When will ASA wake up that their 'growing the global brand' is just a pipe dream.
After studying the last ten years worth of Annual Reports, it is a consistent fact that 95% of revenue is earned from Airways Activity from the provision of ATC and ARFF in Australia.
In the 2005 Annual Report the Chairman Nic Burton-Taylor stated
"Specifically, while we are now processing 49 per cent more aircraft movements, our prices have been reduced over the decade by more than 30 per cent in real terms."
In 97/98 total revenue was $606.9m and airways revenue $580.1m or 95.6%.
In 07/08 total revenue was $744m and airways revenue was $707.3m or 95.1%.
These percentages are consistent over the 10 years.
It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to work out that for the amount of money that ASA has spent on setting up offices, and travelling, in Dubai, China, and several other cities around the world that they haven't got much bang for their ( the airlines) buck. Correspondingly the increase in executive remuneration hasn't done much for ASA.
I would think that most of the other income over this time period would come from the usual things like Airways publications, interest, etc. They started stating figures like 2-4 million dollars revenue from OS contracts but have gone quiet in the last few years. There are no profits stated from the management of the the US towers which would indicate that there are no profits (loss?). They don't show what 'growing the global brand' costs, or what it returns.
As ASA management would be loathe to state that they got the US FAA, UK NATS, or Airways NZ in to assist them with a problem. So it could be assumed that other countries ANSP would be loathe to have it trumpeted around the world that they had to get ASA in to fix things up for them. Nationalistic egos at play, and very hard to justify your management position when you require other sovereign ANSPs in to tell you how to do things.
ANSPs don't have a problem with paying 'independent' consultants be they ex-ANSPs staff, but it is perceived as an admission of ineptitude if they need to get another sovereign ANSP in to tell them how to fix their problems. They don't do it.
The one area they could have actually MADE money would be training controllers, as Qantas have done with pilots for other airlines. Unfortunately one of the first things TFN did when he got here was streamline (gut) the training area even though he had been warned that staffing was a critical area that must be addressed. Those chooks are now coming home to roost.
When will management realise that 95% of their revenue comes from the airlines, Qantas group around the $400+ million, and Virgin around $130 million, and start looking after the airlines by staffing the place properly.
In 98 there were 9 Public Affairs officers and 1174 controllers, there are no figures in the 08 report for spin doctors but am told that Corporate Relations has 50 now.
There is a quoted figure of 971 controllers, however this seems at odds with ASAs quoted figure of 930 at the AIRC, and the 889 that they need but don't have, that I was told by a senior manager last week. It is actually less than 800 talking to aircraft.
If we take into account the increase in traffic, and the reduction in charging by the Chairman in the 05 report you have a fair idea of where ASA management has erred rather badly. Traffic has further gone up since that time.
95% of ASA income has nothing to do with any outstanding managerial skill on TFN and co's part and everything to do with the airlines growing their business. And what do the airlines and travelling public get for that?
The GM ATC has admitted that it will take AT LEAST 2 years to dig ourselves out of this hole, I think somewhat longer, and that is only if controllers bother hanging around and have any goodwill towards ASA.
Last edited by max1; 3rd Dec 2008 at 00:56.