Who introduced and facilitated ‘user pays’?
Thread Starter
Who introduced and facilitated ‘user pays’?
It has been claimed a number of times on this site that I was the person who brought in ‘user pays.’ I have said many times that user pays came in after the Bosch Report and was nothing do to with me. In fact, I spent a lot of time campaigning and objecting to the introduction of user pays as was planned by Bosch because I knew that it would do extraordinary damage to the industry.
I have recently come across this cutting from 1986, two years before the CAA was set up. From The Australian Wednesday May 7 1986:
“Dick Smith campaign targets flight charges”
I’m sure it will make interesting reading for many people.
Yes, I, and others, failed – but it wasn’t without trying.
I have recently come across this cutting from 1986, two years before the CAA was set up. From The Australian Wednesday May 7 1986:
“Dick Smith campaign targets flight charges”
I’m sure it will make interesting reading for many people.
Yes, I, and others, failed – but it wasn’t without trying.
Dick
Regardless of any reports etc (which may have been used to justify political decisions) I am sure the decision to impose user pays across the aviation industry was made by the Hawke Labour Government in 1983 or 1984, concurrently with the decision to create the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC).
I seem to recall en-route and terminal navigation charges were introduced by the Hawke Government in 1987, the same year the FAC was established. At that time a small airline I worked for was paying 10% of the ticket revenue in navigation charges as the routes we operated were Queensland rural attracting charges for every mile flown, whilst intercity air services were not charged whilst within a certain radius of City airports.
The FAC prospered and I suspect Government rapidly recovered their airport capital cost before April 1994, when the Keating Labor Government decided to "double dip" and announced that all airports operated by FAC would be privatised in several phases.
Memory is a bit rusty but I think that was the sequence and time periods.
The big cash cow was created and exploited to the maximum!!
I think your terms in the Halls of Doom as Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board was 1990–1992 & 1997–1999, thus you were not responsible for the official economic pillage of the aviation industry.
Regardless of any reports etc (which may have been used to justify political decisions) I am sure the decision to impose user pays across the aviation industry was made by the Hawke Labour Government in 1983 or 1984, concurrently with the decision to create the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC).
I seem to recall en-route and terminal navigation charges were introduced by the Hawke Government in 1987, the same year the FAC was established. At that time a small airline I worked for was paying 10% of the ticket revenue in navigation charges as the routes we operated were Queensland rural attracting charges for every mile flown, whilst intercity air services were not charged whilst within a certain radius of City airports.
The FAC prospered and I suspect Government rapidly recovered their airport capital cost before April 1994, when the Keating Labor Government decided to "double dip" and announced that all airports operated by FAC would be privatised in several phases.
Memory is a bit rusty but I think that was the sequence and time periods.
The big cash cow was created and exploited to the maximum!!
I think your terms in the Halls of Doom as Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board was 1990–1992 & 1997–1999, thus you were not responsible for the official economic pillage of the aviation industry.
I am sure Dick will also remember when it became evident that objecting to "User Pays" was going to be futile, convincing government that if the user pays then the "user says" caused much finger drumming and head scratching amongst the proponents of Bosch.
Paying for only what was wanted/actually used as opposed to paying for everything certainly reduced the cost burden to many GA sections. Cross subsidising RFF for those capital city primaries by purely GA airfields was one such "no use the no pay" item.
It seems as thought today, 30 years after Bosch, government are still finding new ways to collect our hard earned so the pollies can live high on the 'public' purse.
CC
Paying for only what was wanted/actually used as opposed to paying for everything certainly reduced the cost burden to many GA sections. Cross subsidising RFF for those capital city primaries by purely GA airfields was one such "no use the no pay" item.
It seems as thought today, 30 years after Bosch, government are still finding new ways to collect our hard earned so the pollies can live high on the 'public' purse.
CC
Wasn't it basically the airlines who put the pressure on?
After all, the levy was in the fuel, so the airlines were mostly subsidising the rest of the industry.
Anyway we are where we are. For better or worse.
After all, the levy was in the fuel, so the airlines were mostly subsidising the rest of the industry.
Anyway we are where we are. For better or worse.
the idea behind 'user pays' is that 'user says'.by that I mean that the user has some input into what constitutes value for money in the service provided.
clearly that hasn't happened or there would not be the bloated and unresponsive institutions we have today.
clearly that hasn't happened or there would not be the bloated and unresponsive institutions we have today.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,969
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
Care to elaborate on that, missy?
Old Akro. I am with you on the mid 70's.
I remember being at a DCA ? presentation and the statement was made that a particular cost would never cost more than a bottle of scotch. Afraid I do not recall what it was but suspect a licence fee. For oldtimers Gordon Howe of DCA was in attendance.
I remember being at a DCA ? presentation and the statement was made that a particular cost would never cost more than a bottle of scotch. Afraid I do not recall what it was but suspect a licence fee. For oldtimers Gordon Howe of DCA was in attendance.
User pays is not the argument. It's affordable safety that is the issue. DICK do you think I can find some old article where you champion that idea? I know the answer....
Affordable safety is just like world's best practice. A term that has nothing to do with the literal meaning.
Affordable safety is just like world's best practice. A term that has nothing to do with the literal meaning.
"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less..."
Bah Humbug..!!!
And as far as I am aware, the fuel levy of 2C per litre to support FS, was on avgas only.......so in that respect, the airlines had very little to do with it.....
Standing by for incoming......
Bah Humbug..!!!
And as far as I am aware, the fuel levy of 2C per litre to support FS, was on avgas only.......so in that respect, the airlines had very little to do with it.....
Standing by for incoming......
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less..."
Bah Humbug.....!!!!!!
Bah Humbug.....!!!!!!
Perhaps I've misread your meaning . Do you mean that while ever government is involved the quote above is arse about hence the Bah Humbug comment?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Griffo,
It's perfectly clear what you mean now. I've been p#issing around in planes since 71 so by the end of 91 I'd probably switched off reading the latest scheme dreamed up to make us safer while saving us money. My lack of enthusiasm was no doubt brought on by the observed lack of success of schemes brought out over the previous 20 years.
Side note. I just spent $150 at Dan Murphy's. Those purchases will probably provide me and the Mrs 30 hours of pleasure each. I could have bought 69 litres of Av Gas and provides 1.25 hours of pleasure for the pair of us. Perhaps CASA should talk to Dan Murphy.
It's perfectly clear what you mean now. I've been p#issing around in planes since 71 so by the end of 91 I'd probably switched off reading the latest scheme dreamed up to make us safer while saving us money. My lack of enthusiasm was no doubt brought on by the observed lack of success of schemes brought out over the previous 20 years.
Side note. I just spent $150 at Dan Murphy's. Those purchases will probably provide me and the Mrs 30 hours of pleasure each. I could have bought 69 litres of Av Gas and provides 1.25 hours of pleasure for the pair of us. Perhaps CASA should talk to Dan Murphy.
Thanks Mr 'RA',
Your 69 litres of avgas used would have supported 'good ole FS' to the stately sum of $1.38....enuf for an early morning 'brew' (?), whilst providing the service of the time.....
Cheers
Your 69 litres of avgas used would have supported 'good ole FS' to the stately sum of $1.38....enuf for an early morning 'brew' (?), whilst providing the service of the time.....
Cheers
I asserted, in another thread, that you had facilitated 'user pays', Dick.
I apologise, unreservedly, for the implication that you deliberately facilitated user pays.
In any event, I look forward to you now advocating strenuously for the removal of ANCs, TNCs, landing fees and aerodrome user fees for all aircraft operators.
I apologise, unreservedly, for the implication that you deliberately facilitated user pays.
In any event, I look forward to you now advocating strenuously for the removal of ANCs, TNCs, landing fees and aerodrome user fees for all aircraft operators.
