I don't know why I'm suckered into making more comment but:
1. I'm very confident that the printing cost will be small compared with the on-going costs of publishing an on-line version. Artwork, layout, writing, etc. If CASA was serious about saving money it would review the structure of the whole thing, not just cut off the visible tip of the iceberg.
2. As has been pointed out, the online version will be less popular with advertisers. The magazine was CAB audited. So, advertisers would know how many copies are circulated and read. The on-line version is unlikely to have this. The circulation and especially readership will not be known, so it will become a much less attractive option for advertisers. So, advertising revenue will fall, which may mean that the online version will actually cost more.
3. If CASA really had a safety / communication objective, they would have surveyed the readers to find out what is best. The options include: reduced cost mailed version (ie black & white, limited photos), emailed pdf, online form (eg AVWEB) or electronic version on the CASA website. It looks pretty clear that CASA took the most expedient, easiest decision that suited the needs of the bureaucracy.
4. If memory serves me correctly, CASA introduced the FSA magazine after it was criticised for not having a mechanism to promote aviation safety after it dropped ASD. So, hasn't CASA just done a full circle of the hamster wheel?