Glen, you may wish to consider a complaint to the ACCC because some CASA activity sounds like maybe, possibly, perhaps....... engaging in anti competitive behavior. Your allegations sound like a subset of that called restraint of trade. It is,
AFAIK, illegal to prevent someone from plying their trade (ie offering their services in the marketplace) if they have the qualifications and licenses to legally do so. It is a form of anti competitive behavior. I don’t think the ACCC can investigate without a reference from either Government or the public, but if they got their teeth into CASA it might be enough. What’s the old mantra? Follow the money.
Similarly there is the issue of barriers to entry into markets - preventing new entrants into the market place is wrong if the barriers are created by CASA and can be shown to not be in the public interest. The difference in instructing between the U.S. and Australia may be an example, like wise the whole, expensive AOC process and perhaps the behavior of CASA in “liking” certain operators and “unfriendliness” others which may be anti competitive behavior.
‘The complaint to ACCC would be that CASA is engaging in anti competitive behavior which is not in the public interest. CASA would argue, but.......safety. There would need to be examples of restrictions/cancellations/ etc that can be shown to have a little or no impact on safety but a big, disproportionate negative economic effect. The use of criminal law, the AOC system including charging by the hour to “assess” an application, CAR 206?, the treatment of instructors, CVD and other medical issues, maintenance regulations, airport/ALA rules and your and similar personal issues MIGHT be of interest to the ACCC.
There is plenty there for a bright young economist to get their teeth into and make their name. After all, the two airline policy was scuppered by Robin Hocking, a Melbourne economist who tragically died far too young.
Such a finding by the ACCC might be of interest to the real powers in Government - the treasury and perhaps PM&C.