Originally Posted by
neville_nobody
However you are comparing apples and oranges. The issue in Australia is regulatory burden, cost and inconsistency. Now if all operators have to pay that (plus all other non aviation regulatory/tax burden) then it's just the cost of doing business in Australia right or wrong.
The issue with the Bonza arrangement is the precedent being set and the competitive advantage gained by being regulated outside of your jurisdiction. This is then just amplified if you then are licensed in a weak or corrupt regulatory environment but earn your money in a high regulatory environment. You gain an enormous competitive advantage by doing so and if that pressure becomes overwhelming then ultimately the regulator either has to stand up and regulate or retreat all together. Uber vs the Taxis is a classic example of this taken to the extremes.
What is preventing someone getting and Australian AOC then overcharging themselves the cost of the aircraft on Wet Lease, running perpetual losses in Australia, getting tax rebates, whilst being licensed in a business friendly country with unlimited supply of labour and having all their employees coming from that country? Any Chinese, Singaporean, Middle Eastern, Indonesian carrier could very easily start a operation like that in Australia if this is the standard CASA is willing to accept. Crew just do tours from their home country, you cherry pick the triangle routes, and get feed from your inbound international flights.
You are the one comparing maple syrup to bananas. The Bonza arrangement is temporary, and although I am no expert, I would be confident in saying that Transport Canada's "regulatory burden" is as high or higher than Australia's. As others have pointed out, seasonal wet-leases are de rigueur overseas, so as long as they are allowed within set limits, why should Australia be any different? Arguably, the Trans-Tasman recognition is already doing what you describe and nobody is complaining about the number of ZK-registered freighters operating here.
The last paragraph makes no sense - why would any airline set up an Australian operation just to run at a loss? And what tax rebates? You're presenting a red herring argument.