PDA

View Full Version : How Long Until Dick Blames Oposition to NAS for this?


scramjet77
16th Jul 2004, 02:42
Whats the bet that all of the following will be due to oposition to Dick's NAS proposals. I'd like to run a sweep in hourly increments until his first "I told you so" is published. Any takers?

Call to lobby MPs on navigation fees
By Steve Creedy
July 16, 2004
THE general aviation industry has been urged to increase pressure on local MPs in the lead-up to the federal election, as angst about huge fee increases proposed by Airservices Australia spreads.

Submissions on Airservices increases of up to 1000 per cent, which closed on Wednesday, were overwhelmingly against the proposal.
Airservices is proposing to increase fees at secondary airports with control towers from a $7.42 terminal navigation charge to as much as $164.22 a tonne.
Fees for fire fighting and rescue would also rise.
Airlines and other aviation industry operators are facing a 73 per cent jump in the hourly rate they are charged for work performed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, as well as lesser rises for other services.




The price rises have been condemned by the Australian Owners and Pilots Association, Air Ambulance Services and the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The RFDS has warned it cannot absorb the increases and it may have to cut back on operations.
AOPA vice-president Andrew Kerans repeated a call for a white paper on general aviation and warned the sector would not survive if the Government continued to "throw together policy that neglects or punishes the pilots and aircraft owners of Australia".
"With over 60,000 GA, recreational and glider pilots, general aviation represents a formidable voting block if targeted correctly," he said.
"AOPA is calling on pilots to see where their local member or senator stand on the development of a cohesive policy."
Airservices will collate the industry views and incorporate them into a submission due to go to the the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission later this month.
Despite the furore, it is unlikely the fee increases will get through the regulatory process unchanged.
The federal Government has already indicated it has doubts about the rises.
A spokesman for Transport Minister John Anderson said the Government did not support rises of this magnitude but would make its views clearer at the appropriate time - probably after the ACCC had made its decision, he said.
Airservices spokesman Richard Dudley conceded changes were possible but warned every solution faced opposition from at least one section of the industry.
Mr Dudley said Airservices was seeking to be as open and as transparent as possible about its funding issues after a government decision to end subsidies worth $7 million. "It's costing us $28 million a year to operate terminal tower control service at the 26 ports where we have them and 16 airports where we have aviation rescue and fire fighting.
"Even with the $7 million subsidy, we're still running at a $21 million loss.
"And the reason why it's come to the crunch now is because up until this current financial year, we've been amortising that $21 million loss across other service lines, like en route (air traffic control services), where we are making a profit.
"But it's clearly unsustainable in the longer term unless we can find some way of doing it." Alternatives to the increases mooted in various forums include a reduction in the return paid to the government, the introduction of a different charging regime to include touch-and-go landings, or contracting out tower services.
Aviator Dick Smith believes contracting out air traffic control services to the lowest bidder would reduce the cost of control towers at smaller areas by as much as 50 per cent.
"In most cases this will be some air traffic controllers who have set up their own company," Mr Smith said.

scramjet77
16th Jul 2004, 03:37
RHS has shall we say “bent the truth”, bullied and generally clutched at any straw he can in order to push his NAS barrow. I can imagine that he will find some way in which to use this latest press release to issue an “I told you so” statement to the world, regardless of its relevance or otherwise. After all, wasn’t 2b and 2c going to save us $75,000,000.

Woomera
16th Jul 2004, 03:57
"With over 60,000 GA, recreational and glider pilots, general aviation represents a formidable voting block if targeted correctly," he said.

60,000 pilots, indeed? And where did this figure come from? Are both CASA and AOPA trying to out-bid each other?

http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/annualreport/htm/appendix3.htm

Table 25: Current and issued licences:
Type of licence

Aeroplane
Private .................... 15,507
Commercial ............... 4,350
Air Transport ............. 6,046
Student GFPT Tests .... 4,773
Total ..................... 30,676

Helicopter
Private ......................... 372
Commercial .................. 850
Air Transport ................ 395
Student GFPT Tests ........51
Total ....................... 1,668

Other
Commercial Balloon ...... 105
Flight Engineer ............. 285
Rest Flight Engineer ..... 744

2. Current figures are valid as at 30 June 2003, show only the highest level of licence held and include only those pilots who have a current medical certificate enabling them to exercise the privileges of the licence.

First it was CASA claiming:

http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fcl_lic/os_skills.htm

NOTE: In Australia there are currently more than 14,000 Commercial and ATPL pilots who are not employed as pilots. The Department of Immigration and…..

Now we have AOPA claiming:

“….over 60,000 GA, recreational and glider pilots….”

Obviously outrageous “Rubbery Figures” are not confined to a TV show!

Is there no integrity in alleged facts given to the media and published on Government web sites? Or does the mouth simply go into overdraft before the brain is in gear? :*

How much more credibility both CASA and AOPA may have had, had they done their home work and stuck to facts, rather that sensationalising!

Sorry - rant over for today! :}

Woomera

Sultanas and Gin
16th Jul 2004, 05:01
I would not discount some 5000 members of the AUF, now "recreational aviators ", the GFA, SRAA amateur ornithopter association (if it exists), and, incidently by any count, your "official" figures come to 33,478 without the above.

Exactly what are we getting at here, Creedy's figures, AOPA's figures, CASA figures, Dick Smith? It seems all are fair game.

Without daring to "cross" any Woomera, this is "playing the man and not the ball". The costs are outrageous and should be challenged by any number.

Perhaps our ATC people, so vocal on issues NAS should also realise that if these costs come to fruition, nobody will be around to fly into secondary airports thus making brand new towers at Bankstown a waste of money and them redundant.

Should we add Civilair's membership to the list to pad it a bit more?

Skinny Dog
16th Jul 2004, 07:16
Uncommon Sense
Regardless of any politics involved, your posts are a form of blatant politicking including adding links to political sites, which I thought we were told not to do, on this site, and may be rather offensive to some. Your actions may end up getting this site and you into trouble unless you come clean and state your real name and address.
While I agree the proposed increases are outrageous, you have done the cause a lot of harm

ferris
16th Jul 2004, 11:19
Perhaps our ATC people, so vocal on issues NAS ...... I have to take umbrage here. I (and others) have been shouting long and hard about airways charges and the charging regime, to any and all that would listen.

It's good to see the charging regime in the spotlight. Politics is exactly what this is about.

You can clearly see where Dick's politics lie. Some lessons just have to get learned over and over again. Can anyone name an airport anywhere where the landing charges have reduced after privatisation? Where services got better? Next stage of the game: "Unprofitable" parts of AsA privatised (read; towers and RFFS). Enroute charges stay the same (or maybe some token reduction enabling claims of 'efficiency gain').
Govt. gets wad of cash up front for the franchise fee. Govt profit increases out of sight on the remainder of AsA (the profitable part that was previously subsidising the 'unprofitable' part).
Private charges at airfields (where compulsory services apply) gradually increase to more than what they were (but less than what is proposed now- enabling claims of better efficiency).
Users scratch their heads about diminishing service standards (profit orientated) and increasing charges. Years pass before anyone realises they were duped.

Sound familiar?

scramjet77
16th Jul 2004, 12:07
Dearest Uncommon Sense,

Loved the Website and have sent it to many I know whose response has been the same.

This is indeed a political game and an important one at that. The only way to remove the puppet and therefore the puppet's master, is to vote the puppet from office.