Arscis "It is an inane rant that lacks any semblance of academic probity.
It appears I must correct my initial notion of the true origin of the fatuous statement above. It seems there is some dispute as to when the comment was made for the first time. There is a claim that it was made in 2008 after a Wodger attempt to justify a 'slightly modified', although unqualified version of a FRMS argument to those who understood the game; but then, another crowd claim it was made, as an aside after the Senate committee session which dealt with the "Chambers Report". Either way, it seems Pooh-Shambollic only cribbed the style from his mate; the accolade being recycled by a CVD wit. These may, or may not be the facts....
..
TB "It occurs to me that in the past our RPT brethren didn't much bother about CAsA imposts on their bottom line, they could just up the ticket price a few bucks to cover it. Perhaps the costs are starting to bite."
Good idea, but can't quite see Big Q or VA making any sort of public statement. A worried public will be reflected in ticket sales, unless they spin it around to be another government generated 'impost' passed along to the punters issue. Again it's unlikely – given the current climate. I wonder if any of the 'bigger' small operators have weighed in?. There are some pretty impressive companies with big investments in aviation who's opinion would signify and could; with a push, influence the minuscule particularly combined with the 'alphabet' organisations hard work and well won credibility. One of the problems (IMO) with that would be the 'habit'. It is always easier to 'accommodate' a new rule set; shuffle the COM and adapt the operation quietly, rather than challenging CASA. Anyway in response to any challenge now; the Sleepy Hollow boys will simply say "you had a chance to comment during the consultation period, too late now, it's the law". "You blew it"...
The kicker is, they'll be right. The time honoured tradition of rule by exemption and instrument is deeply entrenched and valued by industry – they see an advantage over the 'competition' if they have a special 'exemption' someone else has not.
It's a little academic, but I should add here that one of the mainstays supporting a 'three tier' rule set is the valid argument that it will eliminate the 'instrument and exemption' system. The system can be perceived as 'capturing' an operation and potentially be exposed to allegations of corruption. This system can be eliminated through a two tier system, but it needs a mature regulator with 'honest' intentions. Fat chance.
Aye – 'tis a funny old game; - when played rough and down in the weeds.
Toot toot..
PS - My Google translated a 10 page document to French in about 30 seconds; why must we wait until the whimsical, non specific estimate of 'hopefully late Autumn' for the TSBC to translate and publish 'the report'?. Now is that Canadian or Australian late 'Autumn'? And when in all the seven hells is 'late Autumn' anyway? Ye gods: and we just put up with it..
Words fail at this point, we hope to resume normal service after second coffee....
