Why hasn’t anyone come up with this big money saver? We all know that Airservices are now operating Class D towers in the USA at a claimed 50% reduction in cost compared with the cost of the FAA running them. This is because of the FAA Contract Tower program. It has saved the American aviation industry tens of millions of dollars.
Why hasn’t anyone proposed it here? It is in fact Government policy. I’ve been contacted by many air traffic controllers and a group of firies who want to run their own businesses. They say that savings could be up to 50%.
I understand the main reason the Government hasn’t gone ahead is that there has been no support from industry. Why would this be so?
If the FAA can get a 50% saving, and if virtually every other country in the world (other than possibly Russia) operates fire stations locally at the most competitive price, why can’t we? The last time I looked, the Australian average per tonne landed fire fighting charge was double that of the average charge in New Zealand – where the fire stations are locally run by the airports at the most competitive price.
I look forward to comments on this.
Was waiting for this one.
There are two things wrong here, still. 50% cheaper than the FAA doesn't mean cheaper than Australia and 2) Because they are doing it doesn't mean it is profitable, now does it? The paper cost to industry hasn't changed at all; just the way the buckets have shifted the money. Since ASA moved in providing the costs at 50% of the FAA have charges gone down by 50%? No didn't think so. With the greatest respect you love a headline; but what is the substance of the story. ASA is probably making a break even type operation; but now that they have to change the hours of coverage will they be able to do so 'profitably'?
You may note that under the new business structure ASA is positioning the RFF for a "fire sale"; can't see it being sold as single station units, just one business; want to buy it; how else do you get a monoply type business not subjected to true competition. The private equity money men will be beside themselves to secure that baby; will the industry benefit; hah! Of course there will be strict service limitations legisilation about minimums etc. but watch the costs spiral shortly after they "own the business"; in the same way that FIS provision has been done in the USA; $3M in fines for $170M or so in extra revenue; all in the name of cost savings that aren't realised in practice.
Who are this 'group'? I want to talk to them and get on board; it won't save the industry a cracker, but I'm willing to line my pockets.