Foreign AOCs based in Australia

[feenix]

What's the general feeling about operators with foreign AOCs setting themselves up and operating in Australia with CASAs blessing. These people are allowed to compete with operators who have ,and continue to jump through CASAs hoops in order to achieve and maintain an Australian AOC. They set up offices in Australia and base crew and aircraft here without the same checks as an Australian AOC holder making it a very uneven playing field. Their crew and maintenance are licenced overseas therefore not subject to the same CASA scrutiny.Meanwhile joe public know no difference to the Aus AOC holders. All this when charter substitution involves all sorts of hassles for AAOC holders.
Any comments

[7378FE]

If you are on about Tiger, they have an Australian AOC.

7378FE

[feenix]

Nothing to do with Tiger but I can easily think of a few others

[airtags]

feenix,
My view has been clearly publicly established, however, many respondents to the Fed Govt's green paper are also loud and clear.......NO!

- although, a notable few are 'positioning' themselves and lobbying hard for the principal place of business criteria (as nominated by the applicant) to get up. (eg Pacific Island origin but say, BNE looks like a good place to open an office and call it home?)

One or two airport operators are scrumming down in favour of the 'non locals', but the only motive for is pax numbers through the door and the incremental $ from which aggregate pax movemennts generate.

I suspect it would be a short lived honeymoon if these notions were to get up, however, depsite airframes being parked all over the world, we must be clear that there's no shortage of 'would-be defacto Australian' carriers.

Even SIA with it's recent financial traumas are still keen starters. The Singapore PM yesterday again raised the ante on access to the Australia > US route - greatly increasing the pressue on the bureaucrats and their pollie masters. (got to give him credit though convincingly linking action on Burma and N.Korea to SIA's access on the Pac route!)

We can't avoid 'open skies' - and we shouldn't condemn fellow flyers for taking an opportunity............but...........we can, and should insist our regulators CONSISTENTLY apply a common standard (and not just occaisionally in the top end.)

We can also insist on the likes of the ACTU and its member unions bat a little harder for Australian jobs, but end of the day - it's OUR government that makes the decision (or should I say flicks it off to a small group of bureaucrats to decide).

Remember when it comes to foreign AO's the motive is not about "bringing into" - but all about "taking out" and how the IASC can consistently grant routes on the basis of benfitting Australian's is at time quite perplexing.

here endth the sermon

AT :E

[apache]

well, surely then you would feel that it is hypocritical of JETSTAR to open a NZ basing, and use NON-NZ pilots to fly domestically under and AUSTRALIAN AOC?

just a thought.

[7378FE]

feenix, How many RPT operations (that Joe Public would give more than a rats freckel of attention to) are based in Australia without an Australian AOC?

At my last count it was less than 1.

Is your school closed because of the Swine Flu :hmm:

7378FE

[feenix]

I am not in the business of naming them but rather looking for comments on the fairness of it all, and yes Apache it must work both ways although in this case I believe their is a trans-tasman agreement covering your example. If an overseas registered operator wishes to base aircraft and crew in Australia to operate within and/or out of Australia they should have to have an AAOC. We are not talking of O/S airlines that operate into and out of here but rather operators who are blatantly based here while using a foreign AOC . A new one is about to start up in Brisbane and I guess I am commenting on the attitude of CASA rather than anything else as while it is legal people will continue to shortcut the system on costs and standards, otherwise they would operate under an AAOC
7378fe , by saying there is less than one such operation are you saying there is none or only part of an airline, or are you going to the same school you mentioned

[7378FE]

feenix, if there are any RPT operators in Australia without an Australian AOC, please spill the beans and let us all know, otherwise please go back to playing in your sandbox.

Why do people start threads on PPRuNe when they don't know what they are actually on about. :confused:

7378FE

[feenix]

7378fe why so agro just because you disagree with someone. I didn't say RPT ,I said AOC holders. Heavyjet comes to mind for freight and Strategic for pax. RPT are your words and I do know what I'm talking about so be nice or you won't be allowed to share our sandbox

[chimbu warrior]

operators with foreign AOCs setting themselves up and operating in Australia with CASAs blessing.

I hear vibes that CASA are not exactly "blessing" these type of arrangements.

[bushy]

And is their "foreign" regulator more or less credible than CASA?
Are you arguing for safety regulation, or commercial regulation?
I don't believe CASA have the right to regulate the commercial (business) aspect of aviation in Australia. Their purpose is "safety" regulation, and I sometimes wonder about their interpretation of that.

[apache]

Feenix,
I appreciate your concedence of the point, however I dispute the fact that THERE is a trans tasman agreement to allow foreign operators carte blanche approval to operate under one anothers AOC.
I do however believe that thee once was an understanding that NZ and AUS AOC holders, under the "open skies policy" could operate on either side of the tasman.and that the AUS government reneged on that agreement too.
It would seem, in my opinion, a tad hypocritical, if JQ, or indeed any other operator were to cry foul if a foreign owned company were to start up here, yet themselves start up OS using an AUS AOC, and offshore pilots initially?

[LeadSled]

Bushy,
CASA is specifically barred by its legislation from exercising any commercial regulation, any such powers were removed years ago.

Apache,
Matter generally between Australia and New Zealand are governed by the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty, and legislation flowing from that Treaty in both countries.

Naturally, this includes a wide range of aviation matters, including conditional mutual recognition of AOCs.

An Australian base for any other "foreign" operator, and what rules apply, is entirely dependent on the facts in each case.

However, in principle, you can use an aircraft and crews of any ICAO state on an Australian AOC.

Don't ever confuse the bureaucratic complexity and cost of actually getting an Australia AOC with safety outcomes. Do any of you actually believe, as one example, that Virgin Blue is fundamentally "safer" than any other related company flying under the "extended" Virgin banner, because they have an Australia AOC, rather than UK/NZ/DE/US AOCs??

If you have a look at the last ICAO audit of Australia, you will find nothing to support that contention, that Australia is "better". Quite the contrary, in fact.

Tootle pip!!

[feenix]

Apache, I agree totally however I am not sure as to the agreements between Aus and NZ but Leadsled seems to know what he is talking about. I appreciate that CASA may not be any safer than other authorities but just by the lack of survellance by both CASA and their home authority gives these operators almost carte blanch. Although CASA has no commercial authority over such operators the mere fact they did not pay to achieve or to maintain an AAOC gives them a massive advantage over other small operators who do have an AAOC .
Chimbu ,I hear what you are saying from individuals within CASA but as an organisation and watchdog there seems to be very little action
Leadsled "However, in principle, you can use an aircraft and crews of any ICAO state on an Australian AOC." I am saying that Australian operators are using foreign aircraft on a foreign AOC to bypass Australian requirements and negate the cost and time to establish an AAOC for their operations while they are obviously based in Australia and have nothing to do with their home authority except paper shuffling thereby achieving a massive commercial advantage.

[tail wheel]

I'm confused here. :confused:

Could someone please post the name of any foreign commercial operator (excluding NZ), operating foreign registered aircraft domestically within Australia, which does not hold an AOC issued under the proposed Part 129 or current CASRs? :confused:

[Rhterrke Atnyeneteke]

This sort of thing Tailwheel? Admittedly lthough the example concerned is not operating domestically, but doing our government work....

ABC Investigations - 12/07/2007: Troop transport company failing aviation safety standards, former staff say (http://www.abc.net.au/news/investigations/content/2005/s1987474.htm)

[Timber]

Why would CASA issue foreign AOC's at all? Why not require foreign operators to apply for approval for each flight or series of flights with approval / refusal depending on whether Australian capacity is reasonably available or not? That would allow domestic as well as international operations under certain circumstances to any qualified operator.

[grrowler]

The brilliant thing about that interview, RA, is that it was done by the former Strategic staff that went on to create the SkyAirWorld dream with the intention of getting that ADF contract - hidden agenda perhaps.

Perhaps similar to what feenix is trying to achieve as Strategic seeks to move into the Pacific.

[LeadSled]

Why would CASA issue foreign AOC's at all


Timber,
Go read Part 129 and associated advisory material, and it will all become clear. and it is all easily accessible on the CASA web site, the "rules" and who has the AOCs.

There is also the not inconsiderable matter of the web of bilateral air services agreements between the Australian and various other nation, Australia's rights and obligations under the Chicago Convention and a significant number of other UN Conventions. Your starting point is our Air Navigation Act 1920, also easily available on the web.

When it is all boiled down, a number of you are saying that the horrendous costs (in time and money) of dealing with CASA should be visited on foreign operators, to "level the playing field", by increasing foreign operator's costs. ------ Even where there is no "safety" issue.

Quite frankly, the now required two yearly IOSA audits of individual international operators is a far better indication of the standards of an operator than most audits by regulatory authorities --- or CASA.

As for artificially raising foreign operators costs, in the quest for some kind of "level playing field", ask the various State and Federal tourism bodies and consumer organisation, or the ACCC, what they think about that !!

I would guess such imposition of artificial costs comes under the general heading of non-tariff trade barriers/protectionism, a rather big no-no under sundry trade treaties.

Tootle pip!!

[Timber]

Part 129 is very much a paper tiger where it concerns effective oversight of an operator with an AOC from a country that will not or can not provide proper oversight over its carriers operations, maintenance practices and regulatory compliance . Europe has its blacklist and the americans have a category rating sytem that looks at the level of oversight as one of the more important elements in determining access to their respective nations.

IOSA audits are indeed a far better yardstick against which to measure the "quality" of a carrier. Many carriers in this part of the world haven't gone through these audits yet though.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
All IATA members, which includes almost all the airlines engaged in international airline operations (including non-scheduled) in this part of the world, have passed an IOSA audit, and the IATA deadline and grace period has long since passed, OR;

As a result, a small number of airlines have withdrawn from international operation, and/or IATA membership (mostly African and a couple in the CIS states, others scattered around) and some are limited to only where bilateral agreements permit.

I think you will find that all Australian airlines (down to some quite small one) engaged in international operations, have passed an IOSA audit, whether they are IATA members or not, because a number of national authorities make it a condition of flying to/through their area.

There are some interesting aspects of the EEC and US "rating" systems, Israel has been downgraded to Cat.2 by FAA. That being the case, the FAA consideration of the recent ICAO Australian audit will be interesting.

Tootle pip!!

[Rudder]

Sorry for ressurecting this topic after so long but I have to earn a living. Upside is Europe is nice this time of year.

I think the issue here and the one that Feenix has been alluding to is when the Head Office is actually here. Two companies come to mind and I think the questions to be asked are different as the arrangments are different.

Heavylift is clearly an Australian company with its head office in Sydney if I am correct and clearly Australian Based as opposed to a foreign Carrier such as United with an Australian base. Originally a Sierra Leone AOC, now a Phillipino AOC. This arrangement is clearly to circumvent meeting Australian requirements although in the long run this would appear to have been a detrimental move if the squeeling from NL after the demise of Ozjet is anything to go by.

The other arrangement is that of Strategic and Air Luxor. Strategic is clearly an Australian based company. I am not casting doubt on the veracity of the Air Luxor AOC being JAR based however as we know this whole operation is represented as Strategic. In the posting above about problems in the ranks and also the recent problem going into Darwin. Was it Air Luxor talking ... nope just Strategic. Strategic have control. I would assume Air Luxor has a Foreign AOC issued on the basis of the JAA one. The question to be asked is how does this meet the borrowed AOC requirements of CAO 82. Particularlly so now that Strategic have made an application. This hasn't been a temporary arrangement and Strategic should have had an AOC for quite some time.

I would be surprised if CASA have been happy about either of these arrangements but it certianly shows there is something wrong with legislation when these arrangements continue. It is certainly not the intention of the legislation.

[Timber]

HeavyLift (Transglobal Aiways) continues to operate as usual from BNE. The CASA website however does not list a valid foreign AOC for them. Is this because CASA has forgotten to update their site (quite likely) or is HeavyLift flying without foreign AOC (also not unlikely)?

[GaryGnu]

Hi All,

A general question relating to Air New Zealand.

The CASA website has no AOC listed for Air New Zealand be it a Foreign Aircraft AOC or otherwise? At least not under any name with "Air" or "Zeal" in it.

The only possible reason I can see for this is that ANZ operate to/from Australia as a Designated or SAM airline under the Air Services Agreement (Open Skies) of 2002 and use a NZ AOC with ANZA privileges?

Am I correct?

The NZ CAA website is not as quite as informative as CASA's when it comes to AOCs.

[c100driver]

Yes you are correct, Air NZ operate under the ANZA agreement into Aussie. Same as Jetstar is operating domestic in New Zealand.

[blackbandit]

I think you will find that OA, Our Airline, aka Air Nauru has not passed an IOSA audit. It is technically an Australian Airline.

Casa revoked all domestic AOCs held by foreign airlines last year if their aircraft were not VH registered.

Virgin is not an IOSA accredited airline as it is not an IATA member. They are however big enough to sell their own tickets and survive via the internet.

Good on them!

An operator nominates their own head office. This is a requirement on an AOC application and renewal form. It can be a PO box in Greenland for all that CASA cares!