I'm on your side, Glen, but again I reckon we have to be surgically accurate about what is meant by "it" when we say "CASA had always permitted it".
Let's take this example: "Latrobe valley aero Club operated with full CASA approval under Bairnsdale Air Charter. When they transferred to me, it suddenly became illegal."
I think it would be more accurate to say that CASA approved Bairnsdale Air Charter to conduct flying training, under the authority of its AOC, at the premises of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. That approval would have entailed an assessment by CASA of the processes and procedures Bairnsdale Air Charter had in place to comply with the rules applicable to flying training based at that location. To put this another way, CASA didn't approve Latrobe Valley Aero Club to do anything.
Do you agree?
And in arrangements like that, if the flying training activities based at Latrobe Valley Aero Club are going to be conducted under the authority of APTA's AOC rather than Bairnsdale Air Charter's AOC, there will have to be an assessment by CASA of the processes and procedures APTA has put in place to comply with the rules applicable to flying training based at Latrobe Valley Aero Club, and an approval of APTA to do so.
In this model, the regulatory issues have nothing to do with what Latrobe Valley Aero Club wants or chooses. The regulatory issues are about the processes and procedures of the person holding the AOC under which the activities are going to occur.
Did CASA say that there was no way that APTA could ever be approved to carry out flying training activities based at the Latrobe Valley Aero Club?
(You were 'led up the garden path' alright. The last minute "in all respects agents of" the authorisation holder was a concoction. And the spreadsheet requirement was practically insurmountable. 43 nailed the question de jour.)
(And my apologies re the 'franchisee' word. I thought you'd used it.)