Originally Posted by
1746
Gents a question if I may....should these questions and articulate answers actually be on a public forum? I rightly or wrong feel that it could harm Glen B's case!
CASA says Glen has no case. CASA won’t bother paying any attention to Glen until he comes up with a case that has merit.
Let’s think it through.
Let’s assume that the arguments and position of CASA put in the email of 19 March 2019 are supported from a regulatory perspective. It would follow, therefore, that the arguments and position were valid back when APTA and CASA personnel were putting in so much time and energy and cost to implement the APTA structure. It would also follow that, because APTA was relying on CASA to explain all of the hoops through which APTA had to jump from CASA’s perspective - that was precisely the purposes of the ongoing and detailed interactions between APTA and CASA personnel - that CASA should have explained years earlier that which was instead explained in 2019. At the earlier time, APTA reasonably assumed that CASA’s silence on the issue meant it was not an issue from a regulatory perspective. But then CASA made it an issue.
Of course CASA has to try to dress the circumstances up as if ‘things had changed’, so as to try to cover up the failure of its own staff to recognise the implications of APTA’s proposed structure - which structure I hasten to add, again, is lawful in principle under Parts 141 and Parts 142 - and to consequently explain, early in the process, the extra ‘hoop’ that would have to be jumped through as a consequence of the lack of direct employer/employee relationship between APTA and ‘Alliance’ ‘member’ personnel in that structure.
And as each day goes by, the limitation period on any potential negligent misstatement and equitable estoppel action against CASA ticks closer to expiry…