Airports - Buy two, get one free.
Oh dear,

here we go again, another massive increase in operating costs.
Small consolation I suppose, the guvmint can trumpet how many new jobs
they've created, of course as another nail goes into aviations coffin, those jobs
will disappear as aviation dies. Development sharks of course will be ready in the
wings to trumpet how many shop assistants will be required to staff their shiny
new DFO's.

The Lord giveth and the Lord Taketh away.
Reply
YET ANOTHER TERMINAL SECURITY SPILL AT CAIRNS AIRPORT

I’m not sure what the hell is going on, but Cairns airport has had yet another security incident. I was delayed yet again. That’s the third time I’ve been inconvenienced in 13 months due to security problems at Cairns airport. A colleague tells me they are aware of 5 incidents in less than 18 months due mostly to cost cutting and useless management. I’m surprised OTS aren’t hanging around like a bad smell as the airport CEO seems to be just accepting these continual problems. I also believe the security provider has just lost the contract after 28 years and apparently there are some potentially ‘interesting’ reasons for this and the Cairns Post are sniffing around the trail of bread crumbs.
Article here;

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.cair...0508562708
Reply
Australian Airports Association to draft an ‘up yours’ to Qantas and Virgin

The AAA led by its triple chinned CEO are putting together a submission on behalf of their airport members to issue an up yours to the Red Rat and that other failure led by the pint sized John Spaghetti. I believe Alliance will also be on the receiving end which will no doubt have the Managing Sook, Scott Mc’Millions bleating and moaning about how everyone is against him. Basically the AAA will be telling them to pull their heads in regarding the airport fees and charges issue.

I find it interesting how everyone including the media and airlines keep hammering airports over gouging, when the airlines are the biggest gougers of the public pocket? FFS, everyone needs to earn a crust, so why doesn’t the spineless ACCC just mandate a set schedule of fees and charges for airports and the same for airfares? That will shut the duckers up....
Reply
Bureaucratic toxicity.

From the ABC -

More and more, almost everyday other day we hear, see and witness the lengths the bureaucrats will go to and the depths to which they will stoop to protect a ministerial posterior. But, the sinister part is that by doing so, they hold the minister captive and retain both power over and control of the ministerial marbles. The scary part is that some of the smooth talking Muppets are totally dependent on the mind control – even enjoy it; all the money, kudos, power and benefits and non of the responsibility. Well, not until there is a need for a donkey on which to pin a tail. We got a punch drunk sheep: will that do?

Toot – toot – toot.
Reply
The Electric Blue Tango

The blocking of the GayBC FOI request is another act of obsfucation and avoidance of accountabity.
Electric Blue and the Miniscule are a disgrace. Equally disgraceful are the outrageous lies by the Government saying everything is fine when internal documents say otherwise. No transparency, no explanation, no nothing.

COVER UP!  COVER UP?  COVER UP.

It’s time that citizens really woke up and started voting with their feet and turfing out the dross that is managing our nation.
Reply
Yin & Yang on airport securityRolleyes

Another classic case of expensive political and bureaucratic bungling is that of the introduction of increased (feel good - PR) airport security smoke screening - coming to a town near you... Dodgy 

If you ever wanted a yin and yang on airport security here it is, via CNN:

Quote:CNN exclusive: TSA considering eliminating screening at smaller airports

By Rene Marsh and Eli Watkins, CNN


Updated 2114 GMT (0514 HKT) August 1, 2018

[Image: 170321135754-airport-security-line-file-exlarge-169.jpg]

Washington (CNN) - The Transportation Security Administration is considering eliminating passenger screening at more than 150 small and medium-sized airports across the US, according to senior agency officials and internal documents obtained by CNN.

The proposal, if implemented, would mark a major change for air travel in the US, following nearly two decades of TSA presence since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and comes as the Trump administration has stepped up screening measures for items such as laptops and tablets.

Internal documents from a TSA working group say the proposal to cut screening at small and some medium-sized airports serving aircraft with 60 seats or fewer could bring a "small (non-zero) undesirable increase in risk related to additional adversary opportunity."

The internal documents from June and July suggest the move could save $115 million annually, money that could be used to bolster security at larger airports.

According to the proposal, passengers and luggage arriving from these smaller airports would be screened when they arrive at major airports for connecting flights instead of the current practice of joining the already screened population at the larger airport. The high-volume airports have greater capacities and more advanced security measures than smaller locations, the documents say.

CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said it was "stunning that this is even seriously being considered."

"Al Qaeda and ISIS still regard aviation as a priority target -- that includes aircraft where you have fewer than 60 people on board," he said. "They would see that as a way to hit the headlines. They would see that as a way to inflict severe economic damage on the United States. If you have an aircraft of 50 or so people being blown out of the sky there is going to be a great amount of panic and there will indeed be significant economic reverberations, and of course significant loss of life."

"This is so dangerous," a TSA field leader at a large airport said. The individual is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Two senior TSA officials, who asked not to be identified, expressed serious national security concerns over the proposal. They said the idea was explored as far back as 2011 and has been resurrected. The documents referred to some 150 small airports in addition to some midsize ones. TSA currently screens passengers at 440 airports, according to its website.

The working group determined that the policy change would affect about 10,000 passengers who are screened by 1,299 TSA employees daily, which amounts to about 0.5% of the people who fly out of US airports on any given day. The report not list specific airports that could be affected by the policy change.

TSA spokesman Michael Bilello said the study reflects a recurring debate within the agency about its legal requirements.

"This is not a new issue," he said via email. "The regulations which established TSA does not require screening below a certain level, so every year is 'the year' that TSA will reconsider screening." Bilello did not respond to a request for the text of the regulations.
The two TSA senior officials said the level of activity around the proposal this year -- the formation of a working group to conduct a risk and cost analysis -- mean this is more than an annual exercise.

The documents said a TSA working group of 20 people, including a representative of the agency's administrator's office, met on June 21 to examine the potential risks of the policy change. An internal TSA memo dated July 17 from TSA Director of Enterprise Performance and Risk Strategy Jerry Booker to the TSA administrator's chief of staff, Ha Nguyen McNeill, outlines the group's findings. It contains no formal recommendation.

Small airport security issues

The concept of rolling back security at regional airports recalls the coordinated attacks that brought the TSA into existence.

Two of the September 11 attackers first flew from an airport in Portland, Maine, to Boston before boarding American Airlines flight 11, forcing entry to the cockpit and steering it into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. While Portland's airport likely would not be included in the proposal because of its volume of passengers, the 9/11 attackers perceived the airport to be less secure because of its relatively small size.

The proposal asserts that small aircraft would not be "attractive" to terrorists. The documents conclude that attacks with small aircraft would not as attractive a "payoff" because "the potential for loss of life" would be lower than terrorists could achieve with larger planes.

Juliette Kayyem, who was an assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, said small planes could still be weaponized to cause major loss of life.

"People, weapons, dangerous goods and what's boarding the plane are all potential risks," said Kayyem, a CNN analyst. "TSA is falling into the trap that this is just about terror. A gun could be brought on board too."

Shift from earlier administration rhetoric, policy

The proposal under consideration by TSA is different from the agency's current approach to screening passengers.

Since TSA's inception in 2001, the trend has mostly been toward more enhanced security measures, including limiting gels and liquids in carry-on bags, requiring more advanced screening and directing passengers to remove shoes and belts for screening.

In June 2017, then-DHS Secretary John Kelly announced a laptop ban from carry-ons affecting nearly 280 airports in more than 100 countries.

"Terrorists want to bring down aircraft to instill fear, disrupt our economies and undermine our way of life," Kelly said. "And it works, which is why they still see aviation as the crown jewel target."

He continued, "The threat has not diminished. In fact, I am concerned that we are seeing renewed interest on the part of terrorist groups to go after the aviation sector -- from bombing aircraft to attacking airports on the ground."


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Dickheaded security bullshit rules. What’s next, body scanners on Farmers properties and a requirement for them to screen themselves before spraying cotton crops? Just in case he has a kiniption and decides to fly 3000 miles to Sydney and crash his Ag plane into the Harbour Bridge? At least he didn’t have a knife or bomb making equipment in him!
Reply
PERTH AIRPORT FAILURE - BULLET FOUND ON PLANE

From the attached article; An airport security officer has been stood down after revelations 21 rounds of ammunition were carried on to a flight from Perth at the weekend by a business class passenger without being detected.

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/perth-air...b88898564z

So once again we see that the Department of Homeland Security under Peter Dutton fails to prevent a serious security breach occurring. Body scanners, ASIC cards, ridiculous Inspectors dressing up in cargo shorts and Hawaiian shirts unshaven or dressing up as FIFO miners doesn’t prevent this incident from occurring. What a joke. No doubt the Perth Airport CEO and Board will be hiding beneath a rock somewhere also. Issues in Perth in their security oversight is something very common these days.
Reply
Paging Mr Peabody -  Rolleyes

Wonders will never cease -  Tongue 

From the RRAT Budget Estimates page - https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat - it would appear that in less than 1 week the vast majority of QON have been answered... Dodgy

Today Senator Rex Patrick's QON 201, on PSZs around the proposed West Sydney Airport, was officially answered and combined with the departmental weblinks, made for very interesting reading... Shy

Quote:Asked Of Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
Proof Hansard Page/Written 92
Portfolio Question Number 201
Question
Senator PATRICK: Are you looking at public safety zones around Sydney Airport? 
Mr McRandle: We're looking at public safety zones generally across Australian airports as part of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework. A consultation process commenced a little over a week ago with the community around public safety zones. It will include all airports. Queensland has already incorporated the public safety zone approach to their airports. There are others around Australia that haven't adopted it. 
Senator PATRICK: That's on your website, is it? 
Mr McRandle: It is on our website. 
Ms Spence: We can send the link to the secretariat if that would help? 
Senator PATRICK: That might be helpful, and I'm happy to help advertise that.

AnswerThe National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group is seeking comments on a draft new Guideline I— Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways. The draft guideline is available on the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities’ website at: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/airport_safeguarding/nasf/public_consultation_nasf.aspx.

Download question with answer 

Answered Date 
07/08/2018




Public Consultation–National Airports Safeguarding Framework
Listen to this page
A A A

Draft New Guideline I—Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways

In March 2018 the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials' Committee (TISOC) agreed to the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) publicly consulting on the draft new National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) Guideline—Managing the Risk in Public Safety Zones at the Ends of Runways.

This public consultation process commenced on 11 May 2018 and closed on 12 July 2018.
Submissions will now be considered by NASAG and be used to inform any further drafting of the guideline.
[size=undefined]
The fact sheet and FAQ below provide additional information on the draft Guideline:[/size]
[size=undefined]
Background

In 2010 the NASAG was formed and tasked with preparing the NASF.

The NASF was agreed by Governments in 2012. It is a national land use planning framework that aims to:
[/size]
  • improve community amenity by minimising aircraft noise-sensitive developments near airports; and
  • improve safety outcomes by ensuring aviation safety requirements are recognised in land use planning decisions through guidelines being adopted by jurisdictions on various safety-related issues.
[size=undefined]
The NASF has implications for anyone working in town planning, residential or commercial development, building construction or related industries. It consists of a set of guiding principles with seven guidelines.

NASAG has drafted a new Guideline for Public Safety Zones (PSZs) to mitigate the risk to people on the ground near airports by informing a consistent approach to land use at the end of Australian airport runways. PSZs seek to limit land uses that would increase the number of people in the zone or result in the storage of hazardous materials in the zone.

The Guideline will assist land-use planners at all levels to better consider public safety when assessing development proposals and rezoning requests and when developing strategic land use plans.

If you would like further information about NASF or the draft guideline, please contact Ms Sharyn Owen, Director, Airport Safeguarding on (02) 6274 6125 or at sharyn.owen@infrastructure.gov.au.[/size]

For the benefit of Mr PB (although if I was to hazard a guess he is already all over this -  Wink ) I noted the following from 'Draft Guideline' PDF:


Quote:Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

11. CASA is Australia’s safety regulator for civil air operations and the operation of Australian aircraft overseas. CASA is responsible for the implementation of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS). ICAO has not developed SARPS regarding PSZs.
12. CASA have a role in the regulation of ICAO mandated Runway End Safety Areas (RESA). RESAs are sometimes confused with PSZs. A RESA is a cleared ground area extending from the end of the runway strip for the purpose of decelerating an aircraft if it overruns the runway. - The RESA? What about the OLS & Mr Peabody's RSW? - ref: Oversight or lack there of - Part IV - UDB!
 

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Do ICAO/FAA smell a rat on Oz airport safety?

[Image: hd-composite-plane-crash-v2.jpg?strip=al...500&crop=1]




[Image: YMEN-DFO.jpg]

Reference: Lachie (finally) comes through - nearly?

Quote:AGA:

1) Ensure full implementation of Annex 14, Volume I requirements on Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs) at aerodromes.

&..

AGA:

Ensure that the State has a coordinated mechanism to ensure full and effective implementation of the obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) at aerodromes, including arrangements to prohibit any building developments which could create an obstacle to aircraft operations.

Hmm...interesting?? -  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Breuster & the RAUAG submission to the PC inquiry into airports  

It would seem that at least Geoff Breuster is not prepared to let moss grow under his feet after the Wagga Summit... Wink

Regional Airport Users' Action Group and Geoff J Breust (PDF - 153.3 KB)

Via the Yaffa:


Quote:[Image: wangaratta.jpg]

RAUAG calls for New Airport Funding Model
31 August 2018

The Regional Airport Users Action Group (RAUAG) has proposed a new funding model for regional and local airports that would see cash diverted from non-aviation businesses at primary airports.

Labeled the National Airport Infrastructure Fund (NAIF), the scheme was outlined this week in the RAUAG submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into the Economic Regulation of Airports.

"Access to air travel (be it airline, freight, other commercial or private/business) must be considered as part of our national strategy, even more so given the vast distances involved," RAUAG convenor Geoff Breust states in the submission.

"Even in the United States, the bastion of free enterprise in the world, airport infrastructure right across the country is part of a national strategy to ensure access, promote development and safeguard national defence. It is clear Australia has no such strategy.

"Given the current commercial business enterprise and cost shift to local government approach is not viable, a wider government, national strategy is necessary."

A study commissioned by the Australian Airports Association in 2016 found that 61% of regional airports had budget deficits in 2014-15, with costs exceeding revenues by an average of 45% for airports without RPT services. It is a position RAUAG believes can be corrected.

"Through co-operative arrangements between the Commonwealth and state/territory governments, a recommended solution is the establishment of an airport infrastructure program where funding is made available for major refurbishment and development at regional and local airports," RAUAG states.

"With the availability of this fund, local councils would not be required to make the huge contributions to depreciation reserve accounts and service substantial debt thereby reducing cost and charging pressures and placing commercial operations at risk."

Under the NAIF, major capital city airports such as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane would contribute a small sum from non-aeronautical income, justified because those airports benefit from their connections to the struggling regional airports.

"Almost $1.8 bn was earned by the three top capital city airports (Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane) in FY 2017 from non-aeronautical activities," RAUAG points out. "All three made a combined net profit of almost $1.26 billion. A small levy, of say 2.5% on their non-aeronautical revenue would provide the fund with $45m per annum. Add contributions from the other major airports and the contribution would exceed $50m per annum.

"This, combined with relevant contributions from State and Federal Government grant programs, would enable regional and local airports to survive and develop appropriately while maintaining a charging regime under which the aviation industry servicing those communities could manage."

RAUAG has also recommended that airports that benefit from NAIF be required to establish an effective advisory committee, and that aircraft registered with Recreational Aviation Australia also be required to pay airport users fees that are currently levied on general aviation aircraft.


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...wFIJegB.99
 
And from the Senate RRAT Committee inquiry: The operation, regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities


Quote:Mr Geoff Breust (PDF 46 KB) 

Key to the TimTam cupboard for Breuster... Wink


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

Via the Oz today:

Quote:Airport probe exposes rift
[Image: d17a2b78e8ecbf1eb684d6c463c77151]ROBYN IRONSIDE
The Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports has exposed tensions between airlines and airports.


Inquiry exposes tensions between airports and airlines

The Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports has exposed considerable tension between airlines and airports in Australia.

Almost 50 submissions have been lodged, some running to more than 100 pages.

While airlines say airports are exploiting their monopoly status by price-gouging, airports claim airlines are the real powerbrokers and are “overstating” the impact of their fees on airfares.

With billions of dollars in capital improvements to back them up, the monitored airports of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth have some credibility.

But as anyone who has used an airport would know, large terminals can mean high costs — for parking, taxis, food, drinks, retail items and trolleys — so it’s not much of a stretch to believe airlines are being ripped off as well.

In its submission to the inquiry this week, Qantas highlighted a couple of incidents as evidence of the need for more regulatory oversight of airports. These included sums of $18,000 and $64,000 charged by Canberra Airport in landing fees for Qantas aircraft forced to divert to the terminal because of bad weather.

The national carrier also called out Townsville Airport, with which it has been involved in protracted commercial negotiations, for positioning seats in such a way as to inconvenience passengers heading to the Qantas lounge.

Along with Virgin Australia, Air New Zealand and Regional Express, Qantas wants “faster and fairer access to independent arbitration to resolve disputes”.

It says this will encourage and incentivise airports to behave competitively during commercial negotiations to deliver lower ­prices and greater efficiencies, leading to innovations for passengers and users.

The Australian Airports Association, representing more than 300 airports and aerodromes, believes the present light-handed regime is working well and questions the need for change.

The AAA says since 2002, members have invested more than $15 billion in infrastructure, of which about $10bn has been in aeronautical assets.

“These investments have been necessary to improve safety, sec­urity and amenity for passengers, as well as provide the necessary capacity to allow total airport passenger throughput to grow from 76 million in 2002 to 159 million in 2017,” the AAA ­submission says.

In the airports’ court is the Airports International Council and the Australian Airports Investors Group, both of which believe changes to the present system would inhibit airports’ ability to invest in infrastructure.

The airlines have the Inter­national Air Transport Association onside in their calls for a more effective monitoring system. Other groups, including the Tourism and Transport Forum, the Australian Chamber of ­Commerce and the Business Council of Australia, are more concerned with easing constraints on the nation’s major gateway of Sydney Airport, particularly flight movements and night-time operations.

TTF’s submission says the curfew restrictions in Sydney have failed to take into account the growth in quieter aircraft.

The federal Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities says its preliminary view is that the case for changing the current “light-handed” approach has not yet emerged, but it will await the outcome of the inquiry before forming a final view.

Either way, the inquiry is shaping up to be one of the most significant for the aviation industry since the privatisation of airports in the 1990s.


[Image: Dmr26l3U8AAX4Xq.jpg]
Reference: Timeline of Australian aviation safety regulatory embuggerance - 1988 till ???? 


While on airport issues - that our absolutely useless,  do nothing miniscule 4G McDo'Naut continues to ignore - and in reference to the SBG linked post (above), over on the UP Mr PeaBody has posted an update on the ATSB's top-cover investigation of the tragic YMEN DFO accident, that every bureaucrat and his dog seems desperate to obfuscate??


Quote:MrPeabodyThe ATSB has again pushed expected completion from 3rd to 4th quarter 2018; status is now Final Report: Approval Phase.


Lead BalloonTranslation: Maybe around February 2019. 

Under 2 years would be surprisingly ‘efficient’ for the contemporary ATSB. Fortunately the blancmanges they produce rarely contribute beneficially to the collective wisdom. 

The litigation will be interesting to say the least.
  
Again the HVH led ATCB has not disseminated this information for general consumption but on the investigation page embedded in the general/aircraft details apparently there has been an 4 September update... Dodgy  

Quote:General details
Date: 21 February 2017
Investigation status: Active
Time: 8:59 ESuT
Investigation phase: Final report: Approval
Location   (show map): Essendon Airport
Investigation type: Occurrence Investigation
State: Victoria
Occurrence type: Collision with terrain


Occurrence class: Operational
Report status: Pending
Occurrence category: Accident
Anticipated completion: 4th Quarter 2018
Highest injury level: Fatal 


"..The litigation will be interesting to say the least..."  - Hmm..I wonder what LB knows that we don't -  Huh

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Rainbow Airways;

In its submission to the inquiry this week, Qantas highlighted a couple of incidents as evidence of the need for more regulatory oversight of airports. These included sums of $18,000 and $64,000 charged by Canberra Airport in landing fees for Qantas aircraft forced to divert to the terminal because of bad weather.

Qantas point being????? So because the weather is shit and they divert to Can’tberra airport the fees should be waived? Dear Allan, even your planes that are diverting still cause wear and tear to runways, taxiways and aprons. Why shouldn’t you pay? Do you offer free airfares to paying passengers when your planes run late due to weather, manpower cutbacks or poor management decisions? Dickheads......
Reply
Interesting to note the text below from the ATSB report on the DFO crash.

The ERSA, a component of the Aeronautical Information Publication, publishes information about an airport’s infrastructure and, in particular, runway data and airspace obstructions that may affect operations at the airport. The airport data for Essendon included seven obstacles that breached the airport’s obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS). Four of those obstacles infringed the runway 26 transitional surface component of the OLS and were associated with two buildings within the outlet centre that were not struck by the aircraft. CASA accepted the breaches in 2015 after the airport operator applied lighting and colour to the obstacles to mitigate their risk to aircraft operations.

What about that safety case that was supposed to have happened way back; not to mention that oversite or lack there of on the part of CASA (2004 to 2015). Dodgy

The minister at the time, if you recall, made specific mention that CASA was to be involved in the development to ensure it complied with the regulations. Dodgy
Reply
(09-26-2018, 04:20 PM)MrPeaBody Wrote: Interesting to note the text below from the ATSB report on the DFO crash.

The ERSA, a component of the Aeronautical Information Publication, publishes information about an airport’s infrastructure and, in particular, runway data and airspace obstructions that may affect operations at the airport. The airport data for Essendon included seven obstacles that breached the airport’s obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS). Four of those obstacles infringed the runway 26 transitional surface component of the OLS and were associated with two buildings within the outlet centre that were not struck by the aircraft. CASA accepted the breaches in 2015 after the airport operator applied lighting and colour to the obstacles to mitigate their risk to aircraft operations.

What about that safety case that was supposed to have happened way back; not to mention that oversite or lack there of on the part of CASA (2004 to 2015). Dodgy

The minister at the time, if you recall, made specific mention that CASA was to be involved in the development to ensure it complied with the regulations. Dodgy

Well CASA obviously reneged on that deal... Confused

So we are not working in cross purposes he is a link for the "K" post on the DFO accident report this AM: Curiosities – rather than comments.

Quote:..One thing is for certain sure; the pilot had sweet bugger all to do with the buildings being where they are; that, standing alone, is worthy of serious investigation. That will be fun, won’t it?...

MTF...P2  Cool

ps http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-10-...ml#pid9336

[Image: DnRwme0VYAAHYgw.jpg]

pps And for the benefit of Ventus I reckon you can just make out those advertising towers in amongst all that black avtur smoke? http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-103...ml#pid9334

[Image: attachment.php?aid=421]

Hmm...not sure the 'lights' and 'colour' on the obstacles would have helped much to mitigate risk in this particular tragic accident?
Reply
McDo'Naut does naut on airports vs airlines war - Part V

In the Oz today, Rex takes a shot at the airports... Rolleyes

Quote:Rex hits out at airports

[Image: 13b6031227ae0394e5f2a395b61a15d7]ROBYN IRONSIDE
Regional Express has taken aim at airports for adopting a ‘build it and they will come’ mentality at a significant cost to carriers.

Australia’s largest regional airline has taken aim at airports for adopting a “build it and they will come” mentality at a significant cost to carriers.

In a scathing submission to the productivity commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports, Regional Express (Rex) Airlines said many airports were undertaking upgrades to accommodate larger aircraft, without any real demand for those ­services.

In the case of Orange airport, the submission said a $19 million terminal and runway upgrade had resulted in the airport head tax per passenger rising 15.2 per cent, from $15.50 to $17.85. But the largest aircraft using the airport continued to be Saab 340s, with “not an A320 or B737 in sight” and passenger numbers stagnant.

“Orange airport is one of the best examples of airports that are comfortably making a tidy surplus from airport revenue and having a good reliable service …. who then started having aspirations for jet-loads of passengers based on wishful projections by consultants hired precisely for churning out such rosy outcomes,” the submission said.

Rex also singled out Mildura, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Mount Gambier, Kangaroo Island and King Island airports.

Melbourne airport was described as “a big cheat” because of its practice of “accepting 61 movements an hour on a runway that can only handle 50 movements”.

“Rex cannot state strongly enough that the actions of (Melbourne airport) are an extreme abuse of its market power and are both morally and ethically reprehensible,” the submission said. “Melbourne Airport should also be directed to compensate all the carriers who have suffered damages as a result of its behaviour.”

Like other airlines, Rex wants more effective regulation of airports, and the ability for the ACCC to intervene when negotiations for new commercial agreements stall.

“Rex is strongly of the belief that regional airports need to be regulated to dissuade the local councils from acting in a myopic manner that could end up destroying the local community,” the airline’s submission says.

Rex submission link:  https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_...rports.pdf
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
(08-04-2018, 10:27 AM)Peetwo Wrote: Ying & Yang on airport security -  Rolleyes

Another classic case of expensive political and bureaucratic bungling is that of the introduction of increased (feel good - PR) airport security smoke screening - coming to a town near you... Dodgy 

If you ever wanted a yin and yang on airport security here it is, via CNN:

Quote:CNN exclusive: TSA considering eliminating screening at smaller airports

By Rene Marsh and Eli Watkins, CNN


Updated 2114 GMT (0514 HKT) August 1, 2018

[Image: 170321135754-airport-security-line-file-exlarge-169.jpg]

Washington (CNN) - The Transportation Security Administration is considering eliminating passenger screening at more than 150 small and medium-sized airports across the US, according to senior agency officials and internal documents obtained by CNN.

The proposal, if implemented, would mark a major change for air travel in the US, following nearly two decades of TSA presence since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and comes as the Trump administration has stepped up screening measures for items such as laptops and tablets.

Internal documents from a TSA working group say the proposal to cut screening at small and some medium-sized airports serving aircraft with 60 seats or fewer could bring a "small (non-zero) undesirable increase in risk related to additional adversary opportunity."

The internal documents from June and July suggest the move could save $115 million annually, money that could be used to bolster security at larger airports.

According to the proposal, passengers and luggage arriving from these smaller airports would be screened when they arrive at major airports for connecting flights instead of the current practice of joining the already screened population at the larger airport. The high-volume airports have greater capacities and more advanced security measures than smaller locations, the documents say.

CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said it was "stunning that this is even seriously being considered."

"Al Qaeda and ISIS still regard aviation as a priority target -- that includes aircraft where you have fewer than 60 people on board," he said. "They would see that as a way to hit the headlines. They would see that as a way to inflict severe economic damage on the United States. If you have an aircraft of 50 or so people being blown out of the sky there is going to be a great amount of panic and there will indeed be significant economic reverberations, and of course significant loss of life."

"This is so dangerous," a TSA field leader at a large airport said. The individual is not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Two senior TSA officials, who asked not to be identified, expressed serious national security concerns over the proposal. They said the idea was explored as far back as 2011 and has been resurrected. The documents referred to some 150 small airports in addition to some midsize ones. TSA currently screens passengers at 440 airports, according to its website.

The working group determined that the policy change would affect about 10,000 passengers who are screened by 1,299 TSA employees daily, which amounts to about 0.5% of the people who fly out of US airports on any given day. The report not list specific airports that could be affected by the policy change.

TSA spokesman Michael Bilello said the study reflects a recurring debate within the agency about its legal requirements.

"This is not a new issue," he said via email. "The regulations which established TSA does not require screening below a certain level, so every year is 'the year' that TSA will reconsider screening." Bilello did not respond to a request for the text of the regulations.
The two TSA senior officials said the level of activity around the proposal this year -- the formation of a working group to conduct a risk and cost analysis -- mean this is more than an annual exercise.

The documents said a TSA working group of 20 people, including a representative of the agency's administrator's office, met on June 21 to examine the potential risks of the policy change. An internal TSA memo dated July 17 from TSA Director of Enterprise Performance and Risk Strategy Jerry Booker to the TSA administrator's chief of staff, Ha Nguyen McNeill, outlines the group's findings. It contains no formal recommendation.

Small airport security issues

The concept of rolling back security at regional airports recalls the coordinated attacks that brought the TSA into existence.

Two of the September 11 attackers first flew from an airport in Portland, Maine, to Boston before boarding American Airlines flight 11, forcing entry to the cockpit and steering it into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. While Portland's airport likely would not be included in the proposal because of its volume of passengers, the 9/11 attackers perceived the airport to be less secure because of its relatively small size.

The proposal asserts that small aircraft would not be "attractive" to terrorists. The documents conclude that attacks with small aircraft would not as attractive a "payoff" because "the potential for loss of life" would be lower than terrorists could achieve with larger planes.

Juliette Kayyem, who was an assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, said small planes could still be weaponized to cause major loss of life.

"People, weapons, dangerous goods and what's boarding the plane are all potential risks," said Kayyem, a CNN analyst. "TSA is falling into the trap that this is just about terror. A gun could be brought on board too."

Shift from earlier administration rhetoric, policy

The proposal under consideration by TSA is different from the agency's current approach to screening passengers.

Since TSA's inception in 2001, the trend has mostly been toward more enhanced security measures, including limiting gels and liquids in carry-on bags, requiring more advanced screening and directing passengers to remove shoes and belts for screening.

In June 2017, then-DHS Secretary John Kelly announced a laptop ban from carry-ons affecting nearly 280 airports in more than 100 countries.

"Terrorists want to bring down aircraft to instill fear, disrupt our economies and undermine our way of life," Kelly said. "And it works, which is why they still see aviation as the crown jewel target."

He continued, "The threat has not diminished. In fact, I am concerned that we are seeing renewed interest on the part of terrorist groups to go after the aviation sector -- from bombing aircraft to attacking airports on the ground."

Update to airport security -  Confused 


Sandy ASIC letter to local MP:


Quote:Dear Sarah,


I wish to register my protest at having to obtain this security card. 

1. This card is only valid for two years, it cost me a birth certificate ($34) and a special trip to Colac Post Office and a fee of $288.20.

2. I need this card to fly my own plane to such security risky airports the likes of Birdsville, Windorah, Longreach or Gunnedah and other “security controlled airports,” mostly those with a scheduled service. 

3. The CASA website offers another much cheaper ($153) five year card called an Aviation Identity Card (AVIC) which is supposed to be sufficient for infrequent flights into the great Metropolises such as above but none of the sometimes officious airport reporting officers seem to know this and therefore the AVID that I possess is virtually useless. Can I have a refund please?

4. I give weight to my protest because I have held a Commercial Pilots Licence since 1968, I have held approvals for Chief Flying Instructor, Chief Pilot, pilot licence testing and the Air Operators Certificate for scheduled passenger services, charter and flying school. 

I believe I could expect after fifty years of an unblemished professional flying career my government could trust me sufficiently to issue me a lifetime ASIC or at least one with ten years of validity. 

5. I further protest that the process is advertised firstly by the private agents handling my application as being one to two weeks, but when I phone them they say up to three weeks. Now its been sent to AusCheck and they tell me it may be up to six weeks, or longer. I have a business need for the card in the next couple of weeks and so this timetable is unacceptable. 

6. This card is an unreasonable impost upon General Aviation Pilots, we already carry our aviation licences and logbooks and, as a rule, photo ID such as driver’s licences. In the USA, the home of “911” which was the inspiration for this card, does not have such a system. Why do we?

7.  If the Liberal Party and the Coalition truly supports individual freedom and small business the Government will act to relieve myself and General Aviation of this unfair and unjustified impost. 

Any reform for GA will assist in creating jobs and could prevent the current need to import airline pilots, you might wonder who is flying you between Canberra and Melbourne these days. Australian Pilots are best, ask any air traffic controller. 

Kind Regards,

Sandy 
 
While on the ridiculous bureaucratic impost to industry of airport security, I note that the Senate's Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018 inquiry: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...onSecurity[/size][/color][/size][/color]

I also note that the 1st submission received was from none other than REX airlines:
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=660487

However if you think this proactive engagement by REX with the Senate Inquiry process is a positive sign then sadly you will be disappointed with the 1 page wet lettuce submission:



[Image: DpWTZuLUcAAdlqw.jpg]



IMO what makes this submission even more disappointing is that it would appear that the RAAA (submission No 3.) has copied and pasted large parts of the REX wet lettuce submission into their own?



[Image: DpWUrSpUwAA6ruO.jpg:large]

[Image: DpWUucKUYAA5Doc.jpg]



Err..."please explain??" -  Dodgy

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
REX King Island bun-fight continues... Dodgy    

Via the Hobart Mercury:

Quote:[Image: a6ecdf7cf0eca5bb0c1d9961dfb6999e?width=1024]
King Island Mayor Duncan McFie is considering legal action against the King Island Courier over its coverage of the disagreement between airline Rex and the council. Picture: David Geraghty

Tasmanian Mayor threatens local newspaper with legal action as regional airline pulls service


Mercury
October 15, 2018 11:05pm

KING Island Council and airline Regional Express are at war again after the council threatened the local newspaper with legal action.

The airline and the council were locked in a feud over landing and airport fees earlier this year and the airline cut two weekly flights from Melbourne to Currie as a result.

Last month, the standoff seemed to have been resolved when Tourism Tasmania CEO John Fitzgerald was appointed by the State Government to intervene in the dispute.

The council agreed to place its airport charge increases on hold until April 1 and broker a longer-term deal with the airline.

The council has since taken legal action against the King Island Courier over its coverage of the disagreement between Rex and the council in an article on September 19.

On Monday, Rex said it would no longer continue the two weekly reinstated services.

“I view this law suit against a newspaper for saying exactly the same things that Rex has said in public as nothing but a disguised attempt to sully Rex’s reputation,” Rex executive chairman Lim Kim Hai said.
“Rex will no longer be continuing the two weekly return services that were recently reinstated. This very marginal route has consumed too much management effort.”


King Island Mayor Duncan McFie said he had written to Rex to clarify its position against the newspaper. Cr McFie said he had made it clear the issue was with the language used in the article and not with Rex.
King Island Courier editor Kathleen Hunter declined to comment.
And via REX media:
Quote:[Image: DpinblyUUAEJjev.jpg]

Hmm...happy times ahead for KI residents...NOTDodgy

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Safety week.......folly or not folly?

So the Australian Airports Association is this week supporting, promoting and promulgating ‘safety week’. Kudos to them. From what I understand quite a lot of work has gone into this and a lot of airports are working together.

My question is why doesn’t CAsA follow the AAA’s lead and promote similar safety focused initiatives? Be proactive and “collaborate rather than abrogate” safety? Lead by example etc.

Maybe an opportunity exists for next years safety week and the AAA could team up with the alphabet soup aviation groups also? Great opportunity for hatchets to be buried and for the industry to embrace one another and share the safety love so to speak.

“Safe safety cuddles for all”
Reply
YSCB in stoush with RAAA - Rolleyes

The following is a link for the RAAA submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into the airports: https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_...rports.pdf

The following is an extract from that submission:

Quote:Aviation infrastructure being negatively impacted by commercial development It is clear that airport operators are highly motivated by the need to maximise returns from their real estate. They now hold the annual Australasian Airports Real Estate and Planning Conference which was commenced in 2004. We do not deny them the right to gain returns from non-aeronautical real estate ventures and it could even be positive if such returns were to be used to facilitate aeronautical capital investment but unfortunately this is rarely the case. The airports invariably rely on airline operators or, in the case of regional airports, government grants to provide such funding. While not begrudging the airports the right to earn extra profit it must not be done at the expense of airport infrastructure. Sometime in 2007 Sydney Airport proposed a Master Plan with extensive non-aeronautical development including a DFO. Given the scarcity of land at Sydney Airport the Transport Minister withheld approval and the plan was subsequently modified. Fortunately in this case there was Government oversight but the intentions and priorities of the airport were clear. In 2006 the operators of Bankstown Airport closed runway 18/36 and associated airport infrastructure. Two years later in 2008 they closed Hoxton Park aerodrome and turned it into an industrial park with some residential development. These actions removed crosswind runways near Bankstown and again showed that the owner’s priority was with real estate development.

Quote:Case study 8

Canberra Airport
For Canberra Airport, Airservices Australia has been obliged to put the following warning in its En Route Supplement Australia: “During strong westerly winds TURB may be experienced in touch down area LDG RWY 35” This warning of turbulence resulted from airline pilots complaining about a safety issue arising from severe turbulence caused by a hangar that was built too close to the runway. The hangar could have been placed further away from the runway if the land behind the hangar was not being used for non-aeronautical commercial development. Additionally, the ATSB undertook an investigation as a result of an Air Safety Incident Report relating to severe wind turbulence over the threshold of Runway 12 at Canberra due to buildings being too close to that threshold. The report was released in 2011 and noted s i g n i f i c a n t shortcomings and a commensurate reduction in safety as a result of poor consideration of the effect of non-aeronautical developments near Runway 12.

It must be noted that some airports achieve the balance between aeronautical and nonaeronautical development and Essendon Airport is a good example where significant non-aeronautical development has taken place without compromising aeronautical infrastructure. P2 - Note how the RAAA have cleverly stepped around the YMEN DFO prang by stating that they haven't compromised 'aeronautical infrastructure (ps will come back to this bollocks statement very soon)  

Unfortunately for the RAAA took umbrage to the above case study and responded to the PC inquiry with this... Rolleyes :

Quote:This submission is related to the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) submission dated September 2018 which alleges that Canberra Airport has experienced a reduction in safety due to the wind effects of development too close to Runway 12.

We would like to definitively go on record noting that every building, aviation and commercial, has been approved, both before and after construction, through proper channels which include aviation safety regulators, CASA and Airservices. These allegations are not supported by fact.

Further, the Qantas Hangar and the Majura Office Park buildings have been in position for more than ten years. Aviation users have continued operations since the buildings were complete. We have heard from pilots, who have used this airport for decades, both before and after the construction of these buildings, that from time to time, planes have experienced turbulence due to combinations of Canberra’s unique terrain, and varying wind directions and velocities. This happened sporadically before construction of these buildings, as well as after. There is no pattern of increased claims of turbulence.

Additionally, over the past 20 years, we have had rare turbulent events on 35 Arrival in North Easterly wind (no buildings near), including heavy landings. We log all of these events.

We take allegations of any potential threat to safety very seriously, and Canberra Airport’s risk analysis warns ‘pilots of the rare potential weather event,’ a practical, reasonable and diligent safety management tactic.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and please let us know if you have any additional queries.
 
Hmm...no comment, except to say "where's the popcorn??" - Tongue

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)