Dick,
You stated
"Max1, I can tell you who will be paying for the $100 million subsidy for ADS-B – it is the passengers. Don’t think for a second that the airlines pay the airways charges – they don’t." I think I have said this previously.
It is abundantly clear that airlines get their money from people who travel or send freight on their aircraft. It is the same as saying ASA don't pay my wages, the people who pay navcharges do. The airlines pay their money in good faith to ASA and expect them to train, rate and endorse suitable numbers of controllers to deliver an Air Traffic Control service, but that is another story.
Australians are an egalitarian society, my health is reasonably good, I work, and I am not upset that my taxes go towards the general health of Australians through Medicare, which due to good health I subsidise.
If a hospital buys a new piece of expensive equipment, I would trust that they have had a good look around, tested, and opted on a proven system that can deliver the enhancement, or replacement an outdated piece of equipment, they are looking for. If they have been involved in the development and certifying of this equipment, and it is also proven cheaper , so much the better.
If they were now looking at increased efficiencies and greater screening, would you suggest that money saved now be put towards installing Xray in those places that previously never had it. Or, would you suggest putting in the cheaper , better system that would deliver better outcomes.
The passengers really wouldn't have a clue what percentage of their airline ticket goes toward navcharges( I don't). But in paying this money they would think they have paid to get from A to B safely, and that part of this money goes towards longer term planning i.e. new systems, etc.
I wouldn't see them getting upset (unless someone, who has admitted that he doesn't have all the information but, who does have a place in the general publics aviation psyche that he is a guru on all matters aviation, riled them up ) when the safety and cost benefits are expained to them.
The airlines would love to pay less in navcharges, however they are in a safety critical business and appreciate that what they are getting through ADS-B is an enhanced level of surveillance, that will lead to greater safety. It may cost them in the short term , but long term they will get savings in a reduction to navcharges, which can then be passed on to the fare paying passengers, or put in their own pockets as profits.
If we miss this window of opportunity, the 'passengers' will be paying out 'their' $100 million on installing and replacing antiquated SSRs, GA will miss out on subsidised ADS-B avionics, great swathes of Australia will have no surveillance and its inherent safety, there will be no future savings to pass onto the navcharge payers and their customers (passengers), ASA will continue to use procedural separation and its inherent delays.
Dick will you then don the Teflon jacket and play Mondays expert?