Dick
Apology, this will be a longish post but it is my 'be nice to Dick' week so I need to be detailed, as I feel there is a very valid further discussion point in the KIR post.
Airservices data are as follows:
Of those aircraft weighing more than 15.1 tonnes (mostly RPT), 2,573 aircraft contribute $671 million towards the total revenue of $679 million (i.e. 98.8%).
An estimated 6,010 aircraft below 5.7 tonnes (and not flown by significant training schools), representing 65% of the total billable aircraft, are mainly aeromedical and private aircraft operating out of regional and GAAP locations; they contribute $4.0 million.
At the other extreme, around 2,000 customers together pay less than $50,000 per year. Out of the total customer base of 9,300, 33% of our billable customers contribute only $120,000 per year to our revenue (as shown in Figure 9). These customers use our services infrequently and are mainly transport (i.e. not training) flights. In this segment, 1,674 operators pay less than $250 per year; of those, 833 pay less than $50 per year.
Airservices make the following points and I believe they are relatively unarguable in a User Pays environment:
- Prices should have a relationship to the cost of providing services.
- Prices should encourage economically efficient resource use and allocation.
- The charging basis should recognise the key drivers giving rise to the need, or trigger, for investment in new services. (E.G your proposal)
The forthcoming SDE environment will group lower level GA and regional RPT separate from CC pairs and high level heavies.
What then do we have:
An ATC presence focussed on a relatively small number of IFR aircraft in E and G.
Now your philosophy is (my underline):
Where we fail in Australia is the treatment of IFR and airline aircraft at non-tower airports. Many times in my Citation I have had a superb service from the major airport and enroute, however when I land at a place like Port Macquarie, I am handed over into “do it yourself airspace” where I have to become the air traffic controller when in IMC. I would far prefer the system I have experienced in the USA and Canada where, at the busier non-tower airports, air traffic control is responsible for separation. I have found that in practice, the delays are not greater in these countries than those I experience in Australia, and the system (utilising Class E airspace in terminal areas) is very much simpler for the pilot – and I believe safer.
The consequence I suspect is that if they adopt what you propose and provide extra ATC to provide the service - then extra charging will follow. And, if you want ATC service for LSALT, RAM, etc, plus separation at CTAF, I do not believe you can argue it is not resource intensive.
I have not found anyone seriously arguing against the concept of extra ATC support providing an extra safety mitigator - the issue is who is campaigning for this two condom approach to safety other than you?
I still believe the provision of TSO 146 GPS plus ADS-B OUT and IN resolves much of your concern without the ongoing charging increase to all who fly IFR.
You are pursuing a campaign that may increase enroute charges for ALL operators flying IFR. User pays is here to stay. I would expect at least strong support from the RAAA if there is a substantial safety benefit.
Bing (M)
To answer your question on the other thread and save a second post there, I am quite happy to cite data from a reliable source but - as I mentioned with humour to Creamy recently - I research for myself and if you wish to query or canvass the data - YOU take it up with the source.