AOC Foreign Ownership
Precedent exists with Nauru Airlines Corporation. 100% foreign owned. Australian registry, Australian AOC. But as far as I know, no domestic RPT rights, although domestic sectors allowed and history of domestic charters flown.
But could a totally foreign owned company operate exclusively within Australia?
Nope, not even a Kiwi company can do that under the Trans Tasman Agreement. They must have their principal business in NZ.
Most countries protect their domestic aviation industry by requiring considerable local ownership.
But could a totally foreign owned company operate exclusively within Australia?
Nope, not even a Kiwi company can do that under the Trans Tasman Agreement. They must have their principal business in NZ.
Most countries protect their domestic aviation industry by requiring considerable local ownership.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 28th Jul 2014 at 21:45.
OK, I stand corrected.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: In a hotel (again)
Age: 41
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air New Zealand does Sydney-Norfolk Island surely that route should be covered by an Australian airline probably Virgin since both airlines are in an alliance.
Granted Norfolk is an Australian External territory but it most certainly is not a New Zealand territory so why is an Aussie airline not doing this run ?
Granted Norfolk is an Australian External territory but it most certainly is not a New Zealand territory so why is an Aussie airline not doing this run ?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: drw
Age: 62
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if NZ wanted to, it could operate lots of OZ domestic only services (as long as main business is in NZL)
But it has a big chunk of VA.
Look at Vincent NZ. It used to operate its NZ registered BAe146-200 in OZ domestically.
I think the route was BNE/RMA/MEL/BNE once or twice a week.
But it has a big chunk of VA.
Look at Vincent NZ. It used to operate its NZ registered BAe146-200 in OZ domestically.
I think the route was BNE/RMA/MEL/BNE once or twice a week.
There could be two reasons why an Aussie airline is not servicing Norfolk Island.
1. The yields are not worth it
2. The potential to have the day's schedule stuffed by crap weather out there.
Many Aussie airlines have serviced NLK over the years, some more successfully than others. But they all either went broke, or moved on to more profitable activities.
1. The yields are not worth it
2. The potential to have the day's schedule stuffed by crap weather out there.
Many Aussie airlines have serviced NLK over the years, some more successfully than others. But they all either went broke, or moved on to more profitable activities.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Many Aussie airlines have serviced NLK over the years, some more successfully than others. But they all either went broke, or moved on to more profitable activities."
Because the regulatory burden from CAsA's cr..p regulation just makes any sort of RPT service unviable, its called "unaffordable safety".
In a couple of months with part 61, even more unaffordable, the Kiwi's can manage because they have sensible reg's.
Because the regulatory burden from CAsA's cr..p regulation just makes any sort of RPT service unviable, its called "unaffordable safety".
In a couple of months with part 61, even more unaffordable, the Kiwi's can manage because they have sensible reg's.
Oh yes, I can vouch for regulatory interference courtesy CASA.
We operated to NLK with fuel for diversion, plus two approaches, plus the usual reserves. For the return to SYD or BNE we carried whatever domestic rules required on the day, according to weather and traffic with the usual coverage for engine failure or depressurisation.
Not good enough for our friendly FOI.
He demanded that we could only depart NLK if the actual weather was above 'for filing as alternate' minima and was forecast to remain that way for one hour after ATD.
So we often had the ridiculous situation where we could land there but not take off in the same conditions that we had just landed in. It had the effect on occasion of grounding us for two or three days, while Air NZ came and went with no problems. No bloody wonder it would be unviable for an Aussie operator if that half baked rule still applied.
We operated to NLK with fuel for diversion, plus two approaches, plus the usual reserves. For the return to SYD or BNE we carried whatever domestic rules required on the day, according to weather and traffic with the usual coverage for engine failure or depressurisation.
Not good enough for our friendly FOI.
He demanded that we could only depart NLK if the actual weather was above 'for filing as alternate' minima and was forecast to remain that way for one hour after ATD.
So we often had the ridiculous situation where we could land there but not take off in the same conditions that we had just landed in. It had the effect on occasion of grounding us for two or three days, while Air NZ came and went with no problems. No bloody wonder it would be unviable for an Aussie operator if that half baked rule still applied.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"No bloody wonder it would be unviable for an Aussie operator if that half baked rule still applied."
Which is why the aviation industry in NZ is booming, and in OZ spiralling down the gurgler.
Australia will achieve the best safety record in the world.
Unfortunately it will be difficult to measure that against anywhere else because there will be no aviation occurring in Australia, other than that happening on foreign registers and AOC's.
Which is why the aviation industry in NZ is booming, and in OZ spiralling down the gurgler.
Australia will achieve the best safety record in the world.
Unfortunately it will be difficult to measure that against anywhere else because there will be no aviation occurring in Australia, other than that happening on foreign registers and AOC's.
They hide behind something somewhere in the Act that says something to the effect of "CASA may require......"
All in the interest of safety. Of course.
In the above case I wanted the Company to challenge his edict via the legal system, but my masters did not have the cojones. Or possibly enough in the coffers to pay a good lawyer.
Had I been the only Captain operating the service I would have openly defied them (and indeed have done on a few occasions), but there were others flying for us, so I had to consider the possible ramifications.
All in the interest of safety. Of course.
In the above case I wanted the Company to challenge his edict via the legal system, but my masters did not have the cojones. Or possibly enough in the coffers to pay a good lawyer.
Had I been the only Captain operating the service I would have openly defied them (and indeed have done on a few occasions), but there were others flying for us, so I had to consider the possible ramifications.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 31st Jul 2014 at 22:55.
