feenix,
My view has been clearly publicly established, however, many respondents to the Fed Govt's green paper are also loud and clear.......NO!
- although, a notable few are 'positioning' themselves and lobbying hard for the principal place of business criteria
(as nominated by the applicant) to get up.
(eg Pacific Island origin but say, BNE looks like a good place to open an office and call it home?)
One or two airport operators are scrumming down in favour of the 'non locals', but the only motive for is pax numbers through the door and the incremental $ from which aggregate pax movemennts generate.
I suspect it would be a short lived honeymoon if these notions were to get up, however, depsite airframes being parked all over the world, we must be clear that there's no shortage of 'would-be defacto Australian' carriers.
Even SIA with it's recent financial traumas are still keen starters. The Singapore PM yesterday again raised the ante on access to the Australia > US route - greatly increasing the pressue on the bureaucrats and their pollie masters.
(got to give him credit though convincingly linking action on Burma and N.Korea to SIA's access on the Pac route!)
We can't avoid 'open skies' - and we shouldn't condemn fellow flyers for taking an opportunity............but...........we can, and should insist our regulators CONSISTENTLY apply a common standard (and not just occaisionally in the top end.)
We can also insist on the likes of the ACTU and its member unions bat a little harder for Australian jobs, but end of the day -
it's OUR government that makes the decision (or should I say flicks it off to a small group of bureaucrats to decide).
Remember when it comes to foreign AO's the motive is not about "bringing into" - but all about "taking out" and how the IASC can consistently grant routes on the basis of benfitting Australian's is at time quite perplexing.
here endth the sermon
AT
