PDA

View Full Version : CAA CEO


Sleeve Wing
21st Dec 2014, 10:50
I've just found out that Andrew Haines, CEO of our Civil Aviation Authority, is paid the staggering sum of £300,000 a year. This is his reward for presiding over one of the worst run facets of our Civil Service.
He has been in charge now for five years, a period of mind-boggling EU/EASA interference.
The only saving grace is that there recently appears to have been some attempt to sort out the unholy mess that has been the legacy of the CAA for the past 15 years. However, whatever his contribution, it will never match the enormous amount of common sense and diligence that has been the due to the efforts of our own BEagle and his team………

Fancy a £300,000 job, B ?

Daysleeper
21st Dec 2014, 10:56
CAA is not Civil Service.

Capot
21st Dec 2014, 11:42
CAA is not Civil ServiceYeah, yeah, whatever. We all know that with some bureaucratic sleight of hand, employees of the CAA are not, technically, Civil Servants, and that the organisation is not, when you see the small print, an integral element of the "Civil Service", whatever that is.

But it is funded from taxation, when you define all its charges as effectively being taxes, ie mandatory payments to a Government monopoly service provider for the privilege of being regulated by that provider. Do you have a choice of where to go to get your UK Pilot's licence? Thought not.

The pretence that it is in some mysterious way a "commercial organisation" that has to sell its services to its "customers", and make a "profit" is simply absurd; a bureaucratic nonsense.

As we know, if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, no matter what name you paint on its wings.

If proof were needed, it is that abortion trading as CAA International; set up using public funds for its capital by the CAA to create something that could, maybe, be presented as being a "commercial organisation". CAAi now competes in the same market as the CAA regulates, as its competitors have found to their cost when they try to compete with CAAi.

I wonder why CAAi is needed, if the CAA were already a commercial organisation?

The reality is that the CAA and its staff are Civil Service to the core, in their role, their methods, their laziness, their overblown pay rates, their attitude and their tolerance of personal incompetence for their tasks at all levels up to and including the CEO.

VP959
21st Dec 2014, 12:25
It's not any sleight of hand at all.

The CAA has NEVER been a part of the Civil Service, and has never been bound by the code of conduct that Civil Servants are bound by. The CAA is a semi-self-funding body that primarily pays its staff from revenue it generates from licensing, regulatory control fees etc, etc. It's a corporation, just like any other corporation, although a rather poorly managed one that has little or no direct oversight from government.

CAA staff are not public servants or public employees in any way shape or form and are not paid public sector pay rates. They don't have public sector pensions either, and if anything are more answerable to their masters in the aviation industry than they are to government. The only thing that has reigned them in in over the past few years is that they are now grossly subordinate to EASA, so if anything are under more direct control from the EU than they are from the DfT.

Last time I looked at their books their revenue for mandatory regulatory activity from the UK government (in the shape of funding from the DfT) was a pretty small part of their income stream as a non-profit making corporation.

VP959
21st Dec 2014, 12:54
Exactly!

Civil Servants don't get a say in their pay, it's decided by government. Civil Servants (even very senior ones) don't get the sort of pay that those running and employed by public corporations like the CAA get. Heck, Civil Servants don't even get the same sort of pensions these people get now.

The really critical difference is that these public corporations are not bound by all the rules that govern probity in the Civil Service and seem free to do what the heck they want, with the government seemingly powerless to intervene. I've had direct experience of this, where the DfT openly told me in a meeting that they had no way of controlling the dafter behaviour of some parts of the CAA, as the CAA wasn't under direct government control.

As for funding, take a look at where the CAA gets it's money, this is a direct quote from Hansard:

The CAA does not have monies voted to it by Parliament and must instead recover its operating costs, plus a rate of return on capital set by the Government, through charges on the aviation industry for its regulatory services and on users of UK airspace through the Eurocontrol en route charges system.

As is clear, the CAA is not taxpayer funded, with the exception of a small fee it receives from the DfT for providing a service in drafting ANO amendments, I believe.

BOAC
21st Dec 2014, 13:48
Anyone remember another of Cameron's broken 'promises' to have a 'bonfire of the quangos'?

VP959
21st Dec 2014, 14:12
Some do, and many are paid more than the Prime Minister, but that's a separate issue.

Which conveniently ignores the fact that the Prime Minister isn't at that well paid, at £142,500, only slightly more then the new First Minister of Scotland, who gets £141,000.

Even Boris Johnson, as London Mayor, earns nearly three times the Prime Ministers salary (£393,911) and good old Tony Blair is really raking it in at £10,401,949 as advisor to JP Morgan..................

VP959
21st Dec 2014, 14:46
To get back on topic, then it should be those who pay the CAA's CEO who should be doing the complaining. As the CAA is funded by the airlines primarily, then they are the ones who should be raising the issue as to whether or not the pay level is appropriate, not taxpayers who have nothing to do with CAA pay.

My guess is that the airlines aren't likely to want to poke a stick in this particular hornets nest because it might cause some to look at their senior management pay structure.

VP959
21st Dec 2014, 16:21
My guess is that my contributions to the CAA's coffers over the years have been minute, just whatever "profit" they make on the paperwork (licence, ratings, PtF, etc).

I've had a fair few dealings with them over many years, and they have changed a lot. Years ago I had an almost amiable and common sense working relationship with them, over the past few years I was involved with them I thought they were a complete pain in the backside; obstructive, slow, excessively bureaucratic and had lost all sense of proportion when it came to appropriate rule making (or more accurately, the application of rules made by others).

Did I feel it worth commenting on? No, because I knew full well that they didn't give a fig about anything that didn't make a significant contribution to their income stream. The few hundred quid they've had out of me over the years hardly paid the sandwich bill for one day of meetings at the Belgrano, I suspect.

Sleeve Wing
21st Dec 2014, 17:33
Veeps,

>>>> The few hundred quid they've had out of me over the years hardly paid the sandwich bill for one day of meetings at the Belgrano, I suspect.<<<<

I'm guessing then that my contribution last year alone would have meant a few smoked salmon ones then !
When I renewed my CAA ATPL just to keep an IMC privilege, I was informed that my FI rating had to be on a new JAR one.
I paid up only to be informed that, when I renewed my X privileges a couple of months later, I now required an EASA licence !

So I'm now the proud holder of THREE current ATPLs !

Perhaps I get a free sandwich, eh ? :ugh:

wings folded
21st Dec 2014, 17:40
As the CAA is funded by the airlines primarily, then they are the ones who should be raising the issue as to whether or not the pay level is appropriate, not taxpayers who have nothing to do with CAA pay.
Errm, does not that really work through as meaning fare-paying passengers?

cockney steve
21st Dec 2014, 20:14
Many Quangocrats earn more than the Prime Minister (£142,500).

NAH!...they get paid more......an important difference.


As the CAA is funded by the airlines primarily, then they are the ones who should be raising the issue as to whether or not the pay level is appropriate,

Yea, I can really see that working well.....top brass at belgrano instigate a concerted "enforcement" campaign against any one in the industry who dares to complain about their totally out of control,sanctionless till-dipping,trough-swilling self-serving domain.

Capot
22nd Dec 2014, 09:35
It's that phrase "not tax-payer funded" which is the key. Who ultimately pays the CAA's outrageous charges? Of course, it's the public who use the services of anyone regulated by the CAA. And the fact that taxpayers in other countries also pay those charges doesn't alter the fact that UK taxpayers pay most of them.

As several people have pointed out, the "let's pretend" status of the CAA means that its management are, for all practical purposes, unaccountable. In "management" we can include whoever decides executive remuneration.

Regulated organisations are never going to seriously challenge the CAA, as others have also pointed out, because of the probability of sanctions in the form of utterly spurious findings, over-zealous audit and so on. No-one should doubt that the CAA would do that; a number of organisations have been put out of business by exactly that kind of measure, as a result of poking the CAA where it hurt.

Most people mention the CAA's decline over the last 10 - 15 years. This coincides with the introduction of people at the top level with no knowledge of or empathy for the air transport industry and general aviation. The rise of these people has been matched by the departure of all the best people, at all levels, through poor morale and disgust at what has been happening.

The Quango Queen has been mentioned. One hoped that she represented the nadir of her type, but unfortunately not that has turned out to be the case. Those of us who attended a "workshop" at the Belgrano on SMS, shortly after she was appointed, I think, still shudder at the memory of the Dame's address to us all, informing 200++ senior managers (ie CEOs from airlines, MROs, manufacturers, airports etc) from the industry that "safety is really important".

She cheerfully admitted that this insight was based entirely on her experience of chocolate bars which, under her watch as the Quango Queen of Food Standards, had been distributed for sale when poisoned by contamination. She seemed not to see the irony of that failure leading to her appointment at the CAA after having to leave the FSA (Food Standards) when its, and her, incompetence was exposed. (She had also failed miserably at another FSA (Financial Services) as Deputy Chairman, leaving as soon as its shortcomings were exposed.)

Sir George Cayley
22nd Dec 2014, 13:31
If you think the boss of the CAA gets a wadge compare it to the boss of NATS!

SGC

Ancient Observer
22nd Dec 2014, 14:40
Capot has the key point.
You can pay the boss of the CAA whatever you want. I care not - IF, and it is a giant IF, s/he is Accountable, and if s/he can be removed from his job for his moronic inability to manage (should he manage badly), etc, etc.

Er, there is zero Accountability. To anyone. At any time.

Don't just pick on him, though. Look at what the other Directors get paid. For being "Directors" of a tiny bureaucracy, with no competition and no customers. And their cars, pensions, taxis, hotel stays etc.

The limit on their pay should be about £50k pa for such a tiny outfit.

Capot
22nd Dec 2014, 22:48
There is another key point; apart from marginal and relatively unimportant aviation-related activities, the CAA is no longer the regulator for UK aviation.

That role is now filled by that totally unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy and jobs-for -incompetents known as EASA.

So for about 90% of the UK's regulated aviation activity, the CAA is merely a policeman enforcing EASA regulations under UK legislation that requires them to do that, exactly as, say, The Devon & Cornwall Police enforce other laws enacted by Parliament. That they do this task inefficiently, with outrageous charges to cover the inefficiency, does not alter the essential nature of their role.

Now explain to me exactly why the CEO of this organisation needs to be paid £300K a year, even if he were up to the job?

VP959
23rd Dec 2014, 09:04
Years ago I did some consultancy work for a few aviation insurers. The first time I was asked to look at the technical aspects of an accident by an insurer I hadn't got a clue what to charge (being in full-time employment elsewhere). I asked an acquaintance (who I suspected had also been doing consultancy work for insurers) and his reply was "charge them about £20 an hour less than the CAA would". My next question was "what do the CAA charge?". His reply was a bit of a shocker - apparently they charged around £150 an hour plus expenses at that time.

Even though I have no great love of the insurance world, I couldn't, in all honestly, charge them £120 an hour for just reviewing accident reports, doing a few interviews and writing up a report for them, perhaps also appearing in court as an expert witness if a claim ever got that far (none ever did). I settled on charging £50 an hour plus expenses and thought I was doing very well out of the arrangement.

Ancient Observer
23rd Dec 2014, 12:44
I'm sure that the CAA NEDs read pprune.

Would one of them please justify this obscene salary?