b Mu
Bob Murphie - the above is your name with gaps because I left it incomplete. This also is so with the part of JCP 9.7 you quote - it is incomplete and so out of context.
9.6 says
This could be managed as a cross-industry funding transfer via Airservices, whereby enroute charges are maintained at today’s levels for a set period, and the additional funds that are not required to maintain or replace the asset base can be passed on to light aircraft owners in the form of cross-industry funding.
and 9.7 further says
Essentially, Airservices’ customers would fund the acquisition and installation of approved avionics for light aircraft. This would not involve any additional charges to customers, and will be ‘revenue-neutral’ to Airservices.
Airservices would draw upon the savings achieved through not replacing existing enroute radar and navigation aids until the avionics costs were covered. Once the avionics costs are met, the ongoing savings would be passed on to customers.
Airservices pricing is set by Airservices.
If, as you suggest, the customers refuse to allow Airservices to conduct its business as planned, then the contractual arrangement of the JCP falls over. Offer - acceptance - consideration. Like the fire triangle, one element missing means NO GO.
My research is that this latset JCP Phase 1 concept comes from the last ASTRA (ABIT GIT) meeting. ASTRA is argued by some as having a high airline component. My informant was that there was universal acceptance of the revised JCP. That means airlines also.
Only a year ago on here, it was argued that Qantas would never fit ADS-B. Life remains full of surprises.
I remain amazed to remember the old jingle "See a pin and pick it up, all day long means good luck". Why are so many people anxious to stick the pin in themselves instead? Is it some reversed Not Invented Here syndrome?