PDA

View Full Version : Sky high fees 'not on'


Wirraway
15th Jun 2004, 09:07
Mon "Sunshine Coast Daily"
Monday, 14th June 2004.

Sky high fees 'not on'
Planned new airport charges spark angry response
By DAMIAN BATHERSBY [email protected]

AIR services to the Sunshine Coast will be drastically slashed if authorities go ahead with plans to impose huge cost increases on airlines.

And the effects won't be confined to the larger airlines, with a number of smaller operators, flying schools and ancillary services also expected to be hit hard.

The increases are being proposed by Airservices Australia, the federal government body which provides air traffic control, air navigation support and aviation rescue and fire fighting services.

It plans to increase the Maroochydore Airport landing fee from $7.42/tonne to $16.98/tonne as part of a fiveyear pricing plan which would ultimately see it hit $20.40/tonne.

At the same time, increased use of the airport now requires it to have its own aviation rescue and firefighting service and the airlines will be hit with a new $25.72/tonne charge to meet the cost.

If the airlines choose to pass the entire imposts onto passengers, it couldadd as much as $11.75 to the price of a Sunshine Express ticket to Maroochydore, $15.20 to a Virgin Blue ticket and $16.95 to Jetstar's price.

Sunshine Express officials have warned they will have to consider axing theairline's Sunshine Coast services if the extra fees are imposed.

"But it's not only us who will be affected, the big guys (Jetstar and Virgin Blue) are up in arms as well,'' said Sunshine Express general manager Darren Moncrieff.

"If it goes ahead it will have a dramatic effect on us and we will have to assess our position at Maroochydore.

"The chances are we'll either have to disappear all together or turn Maroochydore into a maintenance base without air services.'' The airline was formed on the Sunshine Coast in 1998, employs 35 people and carries more than 76,000 passengers each year on its routes throughout south-east Qld and northern NSW.
Mr Moncrieff said the proposed rescue and firefighting "per tonne'' charge was the highest in Australia because Maroochydore Airport had the least number of aircraft movements of all sites requiring the service.

A better, more cost-effective solution would be to use Queensland Fire Service crews rather than Airservices Australia's more expensive outfits.
"It would be a lot cheaper to provide another tender at the local fire brigade and a couple of extra men.

The major airlines will be able to spread the cost over their whole operation, but as a smaller operator we will be fighting to get the regulations changed or get some sort of exemption.

"Members of the public have to make their voice heard to the government if they don't want their air services to suffer.''

Airservices Australia officials will meet with affected parties at the airport tomorrow and Graeme Gillies, from local company Blue Tongue Helicopter Service, will be making his views heard.
He has warned he and many other smaller operators will have to move to Caloundra Airport if the charges are imposed.

"It's our worst fear because we can't afford to absorb those sort of costs and still remain competitive,'' he said.

=======================================

Capcom
15th Jun 2004, 11:19
And let me guess?, who was it that announced that the subsidy must cease and full cost recovery occur post haste...???
The very same subsidy that became necessary to keep costs down for industry as a result of his other rip snorta policy LSP, remember the catch phrase 'pay our own way, have our own say' :mad:

You all know who he is.........You know.....#%$@nuckle

Why is it so grasshopper? I hear you ask

Cause he wants you all in a position where you have little choice but to want to dump the services!

Why?

Cause he just loves those blasted rabid AsA people!:rolleyes:

Why?

Cause we do not have automatic spring-loaded heads when it comes to dangerous, ill thought out, maniac ideas!:hmm:

What is the end game do ya reckon?

Hmmmm, perhaps "Tricky's ATC Services".
Yup, that will be it, privatisation makes things heaps cheaper doesn't it?!, and makes life so much easier when trying to beat smaller groups into Airspace oblivion, and of course far and away beyond any shadow of a biscuitmakers ego, ssssssssafer Another great idea from Malfunction Junction :hmm:

Make your thoughts known folks, however whilst doing so consider that the 'powers that be' in AsA have deliberately made a concerted effort in this to give everyone affected the opportunity to say and do something about it!

One final thought:-

Does anyone still wonder why he would not address the pricing issue during the ongoing AusNAS debate?!?

Who is it that dicktates pricing policy?,

and who then has the unpalatable task of implementing it good or bad/horrific/ridiculous....?:(

"Firearms" and "messengers" if you know what I mean ;)

Thought to self - I cannot believe I am defending them :ooh: :ouch:...............or am I :eek: .............Nurse..........NURSE :\

dingo084
15th Jun 2004, 11:44
Capcom, at the very real risk of making myself unpopular, I fear you have vented your spleen at the wrong person. I realise your target is a popular choice as target and in some areas, a good target. However on this I would like to remind you that the source of the governments user pays policy was Henry Bosch and the privatisation guru was (and I stand to be corrected on this one) Fred Hilmer.

There have been many reponses to these 2 policy streams and sometimes they get muddied by agendas, bias and good old fashioned blinkered narrow mindedness. I do believe however you have actually fired your missive at the wrong target this time.

He didn't pop up again until well after these policies were well on the way to becoming entrenched.

ding

Capcom
15th Jun 2004, 12:15
G'day Ding,

Yep, I'll cop part of that on the chin.

Although LSP might have been an undercurrent preceding its inception in Australian aviation, it certainly got wings with his support at the helm of AOPA.

I may be wrong on the reasoning behind the current pricing debacle, I sincerely hope I am wrong and common sense prevails.

One thing is certain, for someone who purports to want aviation to flourish in Australia, he has some bazaar ways of fostering it.

From where I sit and from what I hear, I am not optimistic!

How bout you and I wager a beer on it?:E

Lets see how things look in 2007-8!

If I am not dead from change fatigue, and RHS has not tried to reinvent the wheel as I speculate might happen, I would be delighted to buy you a 'long cool clensing' admit most humbly that I was wrong and have a laugh about it!

What ya say :)

Richo
16th Jun 2004, 02:04
said Sunshine Express general manager Darren Moncrieff.

So that is where you got to Dazzla

P51D
16th Jun 2004, 04:40
Dingo,

You are absolutely right - Bosch first and then the real architect was Hilmer. Others have got on the bandwagon, including both sides of politics, DS etc. Great thing this privatisation, and not just in aviation, look at the problems worldwide with essential services e.g. water, power etc. Govts pocket the proceeds but sometimes have to go back in and bail out those who pay too much. The concept has run its course and should be dropped. Consultants have done well though.

bushy
16th Jun 2004, 07:54
It appears to me that aviation regulation in Australia has always had a large degree of trickery and favouritism. I remember when it was illegal to compete with the major airlines by doing a charter flight along an airline route in a Cessna 172.!!!!
Extreme protection of the chosen two. And a well known helicopter pilot complained that there were about fifty helicopter landing sites around the Sydney area, and none of them complied with the regulations. All were operating under dispensations, which could be withdrwan at any time if the people did not show due resoect. There has been much change since then, and our aviation world is being dragged, kicking and screaming into the 21st century Some of the problems have been fixed, or partly fixed. But another tool which can be used for this sort of thing is finance. You just make things so expensive that no-one can afford to operate, and then give grants, and subsidies to the chosen few. Free enterprise, and fair trade can never be allowed to happen. Regulation by financial means. Can't have parliament meddling too much

NOtimTAMs
16th Jun 2004, 11:00
Question:

Has anyone got any statistics as to how many lives have been saved (in aviation emergencies) by Fire & Rescue Services at airports on Australian soil? On any soil?

Interested to get a cost/benefit analysis going here ....

Yawn
16th Jun 2004, 14:58
****su-Tonka

Other factors that you may need to factor in:

1. How many emergencies that occur enroute to a small airport actually end up with the emergency aircraft at that airport. Eg. Enroute from Syd to Sunshine Coast you would hardly continue to Sunshine Coast when diverting the Bne would be more appropriate. At Bne you have access to the international fire service level, more trucks etc. So in this case it's a big waste of the 3.5m in rescue and fire fighting cost per year.

2. Since the emergency equipment can also be redeployed into civil use, why should all the cost be forced onto the airport to airline to passenger?

I think the airport/state government should invest in multi-use fire stations that allow the trucks to enter the airport or the main road depending on the nature of the emergency. The operating cost would then be shared. This would have greater community benefit as the aviation assets could be used for other purposes. eg, LPG fire at a petrol station in Adelaide that was put by a airport fire tender.

The biggest hurdle: The State government view an airport a federal land and a joint approach is too hard as it requires inter-government cooperation. Also Air Services need to audit the facility and not run it.

NOtimTAMs
17th Jun 2004, 11:18
S-T

Crikey, mate. I just asked a simple question....

Services to "save lives" by delivering CPR in terminals can be provided more simply and cheaply by other methods and the fact that an RFFS does the job at some place is nice, but irrelevant. I am NOT downgrading or downplaying the role that a trained professional such as RFFS folks or ambulance staff or even counter staff trained in CPR can do.

Likewise, the value of property saved in or near the vicinity of an airport is irrelevant to the question, as, like any other location in Australia, they have access to local and state funded emergency services. The same could be argued re: physical terminal areas - they are little different to other factories or conference centres, which do not require dedicated stand-by firefighting vehicles....

The cost of a life is a vexed question and often estimated by economists as related to some per capita economic measure. If multiple lives are at stake, then the cost has to be scaled to the most likely incident or if incidents of various sizes are possible, then scaled to a statistically suitable combination of same. The only certain response I have as to the cost of a life was from an insurance person who said that it was cheaper to settle a claim if someone died as a result of an incident rather than survived (NOTE: NOT MY WORDS OR SENTIMENTS). Have a look at your airticket (or relevant airline web site) small print as to how much your life is worth under the Chicago Convention!! Even if you don't put an actual dollar value on a life, it is sometimes valuable to see how much money has to be spent per life saved, and whether it is "acceptable" - decisions regarding delivery of medical care, such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for example, in this country are based on such estimates all the time.

Your question re: cost of services that are never used is valid, but can be stretched to ridiculous extremes. It could save my life to have a complete insulated nuclear shelter under my house in case of nuclear bombardment of my semi-rural retreat - does that make it a valid safety precaution?

Again, my original question was to gauge whether RFFS has saved lives in any aviation emergencies here or overseas, not to cast a slur on the professionals who are asked to do a job that MAY possibly not be necessary at at least some of the locations where RFFS are located or proposed to be located.

Tinstaafl
17th Jun 2004, 16:14
Be very, very glad you're not subject to the UK CAA. A fire service must be in attendanceat each destination for a service that uses one BN2 Islander to provide:

* 4 flights / week into an island of ~50 people.

* Another island that has ~30 people & gets 6 flights / week.

* A 3rd has ~70 residents & gets 8 flights weekly.

:hmm: