Rules For Some!

[crack-up]

Just back from up north where I happened to have a chat with a few local charter and RPT operators at the local aero club.

It seems that a company with an indigenous name has set themselves up to do charter, to and from a nearby island community. It appears that they DO NOT have their own AOC, and are using another Qld operator to do the flights for them. So be it, except that they operate from a major international airport, with their office being the grass under a tree outside the fence. They seem to be doing RPT (from the complainants view), with the same clients flying at the same time each day, and neither CASA or the aiport people are doing anything to stop them. One operator told me he was told the whole issue is "SENSATIVE", so they will do nothing to stop it. Dosn't seem right that there are two sets of rules, one for them and one for the legitimate operators.

Questions-
1. How can someone set up and operate like this?
2. How can an operator, operate from under a tree (where are the scales and do they work on grass?) when there is no office or shop front?
3. Why is it that people who pay huge rents for apron and hangar space at an airport get stuffed over by the airport because of "Sensative" issues?
4. Why is it that CASA lets it happen when they have a presence at the same airport?

Seems that all compaints fall on deaf ears, even the ones about young low time pilot putting passengers and other operators at risk by bad judgement and flying skills. I was told he has had his A**E saved a couple of times by the legit operators making calls to help him out. One said his CP hadn't been near the place for many months and had no idea what was going on.

Might have been P**S talk, but I reckon it's worth a good look at by some one/s. The good guys are really peeved that they are doing the right thing and getting no support from those who should be fixing the wrongs. I don't think it is the competition that is causing the dissent, more the head in the sand attitude of the relevant authorities.

Two sets of rules:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Howard Hughes]

It is possibly a bit of a grey area, but operations like this have been going on for years.

I can quite easily call myself Howard Hughes Aviation, set up under a tree, sell individual seats, at set times, to any destination, then contract another company (can even be a charter AOC) to operate the service for me! None of this contravenes any legislation, aviation or otherwise! Perhaps the one valid point that you do have, is with regard to scales and weighing of pax, but that is a matter for the AOC holder and/or CASA, not the boooking agent!

Can't really comment on the low hour pilot as I don't have all the information, but it could be just people with an axe to grind!

As for the CP not going near the place for months, do you understand the CP's obligations? Is he required to visit?

Cheers, HH.:ok:

[PCFlyer]

My mate flies for a charter company in the northern territory. Its the same clients (a business) flying at the same time (for work purposes) each day. How does that make it RPT? Not only that, they fly from the same dep airport to the same dest airport everyday.
As for the young low time pilot, I'm feeling sorry for him having to put up with this crap. No airconditioned office to sit back and have a coffee like the rest of the pilots on the airfield? Just not good enough! Is it a case of the more experienced operators on the field acting like little babies as soon as they have someone else playing in "their" sandpit?
Another very good mate of mine used to work at this "major international airport" a few years ago. He was always telling me about the operators on the field whining like babies about the competition. He didn't have an office to work out of either!
Quote "I was told he has had his A**E saved a couple of times by the legit operators making calls to help him out." <- That sentence reaks of a bitter competitor!
Whats the matter, would you like some cheese to go with that wine? :E

[MaxHelixAngle]

Howard Hughes
I can quite easily call myself Howard Hughes Aviation, set up under a tree, sell individual seats, at set times, to any destination, then contract another company (can even be a charter AOC) to operate the service for me!

Not any more.
http://www.casa.gov.au/aoc/chartersub.htm

"CASA is aware that some charter operations are conducted in circumstances which have many of the hallmarks of RPT operations, and which are indistinguishable from RPT operations by the travelling public. These operations are conducted by holders of AOCs authorising charter, but not RPT, operations, carrying passengers who have contracted with another person for their carriage."

"The amendment to CAO 82.0 prohibits charter substitution arrangements, but enables CASA to authorise such arrangements in the public interest."

Wether that's enforced for ALL operators is another question, fair and unbiased, what a joke.
MHA

[bushy]

There has been a case where an operator had their AOC suspended, or cancelled for operating "RPT" services with a charter AOC. Bookings were made through another company which chartered the aeroplane. They decided that the booking company and the charter company were both largely controlled by one person.
The mail runs in the N.T. were run to a schedule, and seats were sold to the public and the station people. This happened for many decades. Then, for some unknown reason they decided this was not "right". The law had not changed, but all of a sudden they could only carry mail. No fresh bread, no spare parts for the Toyotas no pax. Only mail. There was outrage from the station people, and so they decided that it was not RPT if the things carried were associated with the stations. So what was not RPT became RPTand then was once again not RPT.
Another charter service was shut down in North Queensland. During the court hearing the lawyers
decided that if a flight was arranged for the following day then that was a scheduled flight, and if seats were sold to the public, that made it RPT.
By that judgement, every charter company in Australia is operating scheduled flights.
The law also states that no-one can sell seats on an air service to the public without having an AOC.
Do Jetset and Flight Centre have AOC's?
And do Caribous meet civil standards for RPT services? It's apparently OK to fly civilian schoolkids to sxchool in a Caribou.
It is common for some operators to try to get their competitors legislated away. I believe it some times happens, but mostly it's just sour grapes.
There are "sensitive situations" especially for those organisations that get propped up with taxpayers money. I believe there was one doing RPT in C210's for decades.
There is/was a charter organisation doing routine maintenance (including 100 hourly inspections) on an airfield that did not have a single hangar. Lames would fly in, do the work out in the open, and fly out again. "sensitive"?
The rules are complex, and appear to be rubbery.

[Howard Hughes]

I am aware of that change, I was under the impression it applied to RPT AOC holders who substituted flights with Charter AOC holders.

I still maintain that if I charter an aircraft, I can decide who travels on it and how much they pay! Is a mining charter RPT? No it is still charter, yet they leave at the same time everyday, operate from fixed terminals and in some cases you are able to buy a seat on the flight through the chartering company (ie: open to the general public), the only thing is, you normally won't be let on one of these flights unless you have business at the mine!

Furthermore I have read the link and the wording used in it, to be very 'loose' to me. Perhaps the fact that they are operating, not from a 'fixed terminal', from a legal stand point may even be an out!

PS: I am still not convinced that CASA has any jurisdiction to act in the case suggested.

[MaxHelixAngle]

HH

I believe the distinction comes when a particular seat is sold to someone not associated wth the company chartering the aircraft, ie. the aircraft is available to the general public, if one mining organisation charters the entire aircraft for their crew, even if its at scheduled times it's still charter.

From the link in my above post:

"[charter substitution] may occur where the person who the passengers have contracted with is not an aircraft operator at all, but publicly offers to arrange flights with (charter) operators in accordance with fixed schedules, to and from fixed terminals."

To me this states that a situation in which a 3rd company (not an aircraft operator at all) takes the booking's for what appears to be an RPT operation and then charter's the entire aircraft is illegal (except with special permission). As also stated on the casa page this is to eliminate any situation whereby to the public it would appear that they are on an RPT op but they are not.

"CASA is aware that some charter operations are conducted in circumstances which have many of the hallmarks of RPT operations, and which are indistinguishable from RPT operations by the travelling public"

However as bushy point's out this legislation appears not to be consitently applied across the industry.

My 2c
MHA

[neville_nobody]

The litmus test for RPT is if it is "available to the public generally".

As said above there are operators who have advertised fixed schedules to fixed terminals, which are NOT RPT as they are not available to the public generally. (ie you need the mine's security clearance)

As long as someone is paying for the whole flight and cannot walk off the street and buy a seat it is not RPT. If it's the same blokes every day, then they have no case to answer.

What gets me though is how can a so called charter "broker" can advertise aircraft that he doesn't own or have an AOC for? There's one particular one who implies that he has every frickin' aeroplane in the country when all his AOC is approved for is PA-31's!!

[Howard Hughes]

I certainly don't disagree with you Max, I am just trying to offer reasons why there may be differing interpretation. To take the Mining example a little further. Is the said island in the original scenario an indigenous community? If it is, then these are quite often closed to people who have no business on the island, in which case it could be considered a closed charter as it is not "available to the public generally", very much like a mine.

As I said previously mines do sell tickets to people who have business on their sites, yet it is still a closed charter as Neville has pointed out, there are certainly ways around this legislation. There is nothing to stop a community chartering an aircraft to bring in the nurses, teachers, builders, etc... needed to run the community. Maybe this what is happening? Once again still not RPT.

PS: I can think of at least five other locations where this is also going on!

[bushy]

This appears to be commercial regulation by stealth.

[crack-up]

Trying to pick up all of the differing points made is confusing me even more.

-The operator (one without AOC) is operating between only two bases, mainland airport and islnd airport.

-The passengers can (I think) walk up to the operators office (read under tree/bonnet of car) and get a seat.

-Would so called "sensative issues" be deemed to be "Public Interest" by CASA. The other operators say that they quite suitably serve all of the air transport needs of the island (and have for many many years).

-In this case the community does not charter the aircraft, it is chartered by a husband and wife team of indigenous origins who reside on the mainland and operate the business for themselves (I think this is right).

Still dosn't seem right to me. A level playing field needs to be applied to all operators, and CASA should investigate all operations that cross the boundary's. Maybe the blokes I spoke to had a vested interest, but at least they had all of the certifications and approvals to do the flights, evidently not so the new comer. I reckon I would be P****d off too if the goal posts were moved because of sensative issues. I thought we were all equal now days!:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: