YCKT,
The Cairns incident you mention (I don't work there BTW) : I don't know all the details, but it sounds like a case of the C172 got slower than the ATC predicted, the following ACFT didn't slow as much as needed or predicted and a safe separation standard could not be maintained by either Radar, Tower Separation or visual sighting by the following aircraft. So there is really only two options isn't there: i.e. either the C172 breaks off the approach to orbit back and follow, or the B737 gos around and is resequenced.
Technically, CS being a non-capital city there are no priorities, first to land has right of way. However, legislation exists to allow the controller to make a decision contrary 'when it would be of significant overall economic benefit'. So, is there a significant economic benefit in the 737 being allowed to continue it's approach whilst the C172 does an orbit? The C172 pilot might not think so! The 150+ or so passengers on the B737 will probably argue there is - as will the operator. And, the AirServices view in terms of 'core' customers will probably argue there is as well.
Not the answer you would want to hear if you were the C172 driver I am sure. But what is the cost of the airspace use for the C172 (assuming VFR)? $0.
What is the cost for the QF 737? (Terminal Area only) : just under $1000.
So, AirServices knows which side it's bread is buttered I guess.
It is run as a business (I don't agree with that BTW - it is another Thatcherist right-wing conservative concept - the Libs love this sort of thing!) - so as a business it is of course going to serve it's premium customers - hey, honestly... woudln't you?
Thats the way it is - which bit of legislation would you like to see changed? How are you going to argue it?
I am not taking AirServices side here - just stating the playing surface as I see it.