Bonza has its AOC
Even now any forign operator can have a go at domestic in Oz
They can even use forign crew if they can not find local workers, all be it on Oz pay rates
The only diffrence being that the birds need to be Oz registered
They can even use forign crew if they can not find local workers, all be it on Oz pay rates
The only diffrence being that the birds need to be Oz registered
I don't see a huge problem here. AFAIK Bonza has been recruiting for the OOL base to replace the Canadians when they get their next planes.
Also Bonza has talked about, in the future, sending Bonza jets to fly in Canada in peak season over there, so presumably opportunities for Australian pilots there.
For those with long memories, in 1989, the Hawke Labor government approved many foreign carriers to fly domestically. It took 5 minutes to approve it when it suited their political agenda.
Also Bonza has talked about, in the future, sending Bonza jets to fly in Canada in peak season over there, so presumably opportunities for Australian pilots there.
For those with long memories, in 1989, the Hawke Labor government approved many foreign carriers to fly domestically. It took 5 minutes to approve it when it suited their political agenda.
However you are comparing apples and oranges. The issue in Australia is regulatory burden, cost and inconsistency. Now if all operators have to pay that (plus all other non aviation regulatory/tax burden) then it's just the cost of doing business in Australia right or wrong.
The issue with the Bonza arrangement is the precedent being set and the competitive advantage gained by being regulated outside of your jurisdiction. This is then just amplified if you then are licensed in a weak or corrupt regulatory environment but earn your money in a high regulatory environment. You gain an enormous competitive advantage by doing so and if that pressure becomes overwhelming then ultimately the regulator either has to stand up and regulate or retreat all together. Uber vs the Taxis is a classic example of this taken to the extremes.
What is preventing someone getting and Australian AOC then overcharging themselves the cost of the aircraft on Wet Lease, running perpetual losses in Australia, getting tax rebates, whilst being licensed in a business friendly country with unlimited supply of labour and having all their employees coming from that country? Any Chinese, Singaporean, Middle Eastern, Indonesian carrier could very easily start a operation like that in Australia if this is the standard CASA is willing to accept. Crew just do tours from their home country, you cherry pick the triangle routes, and get feed from your inbound international flights.
The issue with the Bonza arrangement is the precedent being set and the competitive advantage gained by being regulated outside of your jurisdiction. This is then just amplified if you then are licensed in a weak or corrupt regulatory environment but earn your money in a high regulatory environment. You gain an enormous competitive advantage by doing so and if that pressure becomes overwhelming then ultimately the regulator either has to stand up and regulate or retreat all together. Uber vs the Taxis is a classic example of this taken to the extremes.
What is preventing someone getting and Australian AOC then overcharging themselves the cost of the aircraft on Wet Lease, running perpetual losses in Australia, getting tax rebates, whilst being licensed in a business friendly country with unlimited supply of labour and having all their employees coming from that country? Any Chinese, Singaporean, Middle Eastern, Indonesian carrier could very easily start a operation like that in Australia if this is the standard CASA is willing to accept. Crew just do tours from their home country, you cherry pick the triangle routes, and get feed from your inbound international flights.
The last paragraph makes no sense - why would any airline set up an Australian operation just to run at a loss? And what tax rebates? You're presenting a red herring argument.
You are the one comparing maple syrup to bananas. The Bonza arrangement is temporary, and although I am no expert, I would be confident in saying that Transport Canada's "regulatory burden" is as high or higher than Australia's. As others have pointed out, seasonal wet-leases are de rigueur overseas, so as long as they are allowed within set limits, why should Australia be any different? Arguably, the Trans-Tasman recognition is already doing what you describe and nobody is complaining about the number of ZK-registered freighters operating here.
The last paragraph makes no sense - why would any airline set up an Australian operation just to run at a loss? And what tax rebates? You're presenting a red herring argument.
The last paragraph makes no sense - why would any airline set up an Australian operation just to run at a loss? And what tax rebates? You're presenting a red herring argument.
As I said a while back - the fact that these are Canadian pilots probably means that people here are less inclined to show too much concern. But what would happen if the aircraft and pilots were to come from somewhere in the third world where pilots terms and conditions are significantly less than what our Canadian colleagues are paid?
I have a real concern that this is the thin end of the wedge. And there’s been multiple examples in the media where Bonza have suggested that they want this to be an ongoing relationship with Flair.
As an Australian pilot, employed in Australia, I do not find it acceptable, under any circumstances, of businesses undermining Australian pilot terms and conditions. And that’s exactly what Bonza are doing under this arrangement.
The following users liked this post:
As far as I recall, back in the early 2000’s, Virgin Blue was looking at an exchange program with Westjet as Godfrey sat on both boards. It was pilots only for a one year stint on exchange, two over, two from Westjet. Looking to just move into each others residences for convenience. It fell in a heap because the Canuck CAA would accept the VB captains as they had zero experience with serious snow and ice, FO’s were acceptable though. I think the CCAA wanted three months ICUS to set them loose, hence the cost impost. Anyway it didn’t happen, wish it did, I would have taken it up for 12 months……..
short flights long nights
Except the ZK registered freighters, such as Airwork, have Australian based pilots employed under an Australian Enterprise agreement represented by an Australian Pilot Union. This is different to the Flair set up.
As I said a while back - the fact that these are Canadian pilots probably means that people here are less inclined to show too much concern. But what would happen if the aircraft and pilots were to come from somewhere in the third world where pilots terms and conditions are significantly less than what our Canadian colleagues are paid?
I have a real concern that this is the thin end of the wedge. And there’s been multiple examples in the media where Bonza have suggested that they want this to be an ongoing relationship with Flair.
As an Australian pilot, employed in Australia, I do not find it acceptable, under any circumstances, of businesses undermining Australian pilot terms and conditions. And that’s exactly what Bonza are doing under this arrangement.
As I said a while back - the fact that these are Canadian pilots probably means that people here are less inclined to show too much concern. But what would happen if the aircraft and pilots were to come from somewhere in the third world where pilots terms and conditions are significantly less than what our Canadian colleagues are paid?
I have a real concern that this is the thin end of the wedge. And there’s been multiple examples in the media where Bonza have suggested that they want this to be an ongoing relationship with Flair.
As an Australian pilot, employed in Australia, I do not find it acceptable, under any circumstances, of businesses undermining Australian pilot terms and conditions. And that’s exactly what Bonza are doing under this arrangement.
The Bonza arrangement is temporary, and although I am no expert, I would be confident in saying that Transport Canada's "regulatory burden" is as high or higher than Australia's.
As others have pointed out, seasonal wet-leases are de rigueur overseas
The reason it is a European concept anyway is because of the extremes of their peak/off peak seasons which is unique to cold weather climates.
The last paragraph makes no sense - why would any airline set up an Australian operation just to run at a loss? And what tax rebates? You're presenting a red herring argument.
However with this new CASA arrangement it takes it all to a another level. The entire operation can now be based overseas in a true flag of convenience operation. Why couldn't a Middle Eastern or Chinese airline who already have global airlines start running domestic operations in Australia and start white anting Australian domestic airlines? The cost base of doing that would be truly phenomenal compared to operating entirely based in Australia. No Australian company could compete against that. The regulatory and tax burden alone would bankrupt you.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 22nd Dec 2023 at 22:38.
However with this new CASA arrangement it takes it all to a another level. The entire operation can now be based overseas in a true flag of convenience operation. Why couldn't a Middle Eastern or Chinese airline who already have global airlines start running domestic operations in Australia and start white anting Australian domestic airlines?
8 sectors of line training for the Canuck Flairbonzboys followed by a 2 sector check; has been mandated. Gives them just enough time to practise their CTAF calls in Strine.
The irony. You lot all whinging about a temporary Canadian operation wet lease here in Australia. Literally just below this thread is 153 pages all about how aussies can work in the US.
The following 3 users liked this post by nvfr:
No they cannot, they don’t have cabotage rights (ninth freedom)
Correct. Most of what’s written here on ACMI ops in Australia is guesswork and jingoistic talk that does not reflect the rules of the game. Lots of industries here have staff on work visas etc Look at the cruise industry that sails around thousands of Australians with all foreign crews. Do I see a push for OZ crewing of these foreign registered and owned boats? No!
You really think CASA is going to to do the same with the Chinese, Indonesian, or Qatari regulatory authorities?
In reality CASA should have just said no. All domestic commercial operations are VH registered with Australian licenses. Now CASA have opened the door I think there will be some companies that might push very hard on it and create a lot of unintended consequences for CASA. Sure deals with Canada might be ok but suddenly that will be used as a precedent for someone else to take full advantage of.
Last-minute Bonza flight cancellations leave Mount Isa residents stranded for Christmas
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103258802
Not the sort of PR you want when you're trying to ply the regional market.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103258802
Not the sort of PR you want when you're trying to ply the regional market.
How about all operations in Australia allowed with any rego and any ATPL licence? Surely more practical and we can abolish CASA!
Why not? It could be considered racist if you offered one deal to a ICAO state but then refused it to another.
In reality CASA should have just said no. All domestic commercial operations are VH registered with Australian licenses. Now CASA have opened the door I think there will be some companies that might push very hard on it and create a lot of unintended consequences for CASA. Sure deals with Canada might be ok but suddenly that will be used as a precedent for someone else to take full advantage of.
In reality CASA should have just said no. All domestic commercial operations are VH registered with Australian licenses. Now CASA have opened the door I think there will be some companies that might push very hard on it and create a lot of unintended consequences for CASA. Sure deals with Canada might be ok but suddenly that will be used as a precedent for someone else to take full advantage of.
Let those airlines push as hard as they like. They still have to get past CASA and when CASA decide to dig their heels in- well we all know how that dance ends.
merry xmas to all.
cheers Hoss58
Yes CASA can dig their heels in. However, a rejection of the same type of application will end up in courts because has been mentioned a precedent has been set. Thanks CASA.
As absurd as stating a Chinese vaccine manufacturer (with an Aus partner) can sue the Australian Government for market access because the TGA previously granted approval to AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines from U.K and USA.
It could be considered racist if you offered one deal to a ICAO state but then refused it to another.
Really? Countries otherwise known as states are not "races" of people. Australia has different entry rules for different states, again not racist. Is racism specifically illegal anyway under ICAO or the Civil Aviation Act?
If a foreign government came and started pushing for domestic regulation for a local airline like the deal Canada just got what are CASA going to say? If they say no then it gets wheeled back around into a diplomatic issue. Alternatively an Australian Government may want a big foreign airline in here to shake up the locals a bit and get out of making some sort of 'passenger bill of rights' arrangement. End of the day I wouldn't believe that the market here is big enough to warrant such a move but who knows, aviation business is hardly rational.