Old 13th Sep 2015, 10:13
  #16 (permalink)  
LeadSled
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,932
AsA is funded by Industry so therefore this "small fortune" is shared/saved by Industry.
sunnySA,
A question or two for you, please:

What was AsA's "profit" last years and the dividend history paid the "shareholders" (ie: the Government) over the years. You know as well as I do that AsA is a profit earning enterprise, and extracting reductions in charges is like pulling teeth.

Why have there been the recent comments (some "informal") from BARA and AATA about the level of AsA charges.

The cost to GA has been recently estimated to be as much as $60M plus in capital costs for nil benefits.

Given Mr. Skidmore's/CASA's recent statements on the RIS, I believe it is a reasonable assumption that he does not understand the difference between a CBA, a CEA and RIS, either.

Ferris,
I strongly recommend that you look up the Australian Government's/OBPR/Productivity Commission guidelines (or Access Economics, for that matter) for the various analysis, they are not my definitions.

I am very familiar with the two so called CBA performed by CASA, in the early days of this saga, I know just how seriously and fundamentally flawed they were.

If (in their internal analysis ) the airlines cannot show real savings from ADS-B and it is acknowledged that there are no benefits to the bulk of GA, pray tell how a properly conducted CBA could be positive.

All it takes is 3 minutes to read Part VII of the Civil Aviation Act to see what powers the Chairman of the Board has (and, therefore and more importantly, doesn't have). (The CASA Board is another scam that industry falls for with depressing but now predictable regularity.)
There you go, Creamie, talking facts again, whatever were you thinking?

Tootle pip!!

Last edited by LeadSled; 13th Sep 2015 at 10:26.
LeadSled is offline