Another financial burden for General Aviation?

[G-KEST]

For some time there has been a working group considering a CAA-SRG proposal to eliminate cross subsidy in CAA cost recovery.
General Aviation including the small aircraft AOC companies has, apparently, been subsidised by "Heavy" AOC airlines - British Airways in particular. These "oppressed" companies have long complained at what they perceive as being financially disadvantaged while enjoying a taxation regime not available to GA. In addition the AOC companies recruit most of their flight crew from those trained in GA at the individuals own expense.
The draft final report has now been published proposing swingeing increases in charges to GA in order to eliminate the perceived cross subsidies within approximately four years. The proposals will go out to the usual list of "stakeholders" for consultation in the fairly near future and no doubt the matter will be the subject of heated debate in the various aviation forums. I do hope so since GA at the moment can ill afford a significant hike in CAA charges across the board and largely impacting on most aspects of GA. Watch this space.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:ouch: :mad: :mad: :mad: :(

[Zlin526]

G-KEST,

Thanks for bringing it to the attention of the GA world. As the UK CAA is financed by its users, and has to recover all of its costs from its users, this is something that could kill off the UK GA industry overnight, and unless people get their act together now, I fear the worst.

As most EASA and JAA member states have some form of Government funding or assistance, should there not be a level playing field before we get dragged off blindly into Euroland, or is the UK (as usual...) getting a raw deal courtesy of our Politicians, many of whom know Jack about GA?

[Zlin526]

Hmmmm,

Not many replies to this thread, so I'll bring it back to the top. Does this illustrate the apathy in the UK regarding GA? I hope not. :(

[FlyingForFun]

I don't think it indicates apathy. More likely it's because of a lack of detail. There is no link to the proposals mentioned, no suggestion of what we can do to influence the decision, mention of "stakeholders" without any further information (will any of the bodies which represent GA be amongst the stakeholders involved, for example)..... just a general comment to "watch this space", which is exactly what we're probably all doing. :confused: :confused: :confused:

FFF
------------

[PhilD]

Not many replies to this thread, so I'll bring it back to the top. Does this illustrate the apathy in the UK regarding GA? I hope not

Take a look at the parallel thread on fl*er here (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=12042)

up to 42 postings and counting - it looks like 2 organisations competing for your attention - a situation familiar to GA pilots in the UK...

[2Donkeys]

I don't think that it's fair to see Flyer and Pprune as two organisations competing for people's attention. The original poster has, for all the right reasons, posted exactly the same message on numerous bulletin boards. The Flyer boards happen to have responded in greater volume, despite the absence of detail at this stage.

2D

[Sir George Cayley]

The CAA is made up of SRG DAP CPG and ERG so Economic Regulation would seem a more likely driver for change.

The impact of removing cross subsidies will be something those organisation who (maybe unwittingly) have benefitted.

The answer is for a concerted lobby to seek some form of payback to offset the increased costs. If these materialise then perhaps the various groupings should amalgamate to press for a reduction of regulatory burden that would lead to reduced costs.

Can't think of anything at present but there must be some resiprocity,

Sir George Cayley

[Spitoon]

I don't know where I read it but I don't think it's being driven by the CAA but by the big airlines.

[BossEyed]

I don't think that it's fair to see Flyer and Pprune as two organisations competing for people's attention.

2Ds: I reckon Phil D meant EASA and the CAA, not PPRuNe and F***r.

As for the increase: will the expense never end? I try and fly cheaply, and would be able to as well if it wasn't for legislative changes which give me... absolutely nothing. :{

The suggestion that I don't pay for what I currently get makes me feel :uhoh:

[drauk]

What's with all the F***r stuff? It's not a swear word nor a secret! It's called Flyer. Calling it what it is will make discussions about it more understandable to the uninitiated reader.

[BossEyed]

Fair point, althogh the mods have been very sensitive about perceived advertising.

[LowNSlow]

What are the extra charges proposed? I can't see any area where BA is subsidising my grass strip flying I'm afraid. :suspect:
Gits.

[PhilD]

BossEyed

Actually I meant Flyer and PPRuNe, although now you point it out I can see that the same principle applies to EASA and CAA.

2D

I can't personally understand why there seem to be an increasing number of people posting identical messages on Flyer and PPRuNe. Maybe it's just not something I would do, especially as there are obviously many people like me who monitor and post on both.


PD

[chrisN]

LowNSlow wrote: "What are the extra charges proposed? I can't see any area where BA is subsidising my grass strip flying I'm afraid." [snip of opinion of BA!]

As far as I have been informed, the largest area of increased charge proposals is on AOC's. It seems BA (and others?) think their AOC charges exceed what it costs the CAA to service, and lesser AOC operators are perceived as not paying enough - by over £4 million a year.

Alleged undercharging by CAA on other aspects of GA has not been quantified in the papers I have seen (but the data may exist somewhere).

Chris N.

[140cherokee]

Everyone seems to accept that costs are being generated by the CAA that, perhaps, should be borne by GA. But why isn't anyone challenging the CAA to justify their costs? Was the cost really necessary? What benefit did it achieve? Do they really need to maintain the current level of staff/resource to provide it? Is the parts paper-trail really necessary? Could it not be delegated to a GA representative body who may achieve the same result at lower cost?

I don't know how the CAA operates, but without effective competition, they are hardly likely to be as lean an operation as would be the case in the private sector. The big operators should be pressing the CAA to justify their costs, not pass them on to GA.

140

[LowNSlow]

ChrisN ta for the clarification.

I think the CAA should enter an agreement with the PFA/BMAA and hand over responsibility for all non Public Transport aircraft to them. They have people who understand light aircraft unlike some of the "brought up on Boeings & Airbuses" people the CAA have looking after SEP's.

[bookworm]

I think the CAA should enter an agreement with the PFA/BMAA and hand over responsibility for all non Public Transport aircraft to them.

The bad news is, the CAA are unlikely to do that. The good news is, EASA just might. :)

[G-KEST]

Its not only the UK with problems of increased charges from the regulator -

"Another Perspective On User Fees -- Oz's Could Quadruple"
With the debate over user fees for GA gathering steam here in the U.S., the issue is playing out in a more extreme form down under, where Australian GA pilots face a fourfold increase in the fees they pay for government services. "This is getting very, very scary and more to the point, it's proving that CASA [Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority] is not capable of regulating aviation any more," said Ron Bertram, president of the Australian unit of AOPA. CASA executive Bruce Gemmell said last week that his agency needs to boost annual revenues from the industry from $5 million to $20 million by 2008-2009, The Australian reported on Friday. Bertram responded that hikes on that scale would not only threaten GA's economic survival, but also raise safety issues. "If you can't afford it, what happens? Do you operate unsafely?" he asked.

There is to be a briefing by the CAA in London on Friday 10 June on the JRT proposals. I will keep the thread updated.
Cheers,
Trapper 69

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[G-KEST]

Well the launch of the CAA charges consultation took place with around 20 representatives from UK aviation organisations present. The consultation period for responses will last 12 weeks until early September, much longer than is usual, to give all "stakeholders", and that does include YOU, plenty of time to submit their thoughts.

I will analyse my initial reactions in the next few days on the forum however if you want to see what is now proposed the detail is on -
www.caa.co.uk/charges
If you would like an electronic copy then email your request to -
[email protected]

My immediate comment to the HAA, ADA(E), EAC and the RAeS LAG chairmen was -
"The consultation period for the CAA charging scheme proposals started today and I attended the presentation in London where the SRG GDSR, Mike Bell, and a team from SRG gave details to around 20 representatives from UK aviation organisations. My initial reaction is that having expected GA to be murdered I find it is merely to suffer grievous bodily harm so should I feel grateful......??". I reckon that about sums it up.

Seriously though, the final proposals are far less damaging to the UK airshow scene than was feared when news of the first draft of the JRT's recommendations was leaked. This probably thanks to the aviation media and associated website publicity and the efforts of many forum readers in writing to their MP's and the CAA chairman; not to mention that damaging EDM drafted by Gerald Howarth MP and supported by many other MP's of all political persuasions. I reckon the CAA, along with the DfT, felt somewhat exposed as a result and the CAA board of directors decided to water down some of the JRT's recommendations. Good for them.

Nevertheless there are many areas where charges to General Aviation and other aspects of UK aviation are going to rise. Considerably in some respects. More news in a couple of days after detailed study of what is proposed.

When you have a chance to look over the CAA website details I would much appreciate your comments as all inputs to the response process may produce some good ideas for alternative ways of carving up the cake.

Cheers,

Trapper 69

:* :* :yuk: :yuk: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: