Somali pirates; airport responds with bewilderment

By Jordan Hayne
Fri 25 May 2018, 12:14pm

[Image: 9799008-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: The fight erupted between Canberra Airport managing director Stephen Byron and Mr Joyce. (ABC News/AAP: Joel Carrett)

A fight between Qantas and Canberra Airport has escalated dramatically, with the airline releasing an email suggesting a plane was held to "ransom", and chief executive Alan Joyce comparing the airport's behaviour to that of Somali pirates.

In response to Mr Joyce's claims of an $18,000 ransom requested by credit card, Canberra Airport managing director Stephen Byron responded incredulously: "Do these people walk around with a credit card machine?"

In an interview with ABC Canberra, Mr Byron said the airport had "absolutely not" requested payment before the plane was allowed to leave, after it was diverted to Canberra in March 2017.

But according to an email and invoice supplied to the ABC, a sum of $20,503.77, including GST, was requested with the email reading: "Please note the aircraft cannot depart until the invoice is paid."

The ABC has not been able to independently verify the documents, which support Qantas' claims that the airport asked for money to be paid before the plane could depart.
The email requests payment by credit card.

[Image: 9799544-3x2-700x467.jpg]

Photo:
An email sent to Qantas requesting payment before the plane could depart Canberra airport. (Supplied)


The stoush revolves around a plane that was diverted from Sydney and landed in Canberra, and was physically prevented from leaving when a car was parked behind it.

Canberra Airport contends Qantas had been causing safety hazards by diverting flights to it without proper planning, but Mr Joyce compared the tactics to Somali pirates.

"They actually ransomed one of our aircraft, I mean talk about appalling behaviour," he said.

"I've never seen it in my nearly 30 years in the aviation industry where a pilot's been told to pass over a credit card of $18,000 otherwise the aircraft can't go.

Quote:"Maybe the airport should be called the Canberra Pirates, because you wouldn't have this in Somalia."

Mr Byron said that was incorrect, though admitted a car had been parked behind a Qantas jet.

[Image: 7479138-3x2-340x227.jpg]

Photo: Canberra Airport said the stoush began over Qantas diverting too many flights. (ABC News: Jana Black)

He said the incident only lasted for eight minutes.

"Qantas had landed two 747s unannounced and put other aircraft in danger, five weeks before this incident," he said.

Quote:"This was an incident where Qantas had to be held to account in terms of safety and putting other aircraft at risk.

"There was no payment made at all, there was no dispute about payment.

"This was the last in a series of multiple incidents where unannounced, Qantas were diverting large international aircraft to Canberra Airport, and putting other aircraft that had planned and arrangements in place to divert to Canberra Airport in jeopardy.

"It is true that we said we want a dialogue before the plane leaves and a commitment that these unauthorised landings do not occur again and we got that commitment."

Better arbitration called for

Tension between the companies has been brewing for weeks, with Mr Byron campaigning against the high cancellation rates of domestic Qantas flights between Sydney and Canberra.

Mr Joyce's position was backed up by former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) head Graeme Samuels, who said the position airports held amounted to a monopoly.

"That's not Australia, that's a third-world country," he said.

"In fact, I'm assured by Qantas that doesn't even happen in third-world countries."

But Mr Byron said safety had always been the airport's priority, calling Mr Samuels a "well-paid lobbyist" for Qantas' interests.

"Canberra Airport can't handle multiple diversions, Qantas was putting too much pressure with their diversions," he said.

"Qantas was running roughshod over all the other airlines and Canberra Airport, making up its own rules and putting other aircraft in danger."

Mr Joyce called for better arbitration between airlines and airports, and accused airports around the country of passing costs onto airlines and consumers.

"We think an arbitration role that the ACCC can fulfil where the airlines and airports can get to agreement, it forces them to go in and do arbitration," he said.

"Consumers are losing out, because there's hundreds of millions of dollars in higher charges that we can't pass on to our customers.

"They can just sit back, increase the fees, and let the airlines pay for it."

According to Mr Byron, Qantas and the airport had agreed to an effective ceasefire over the incident, until Mr Joyce's comments last night.

Further update:

Quote:Kenyans now enter the fray of Qantas scrap with Canberra Airport

By Steven Trask
27 May 2018 — 6:38pm



View all comments

Talking points
  • Canberra Airport has been at loggerheads with Qantas for months. 
  • Last week the airport's behaviour was likened to that of a Somali pirate crew.
  • The Kenyan embassy has now entered the fray, rejecting such comparisons.
The public bust-up between Qantas and Canberra Airport has taken another unexpected twist, with a senior Kenyan diplomat now entering the fray.

Last week the former chair of Australia’s competition watchdog, Graeme Samuel, likened the aggressive behaviour of Canberra Airport to something out of Somalia or Kenya.

[Image: 3d3b6c2af032369355b930796a8637188e6ede65]
Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Kenya was named the best-improved airport in Africa in the 2015 Airports Council International Airport Service Quality Awards.
Photo: Kenya Airports Authority

In response, Kenya’s high commissioner to Australia, Isaiya Kabira, has rebuked the comparison in an open letter sent to Fairfax Media.

“While it is in your full right to express your outrage, we find it extremely unfortunate that you draw parallels of inefficiency and imagery of piracy to a respected and much-admired airport of Nairobi,” Mr Kabira wrote.

“We also bring to your attention that thousands of young Kenyan soldiers have put their lives on the line to pacify and bring peace in Somalia, a corner of the world, long forgotten by many nations, as part of a peace keeping force of the African Union,” he added.


The letter attributed the comments to Qantas boss Alan Joyce, although the quote referenced in the letter was made by Mr Samuel, who chairs industry body Airlines for Australia and New Zealand.

[Image: e1cee17e34b3ade8b837c236e10908ed7d9e9e16]
Not happy: Kenyan High Commissioner to Australia Isaiya Kabira.
Photo: Jay Cronan

A spokeswoman for the industry body said they would apologise to the Kenyan embassy.

“The comments were made on the spur of the moment and were a poor choice of wording,” the spokeswoman said.

“There was never any intention to cause offence to Kenya. The intention was to demonstrate our ongoing frustration with the anti-competitive behaviour of Canberra Airport.

“We will issue an apology to the Kenyan Embassy accordingly.”

Mr Samuel made the comparison at an airline industry event at Parliament House on Thursday last week.

“I can’t contemplate any place in the world, except perhaps Somalia or perhaps Nairobi, where an aircraft would, having had to make an unscheduled landing because of weather, had a car parked in front of the aircraft, saying you cannot move until the airline provides a Visa card to extract a charge of $18,000,” he said.

“That’s not Australia. That’s a third world country. I’m assured by Qantas it doesn’t even happen in third world countries they are involved in.”


In contrast, Mr Kabira said Nairobi Airport was a bustling freight and transport hub of which Kenyans were proud.

[Image: 7afa45ea1e9d5c36b7a63134ca57093e5a7e488c]
Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce, who labelled Canberra Airport's behaviour "absolutely appalling".
Photo: Dominic Lorrimer

“The Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Nairobi is the centrepiece of this hub, serving millions of passengers every year,” he said.

“We are indeed proud that later in the year our national airline, Kenya Airways, will begin direct flights from Nairobi to New York.”

At the same event Mr Joyce had likened Canberra Airport to a band of Somali pirates.

“Maybe the airport should be called ‘The Canberra Pirates’ because you wouldn’t have this in Somalia,” Mr Joyce said.

[Image: 072a13b38dbaeb42b470d3ca31ad244c4987a007]
Canberra Airport managing director Stephen Byron.
Photo: Graham Tidy

“You wouldn’t have this in other parts of the world. It is unbelievably appalling behaviour.”

Mr Joyce’s comments referred to a stoush in March last year, in which the airport had asked Qantas to pay an $18,000 diversion fee following an unexpected landing due to bad weather.

A Canberra Airport spokeswoman said Qantas was bullying them after a flare-up over flight cancellations.

“Qantas doesn't like Canberra Airport calling them out on the cancellations,” the spokeswoman said.

Canberra Airport said the plane was only delayed for eight minutes while they negotiated a diversion agreement to prevent unexpected and unsafe landings in the future.

But Mr Joyce said he had encountered nothing like the incident in almost 30 years working in aviation.

A Canberra Airport spokeswoman said last week the airport had a positive meeting with Qantas, and was focused on repairing its relationship with the nation’s biggest airline.

“If Graeme Samuel or Alan Joyce wants to continue this bullying behaviour, so be it,” the spokeswoman said.

“Unfortunately, this new attack comes after a positive meeting with Qantas yesterday and puts the progress we made on behalf of our customers in question.”

Canberra Airport has been publicly at loggerheads with Qantas for months, repeatedly speaking out against cancellation rates plaguing flights between Sydney and Canberra.

The airport has gone as far as seeking federal government intervention and recently met Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack to discuss the issue.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
JOYCE, SAMUELS AND BYRON - A SANDWICH OF SORTS!

Well done P2, a nice montage that you have put together. Qantas planes being held to ransom hey, well that certainly is different! Perhaps the big eared Byron was sick of the Rat, as he said, diverting to Can’tberra and screwing up the airport operations at the expense of other airlines and then not having to pay a cent in recompense? Then again, Joyce was happy to ground an airline and hold thousands of Australian passengers to his own form of ransom didn’t he? And he then uses the airline to push a queer agenda upon those not that way inclinded or supportive, holding those people to ‘ransom’ when they fly Rainbow Airways?

I don’t know who would have the softest handshake - the little Mincer and spineless Joyce or the corporate footstool and tough talking/no action weasel Samuels?

But top marks actually go to P2 for using the words ‘Joyce’ and ‘bunfight’ in the same sentence;

”Again via the ABC, a bit more on the Canberra airport vs Alan Joyce bunfight -  Confused”

“Safe consumption of beer and popcorn while watching the airline/airport fight, for all”
Reply
Weather; or not?

The Oz – “The tension that can exist between an airline and an airport was in sharp focus earlier in May when reports emerged of a March 2017 incident where a Qantas Boeing 737-800 had been delayed from departing Canberra Airport after diverting there while en route from Auckland to Sydney due to weather. (Bollocks).

The Oz – "This was the last in a series of multiple incidents where unannounced, Qantas were diverting large international aircraft to Canberra Airport, and putting other aircraft that had planned and arrangements in place to divert to Canberra Airport in jeopardy. (Bollocks).

I know the ‘big boys’ have other fish to fry and this is all part of a much bigger ball game – but – I wonder why aircraft Sydney or Melbourne bound need to divert the Canberra so frequently. “Due to weather” is cited, which is a little misleading. The instrument landing (bad weather) facilities at the major terminals; and, the equipment in the modern fleet; and the general weather conditions, excluding the occasional Fog, themselves rarely call for a diversion to an alternate – due actual weather conditions precluding a landing.

So it becomes a ‘fuel’ issue – when Sydney has aircraft stacked due to the rules and the restrictive ‘movement rate’ rules under which ATC must operate; the odds are in favour of diversion due to a traffic stack ‘delay’ rather than ‘the weather’ conditions. When confronted by the potential of a further 30 or 40 minute delay - after using the planned holding fuel allocation – a diversion may become necessary – due to delay induced not by poor, below minima weather, but by speed at which preceding aircraft are processed. Just saying..No one is bothered by 'the conditions' - but what's left in the tanks (safe time) causes much discussion.

ATC do the best they can – given their limited options and restrictions, but the traffic does pile up, and fuel available is not an infinite commodity. Nobody diverts an aircraft for fun – the knock-on effects can create horrific problems for everyone. The radical cause is the process in place which slows traffic movement to a standstill during the periods when ‘instrument’ approaches are required. One thing is certain – ATC could shift aircraft a lot faster than the ridiculous political ‘cap’ allows, even faster if ‘distribution’ of noise requirements were lost. One thing is certain sure – neither Sydney or Melbourne have weather conditions anywhere near as poor as our neighbours anywhere North of Darwin have, where conditions actually below landing minima frequently demand a diversion. It will be a big job to clean up the regulatory mess which artificially creates a need to divert.  

Just my two bob’s worth.
Reply
Oh lordy! there are times one wishes they were a cartoonist.
What a gift the Cant berra imbroglio could be for Larry Pickering.

Picture Airforce 1 parked in front of the GA terminal known as Stalag
13 to many in the industry.

Car parked behind it, a very blond plump man at the top of the airstair
Yelling "Wadaya mean you want my VISA card"!!

or maybe a second coming.

A glowing Cloud hovering over the apron

descending from it a thin guy with beard in flowing white robes,
surrounded by angels, under him, a whole bunch of guys dressed as centurions,
with high viz vests of course, poking spears heavenward.
The bearded guy descending holding a card in his hand yelling.
"But I have a visa card"

The possibilities are endless!!
Reply
Story telling is not Can’tberras strong suit...

Have to agree with Thorny and K, the whole story is ludicrous. But it does provide for some entertainment. If a safety car was parked behind the plane it is probably because Sargent Shultz was too lazy to fuel the vehicle at the start of his shift and that’s where it ran out of fuel - behind the plane. Then he was probably too fat to get out of the car and he couldn’t call for assistance because his sausage fingers impede the use of a hand held radio.

Has Geoffrey Thomas provided an expert opinion on the matter yet?

I just hope all involved had their hi-vis vests on, were wearing a valid red background ASIC, had on their hearing protection and had undergone some form of useless and unnecessary airside safety training which included identifying line markings, knowing where the FOD bins are located, knowing the colour of the emergency fuel cut off buttons, and knowing which CCTV cameras won’t catch you taking a sneaky piss behind the GSE on the freight apron late at night!


P.S And for you bastards who piss underneath plane fuselages, DONT! Engineers have to touch and sniff it to make sure it’s not fuel or a hydraulic ‘leak’!


“Safe bedtime stories for all”
Reply
Airports & A4ANZ wars continue -Rolleyes

Via the Oz:

Quote:Airports need freedom to grow

[Image: f1bc448474ddf667d0b181e6f08e4c1c]ANGELA GITTENS
With annual flight passenger traffic in Australia to reach 321 million by 2040, airport growth is essential.


Australia leads the world in promoting a regulatory framework that has facilitated investment by airports in better terminals, better services, and more choice for passengers.


Last year, ICAO, the United Nations’ global civil aviation organisation, made recommendations to governments around the world, urging them to maximise the benefits of aviation for all stakeholders.

Australia has been a global role model in heeding this call, with a regulatory framework that encourages airport investment.

This drives more connectivity, improved passenger service quality, and, ultimately, wider economic growth and job creation.

In delivering these benefits, Australia’s airports have invested $11.5 billion on infrastructure and service improvements over the past decade without taxpayer funding.

This has been facilitated by the liberalisation of airport ownership combined with proportionate economic regulation.

Claims by some that airport privatisation has, over time, led to higher airfares are not supported by evidence and calls for tighter regulation on airport revenues are unfounded.

As such, charges might influence an airline’s choices about capacity and network planning but there is no one-for-one correspondence between airport charges — and any change in their level — and airfares.

Indeed, research carried out by Airports Council International found charges usually do not have a significant influence on airfares; the constant churn in airfares is, in reality, driven by passenger demand, price elasticity, and the level of competition on any given route.

This is an important fact to acknowledge because we forecast annual passenger traffic in Australia will reach 321 million by 2040.

To keep pace with this demand, and to ensure the benefits of this growth are realised by airlines, passengers and the wider economy, Australian airports must be able to invest, improve, and increase aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenue.

This revenue is a crucial source of funds for airports to invest in infrastructure and service improvements and privatisation has been proven to provide fertile ground for investment.

Major projects such as the Brisbane Airport runway now under construction — and planned new runways at Melbourne and Perth airports — are good examples of airport investment increasing capacity, laying the groundwork for meeting the demands of growth.

These and other projects will be crucial as they allow airports to maintain service levels and continue to foster choice and competition that will keep airfares lower over the long term.

Angela Gittens is director General of Airports Council International World based in Montreal, Canada.
"...Last year, ICAO, the United Nations’ global civil aviation organisation, made recommendations to governments around the world, urging them to maximise the benefits of aviation for all stakeholders.

Australia has been a global role model in heeding this call, with a regulatory framework that encourages airport investment..."

What a wonderful concoction of double speak and word weasel confectionary - I guess from an airport's point of view the Airports Act does encourage airport investment. - Dodgy

However I do wonder in individual States maximising the 'benefits of aviation', if it was the intent of ICAO for a State to do so at the expense of aviation safety?

P2 comment: Out of interest here is the applicable link for the latest version of Australia's 41 pages of notified differences to ICAO Annex 14 which is related to airport regulation: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/..._Vol_1.pdf   

Now from the otherside of the airport perimeter fence:

Via A4ANZ on twitter:

Quote:Our CEO, Dr Alison Roberts, will participate in a panel discussion on airport privatisation, sharing insights into how the current regulatory environment is holding our region back. #IATAAGM
A4ANZ added,
[url=https://twitter.com/IATA/status/1001371164764135424][/url][Image: w9RFlth6-cJVtkgw.jpg]2:10
IATAVerified account @IATA
#DYK The world's largest gathering of #airline leaders is the #IATAAGM. It is taking place in #Sydney next week! #SYD @Qantas http://bit.ly/2IQilPe 

12:12 PM - 1 Jun 2018







MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Airlines v Airports war - Update.

First by Jamie Freed, via Reuters... Wink

Quote:BUSINESS NEWS
JUNE 1, 2018 / 7:25 PM / 3 DAYS AGO
Airlines take aim at Australia's airport privatization model

Jamie Freed
5 MIN READ


SYDNEY (Reuters) - As more countries look to privatize airports two conflicting narratives have taken wing: airlines point to Australia’s big city airports as a cautionary tale of light regulation, while airports say they’ve found a winning formula for governments, investors and passengers.

[Image: 5b11111b5124c9b36db648a2-750-469.jpg]
FILE PHOTO: A Cathay Pacific Airways Airbus A330 plane is towed past other planes parked at the Sydney International Airport terminal in Australia, November 30, 2017. REUTERS/David Gray/File Photo

Two decades after airports in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth were sold to pension funds and infrastructure investors, they are reporting the highest margins in the world, data from trade group Airlines for Australia & New Zealand (A4ANZ) shows.

A key factor - and one the airlines are trying to change - is that the government cannot regulate fees or even intervene in disputes over them.

Ahead of an Australian government review later this year, airlines are using the International Air Transport Association (IATA) annual meeting, which starts on Sunday in Sydney, as a platform to loudly argue for new rules that could lower their costs, kicking off a furious industry debate.

“It isn’t wrong to say there needs to be some kind of oversight that ensures that the behavior of the service provider and the service receiver, if you will, act in an appropriate manner,” John Borghetti, chief executive of Australia’s second-biggest airline, Virgin Australia Holdings Ltd (VAH.AX), told Reuters.

Airport take-off and landing charges have risen 26 percent in real terms over the last decade to as much as A$18.30 ($13.81) per passenger, according to a report the Australian competition regulator released in April.

A4ANZ says ticket prices have fallen by 40 percent during the same period, shifting profits from airlines to airport operators and making it difficult to cut fares further.

The Australian rules, which maximized what the government could get upfront from selling the airports, are more extreme than that in other regions with large privatized airports like Europe.

The system is raising concerns among airlines that other countries looking to privatize airports, such as Japan, India and Vietnam, could use Australia as a model.

“We must find an effective regulatory solution to ensure that Australia is well served with competitive infrastructure,” IATA CEO Alexandre de Juniac told reporters on Thursday.

Airport operators, however, say Australia is a success story, with more than A$11.5 billion ($8.68 billion) of capital invested over the last decade, allowing for world-class facilities with cutting-edge automated and biometric technology.

Sydney Airport Holdings Pty Ltd (SYD.AX) CEO Geoff Culbert said Australia’s biggest airport is investing more than A$1 million a day to improve capacity, services and facilities.

“This is all privately funded and comes at no cost to the taxpayer,” he said.


What airlines really want, said Airports Council International (ACI) Director General Angela Gittens, is a return to lower fees, in the days when airports were government-owned, had less sophisticated management teams and suffered from overcrowded infrastructure.

“That is a time that has passed,” she said. “Governments have found that under the right circumstances they can get private investment. They don’t have to decide whether I’m going to spend money on an airport versus spending money on a hospital versus spending money on education.”

ACI data shows that airport charges typically make up only 5 percent of airline operating costs and that lower fees are not usually reflected in ticket prices.

The light-handed Australian privatization model, criticized by the country’s competition regulator, is just as polarizing for industry experts as it is with airports and airlines.

“Because it is a highly regulated industry there must always be some parameters,” said Priveen Raj Naidu, CEO of Singapore-based consultancy Reapra Aviation Partners, which has airport and government clients in Nepal, Myanmar, India and Vietnam. “In Australia it was a free for all. There is no baseline. This is where the government needs to get involved.”

CAPA Center for Aviation Executive Chairman Peter Harbison said it was natural for the airlines to argue hard for more regulation in Australia given it is in their interest to reduce fees.

“We have got some of the best infrastructure in the world I think in Australia largely because of the privatization,” he said. “Is it cheap and lowest cost? Very much no.”

($1 = 1.3256 Australian dollars)

Reporting by Jamie Freed; Editing by Gerry Doyle


And in the Oz today the AAA fires back  Confused :

Quote:
 

[Image: 3ede3de61ca35171eb7323f35860041a]

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce (left) and Air New Zealand CEO Christopher Luxon pose for a photograph during a press conference at Sydney Airport in Sydney on Friday. Picture: AAP
  • The Australian
  • 3:35PM June 4, 2018
  • SAMANTHA BAILEY
  • Business Reporter@SammyAnneBailey
Australia’s peak body for airports says the new Qantas-Air New Zealand codeshare deal will lessen competition and has the potential to constrain the trans-Tasman market.

The Australian Airports Association has called on regulators in Australia and in New Zealand to make sure the agreement won’t impact travellers or Virgin Australia, saying the deal would likely lessen competition on both sides of the Tasman.

“There are a limited number of airlines operating in both countries, and between them, so it is important there remains a healthy level of competition in the market,” said association chief executive Caroline Wilkie.

“This arrangement seems likely to make it harder for Virgin Australia to compete in the Australian market.”

It comes after Qantas (QAN) and Air New Zealand said they’d will remain competitive on trans-Tasman routes as they announced a deal to that will add 115 new domestic routes in Australia and New Zealand on Friday.

The deal, which will come into effect in October, would result in co-ordination of check-in and handling at airports will mean shorter connection times for all customers, while eligible customers will have access to lounges on both sides of the Tasman when flying on routes covered by the codeshare agreement.

A spokesperson for Virgin Australia, which has an interlining agreement with Air New Zealand up for renegotiation in October, said last week that the deal was “bad news for customers” and that it would stifle competition.

“We are particularly concerned this arrangement will further strengthen Qantas’ dominant position in the Australian market to the detriment of both Virgin Australia and the Australian travelling public,” Ms Wilkie said today.

“The ability to distribute each other’s passengers on the other side of the Tasman will improve the market position of Qantas and Air New Zealand and make it harder for Virgin to compete on trans-Tasman routes.

“It is important to ensure both the Australian and New Zealand economies enjoy the tourism benefits of easy and affordable trans-Tasman travel and this can only be ensured if there are more carriers, not less, flying these routes.”

Ms Wilkie said that the details for the agreement should be publicly examined by competition watchdogs to ensure there are not anti-competitive impacts.

“This is the only way to ensure competitive and affordable aviation markets in and between Australia and New Zealand and a visitor economy spanning the two countries that delivers to everyone the economic benefits associated with trans-Tasman travel,” she said.


Where will it end - does anybody know?  Rolleyes 


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
MAY THE AIRPORT AND AIRLINE WAR CONTINUE.....

Firstly, this;

“Australia’s peak body for airports says the new Qantas-Air New Zealand codeshare deal will lessen competition and has the potential to constrain the trans-Tasman market”

I stopped flying QF internationally 5 years ago. Two-bit low budget shit service in every aspect. Does this mean I will potentially buy an ANZ ticket but get stuck on Joyce’s crappy Rainbow Airways all the way to the USA? If so, I will pay the extra and fly a longer route with Singapore Airlines.

And seriously, what about this absolute load of shit;

“Airport take-off and landing charges have risen 26 percent in real terms over the last decade to as much as A$18.30 ($13.81) per passenger, according to a report the Australian competition regulator released in April.
A4ANZ says ticket prices have fallen by 40 percent during the same period, shifting profits from airlines to airport operators and making it difficult to cut fares further’”


Again, take Moranbah for example. When VA pulled out/got booted out, whatever way you want to put it, Qantas doubled its fares. Some flights are almost $2,000 return to Brisbane. What an absolute gouging to the deepest degree. And that occurred overnight! 50% increase over a couple of weeks, compared to a supposed 26% airport fees and charges rise over 10 years (and if the figure of 26% over 10 years is correct, that’s less than CPI you morons).

The ACCC, A4ANZ, Graeme Samuels, they are all spin doctors, bullshit artists not basing their theories on accurate and comparative data. Go do something really worthwhile you dickheads like grilling the electricity suppliers, oil companies and rip off mafia Banks. What a sham, the Royal Commission into banking, although semi-rigged, has unearthed a plethora of shit that the spineless and useless ACCC should have done a decade ago. Fools......


“Safe aviation fisticuffs for all”
Reply
Bruny Island airstrip under attack from local council... Dodgy  

Thanks to Shannon Wells for bringing this to Aunty's attention -  Wink

Via SW & the Oz:

Quote:Lots of coverage for the Bruny island airstrip closure...  #politas
[Image: De9XcjUU0AACm3P.jpg]
7:46 AM - 6 Jun 2018

Bruny Island fights plans to close its only airstrip

Bruny Island is ready to fight to keep its airstrip, warning that its planned closure will cost jobs, ­destroy a successful business, and reduce pilot training and air safety.

The gravel airstrip has been earmarked for closure by its owner, Kingborough Council, after a report found it required $250,000 in upgrades to meet air-safety regulations.

However, several small aviation companies that use the airstrip say the council has misread the regulations and appears ­determined to shed a perceived liability.

At stake is an entire business based at the airstrip, Island Scenic Flights, which employs several young pilots, as well as some sightseeing and pilot training ­operations run on or from the ­island by the larger, Hobart-based Airlines of Tasmania.

Both companies fear the loss of the airstrip would be a significant safety issue, removing the only suitable emergency landing south of Hobart.

Many islanders are outraged, arguing the airstrip was gifted to the community decades ago and built by volunteers.

“The community of Bruny Island are really, really passionate about it needing to remain as an airstrip — people in the pub are saying ‘they can’t do that, that airstrip is for the people’,” said Hotel Bruny owner Dave Gunton.

A recreational pilot, Mr Gunton confirmed he was one of ­several businessmen potentially willing to help buy the airstrip, on the right terms, including that any proceeds be reinvested on the ­island. Island Scenic Flights and Airlines of Tasmania have also expressed potential interest in a deal, but are unsure of the attitude of the council, which rejected all offers in an initial expressions of interest, in favour of closing the airstrip at the end of the month.

Steve Wass, Mayor of Kingborough, which swallowed Bruny in council mergers in the early 1990s, said the council was still open to sale offers. “To bring it up to today’s standard would cost about $250,000 and from our point of view … it may well be better off in someone else’s hands,” Mr Wass said.

Island Scenic Flights founder Peter Steininger said he felt as if the council was forcing him to buy the land he now leased. “Basically, it’s ‘buy it or we’ll shut you down’, which I think is fairly rude,” Mr Steininger said.

He would have to go deeper into debt to make the purchase and flatly rejected the council’s claim that upgrades, including fencing, were needed. “The population of Bruny Island are disgusted,” he said. “They feel it’s their airstrip. They built it and the council has no right to sell it. If the council just shuts it … they will have a fight on their hands.”

Airlines of Tasmania managing director Shannon Wells was mystified as to why the council, in private session, rejected three bids to keep the airstrip open. “My biggest concern is that it is our only refuge, safe haven, south of Hobart (airport), where pilots can land in case of poor weather,” he said.
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
AN AERODROME CONUNDRUM

The challenge in four parts are as follows;

1. Council are useless and should never manage an aerodrome. Local Government is the most dysfunctional and inept beast one could never wish for, and they couldn’t run a school raffle from a tin shed. No idea. They are also risk averse and paranoid about litigation.
2. Small business/GA etc expect to pay absolutely nothing by way of fees and charges yet expect a Rolls Royce aerodrome laid out before them. Unrealistic expectations and demands.
3. CAsA is killing aviation, including aerodromes. Unworkable and expensive regulations and requirements just to keep a pissy little strip open for business. The maintenance costs including compliance requirements, annual technical inspections (depending on aerodrome category), upkeep, capital and operational budgets etc have made aerodrome upkeep a nightmare.
4. Incompetent, inept and out of touch federal government. Minimal money provided to airports to maintain and ensure compliance with all their unworkable rules which are time consuming and expensive. Useless pollywafflers not funding infrastructure.

There are no short term solutions, or really any long term ones on the radar as yet. Just tail chasing day after day and year after year. But the Bruny Island saga is one of many unfolding and the problem is getting worse by the month. No aerodromes = no GA. A desperate situation we have been warning about for years.

TICK TOCK
Reply
DPM McNobody signs up for PC WOFTAM inquiry on airports - FDS!  Dodgy

Via the Oz today:

Quote:[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDpcWP2kZiO_-uBYz_6VA...AXF9ytkFvD]

Inquiry into economic regulation of airport services
The Australian-13 hours ago
Debate over airport regulation is set to take off as the government today ... Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services.




Debate over airport regulation is set to take off as the government today announces a hotly anticipated inquiry.

The Australian can reveal that Treasurer Scott Morrison and Infrastructure and Transport Minister Michael McCormack will today announce the Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services.

The last time the commission looked at the issue was in 2011 and the forthcoming review has been widely expected by the sector.

It comes as airlines have been pushing for changes to airport regulations that would make it easier to bring in the competition watchdog to adjudicate on charges that they argue are “one of the biggest” obstacles to fleet reinvestment.

But airports have argued that, in making their case, the carriers have ignored the benefits of investments made in terminals and other services.

The inquiry will look at the effectiveness of the regulation as well as passenger and freight services at the major airports in the capital cities.

The review, which reports to the government in a year, will also look at whether there are any unintended consequences from the price cap that applies to terminal, check-in, security, runways and apron parking services to regional air services at Sydney Airport.

This system was part of the 2002 privatisation of Sydney Airport.

Can't half tell that there is an election coming up, especially when you read the joint press release put out today by ScoMO and miniscule McNobody  Dodgy :
   
Quote:Inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services
Media Release
MM082/2018
22 June 2018
Joint release with:
The Hon Scott Morrison MP
Treasurer
Federal Member for Cook

The Liberal and Nationals Government has today announced a Productivity Commission (PC) inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services.

The inquiry will review the efficiency and effectiveness of the economic regulation of airport services where scheduled airline services are provided.

The PC inquiry will also review the provision of passenger and freight transport services at the main passenger airports in major cities.

In addition, the PC is to examine any unintended consequences of the regulatory price cap and price notification regime for regional air services into and out of Sydney Airport.
The Commission is due to report to Government within 12 months.

The Commission will undertake public consultation as part of the inquiry and the Government encourages all interested parties to participate.

Further information and the terms of reference are available on the Commission's website.

Media Contacts
  • Mr McCormack - Colin Bettles 0447 718 781 | Dom Hopkinson 0409 421 209
  • Mr Morrison - Andrew Carswell 0418 505 376 | Kate Williams 0429 584 675 | Sonia Gentile 0455 050 007

"..is due to report to Government within 12 months..."  - Perfectly timed so as to be politically nullified/ignored and subsequently obfuscated for the life of the next incoming government - 'nothing to see here, move along'...  Undecided


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Interesting puff piece in the OZ today about political donations to political parties by the same entity who was in the gun to develop the contaminated landfill site on the Southern side of Bankstown. Wonder how much he donated to get approval for that?

Its illegal now in NSW for political parties to accept donations from property sharks because of all the corruption that went on.
Same doesn't apply to Federal politicians and Bankstown is allegedly Commonwealth land and therefore not subject to State approvals, scrutiny or laws. A somewhat debatable hypothesis since it carries a State portfolio and lot number. I would suggest its state land, owned by the commonwealth therefore it comes under NSW law.
Reply
OUT COMES THE MAGICIANS HAT, WAND AND TWO-WAY MIRRORS

P2;

"..is due to report to Government within 12 months..." - Perfectly timed so as to be politically nullified/ignored and subsequently obfuscated for the life of the next incoming government

Yes, that old chestnut - an inquiry. Always a great way to pretend you are interested in the problem and are doing something about it, when in fact you are doing nothing other than producing an obsfucated report that is timed to fall on deaf ears and be shelved with all the other useless, never to be seen again shelfware.

Oh Minister Mc’Do’nothing, you need to get up earlier than that to fool the IOS. Minister, you are a limp wristed spineless droplet of camel piss. Be off with you, you obsfucating hocus-pocus magic practising spin doctor.
Reply
“Honesty is the first chapter of the book wisdom.”

Thorny“Interesting puff piece in the OZ today about political donations to political parties by the same entity who was in the gun to develop the contaminated landfill site on the Southern side of Bankstown. Wonder how much he donated to get approval for that?”

There is an excellent ‘in-a-nutshell’ sketch, with pictures on the UP which, IMO explains the primary motivation for development of our airfields, most worthy of the time taken to read it through, be sure to take a look at the photographs - interesting:-

Flopzone“It was pretty much paddocks until the mid 1970s when the land was rezoned to residential from then until this day. Aspendale, Mentone and Epsom Race Tracks became housing estates. The “green wedge” of farming land has been eroded away by greedy property developers who are hell bent on having Moorabin closed one way or another. Local and State Gov’ts have rezoned the land not the Commonwealth. The commitment of the current operators to maintain the site as an airport lasts only as long as the Federal Gov’t wants an airport there. When Canberra sells it off to the current operators, its all over.”

A parcel of land about 5k to the n/e of Moorabin about half the size of the airport was sold by the farmer a few years ago for 4 mil. It then sold for 14 mil. It was rezoned to housing and sold again for 40 mil. It was then cleared by the developer, carved up into lots and roads instated and sold to the Superannuation Trust of Australia for 400 million and a house hasn’t been built yet. So the land at Moorabin, what’s left of it would be worth a couple of billion once its sold as housing lots. Probably more as they would fill it with 10 story towers to get sea views not 3 bedroom brick veneers.

The best view of the current airport minus the new factories to the south but in anyone’s eyes, it’s a bloody joke.
-----****----

Thorny – “Interesting puff piece in the OZ today about political donations to political parties by the same entity who was in the gun to develop the contaminated landfill site on the Southern side of Bankstown. Wonder how much he donated to get approval for that?”

Its illegal now in NSW for political parties to accept donations from property sharks because of all the corruption that went on. Same doesn't apply to Federal politicians and Bankstown is allegedly Commonwealth land and therefore not subject to State approvals, scrutiny or laws. A somewhat debatable hypothesis since it carries a State portfolio and lot number. I would suggest its state land, owned by the commonwealth therefore it comes under NSW law.

-----****----

There’s more than 'just a few' wondering about ‘influence’ being brought to bear on some of those responsible for management of our aerodromes and the determined push from developers to build within their borders. This is all becoming part of developing notion that the ‘Greens’ push for hush over Melbourne is part of some grand scheme allowing unfettered development on airfields which are no longer ‘in use’. Not that contributions to any political party could influence thinking, nah. But when it is a symbiotic cocktail of two groups wanting the same outcome, for different reasons – then you have to begin wondering about mutual back scratching and grease on wheels. Don’t you? I mean if it ain’t a cock-up -

Toot - toot.
Reply
(06-22-2018, 02:12 PM)Peetwo Wrote: DPM McNobody signs up for PC WOFTAM inquiry on airports - FDS!  Dodgy

Via the Oz today:

Quote:[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDpcWP2kZiO_-uBYz_6VA...AXF9ytkFvD]

Inquiry into economic regulation of airport services
The Australian-13 hours ago
Debate over airport regulation is set to take off as the government today ... Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services.





"..is due to report to Government within 12 months..."  - Perfectly timed so as to be politically nullified/ignored and subsequently obfuscated for the life of the next incoming government - 'nothing to see here, move along'...  Undecided

Somewhat related... Rolleyes 

Via the Oz:


Quote:Call to ease ‘rigid’ airport rules

[Image: d54c98947b3dbbb5b8694c289fc16243]ANNABEL HEPWORTH
An easing of ‘rigid and outdated’ operating restrictions at Australia’s largest airport is needed, says a transport forum.


An easing of “rigid and outdated” operating restrictions at Australia’s largest airport is needed to spur the economy, the tourism and transport sector will declare today.

In a paper obtained by The Australian, the Tourism and Transport Forum will step up its push to convince policymakers to overhaul the tight caps on aircraft movements at Sydney airport.

The group will also urge the Coalition and Opposition to support reforms to the rules for when airlines can get dispensation to land during the politically sensitive overnight curfew at Kingsford-Smith Airport, and for changes to allow newer freighters to operate during the curfew.

TTF chief executive Margy Osmond said that while the proposed $5.3 billion Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek would be curfew-free, there was a wait of at least eight years before it started operating and “both leisure and business travellers will in the interim continue to be inconvenienced by delays caused by unforeseen events such as severe weather or aircraft issues”.

Ms Osmond said the cap on aircraft movements at Australia’s largest air transport hub could not be viewed in isolation because the operating restrictions flowed on to “the entire network”.

This was because operating restrictions at Sydney added to initial delays, so they spilt into the national network — especially to Melbourne and Brisbane — sometimes even into the next day.

Federal government restrictions introduced in 1997 limit the number of runway movements at Sydney to 80 per hour, with the caps measured over a “rolling” hour that starts every 15 minutes — stopping airlines from recovering times when flights fall behind if the new times would push out the hourly cap.

The group wants the 15-minute rolling hour scrapped and more than 80 movements an hour allowed, but without increasing the overall number in a day.

This would “help relieve flight backlogs and enable airlines to restore schedule integrity following instances of major weather disruption, technical issues, late inbound aircraft, infrastructure failure or other significant incidents,” the paper says. The group is also wanting the dispensations to depart or arrive during the 11pm to 6am curfew changed to allow landings during “major” weather disruption, which are excluded at the moment.

The paper comes as a slew of groups have called for a review of the tight flight restrictions in place at Sydney airport.

Earlier this year, the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia — whose 32 members include Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Qantas and Emirates — called for “more effective measures of aircraft noise impacts and respite than the current hourly movement cap”.

BARA has suggested “noise budgets”, similar to systems used at California’s Long Beach Airport and London’s Heathrow.

TTF — whose members include Sydney and other airports, as well as airlines including Qantas — also wants new freighters to be allowed to operate during the curfew. Under the Sydney Curfew Act 1995, only the British Aerospace 146 freight ­aircraft can land between 11pm and 6am.

As well, the group is urging changes to the system that guarantees slots at Kingsford Smith Airport for regional services, but caps their number during peak periods. Virgin Australia has previously called for this change.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
MASCOT - THE MASTICATING AIRPORT

Sydney airport has been chewing on the same meal for 21 years - a daily restricted diet of 80 movements per hour.  Back then, in 1997 Australia had 18.5m people. In 2018 we have 24.7m people. In 1996 Sydney’s population was 3.8m people. Sydney’s population in 2017 was 5.1m people. A massive increase in numbers and my lightweight analysis doesn’t include the increase in business, leisure and freight. Yet the airport has been held back to third world operating standards.

From the article;

“TTF chief executive Margy Osmond said that while the proposed $5.3 billion Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek would be curfew-free, there was a wait of at least eight years before it started operating and “both leisure and business travellers will in the interim continue to be inconvenienced by delays caused by unforeseen events such as severe weather or aircraft issues”.

Yep, that’s another 8 years of increased growth that will be held back by another 8 years of airport restrictions at Mascot.

And;

“Federal government restrictions introduced in 1997 limit the number of runway movements at Sydney to 80 per hour, with the caps measured over a “rolling” hour that starts every 15 minutes — stopping airlines from recovering times when flights fall behind if the new times would push out the hourly cap”.

That would be a starting point, but it’s a token one. The issue is above just Sydney airport. The restrictions on movements costs this country tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue every year. Some estimates put it at $50 to $100 billion each year. All because incompetent Governments and their Ministerial wankers are scared of losing their seats to the voters if restrictions are removed.

Well, the time has come. This bullshit cannot continue. It’s time to pull the plug on these archaic third world restrictions, lift the curfews and the movement cap and have the airport act in the capacity of what it is - Australia’s number 1 gateway. The ponces dwelling in the affluent suburbs can just suck it up. If you don’t like it then sell up and piss of to Capital Hill or Woden, Canberra.

It’s not only GA that’s being strangled. Tick Tock
Reply
Responses summary for PIR of Part 139 (NPRM 1426AS)

Via the Fort Fumble website:

Quote:Notice of proposed rule making - Post-implementation review of the legislative framework for Part 139 - Aerodromes (NPRM 1426AS)

Closed 15 Dec 2017
Opened 29 Aug 2017

Contact
ATMS Standards Section

131 757
[email=regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au]regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au
[/email]

Results Updated 10 Jul 2018

Thank you for your feedback on this proposal.

CASA received 109 responses through the Consultation Hub survey, including 76 individual responses and 33 responses on behalf of an organisation.

A summary of consultation is available below with an overview of the responses.  

Individual responses are also published here, where permission to publish has been received.

Files:
[size=undefined][size=undefined]
Published Responses
View submitted responses where consent has been given to publish the response.[/size][/size]


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)