Competition for the first time in ATC

[SM4 Pirate]

Where did you get this? From what I have been advised this is not true.

I read the regulation change? I may be reading it wrong, but I don't think so, my "bush lawyer" credentials are solid and recently refreshed.

air traffic control means: (a) AA in its capacity as a provider of air traffic control services; or (b) the Defence Force in its capacity as a provider of air traffic control services; or (c) a person who provides an air traffic control service in cooperation with AA in accordance with paragraph 11 (3) (b) of the Air Services Act 1995 or by arrangement with AA in accordance with paragraph 11 (3) (c) of that Act.

As Airservices loses money on all of the smaller towers, they should be pushing to subcontract to the lowest bidder

That doesn't add up? A new 'cheap bidder' would still need ATCs; the least significant cost of ATC is wages, they are already at minimum staffing (yes you could make reductions but not substantive)... The reason ASA doen't make money at most tower locations is due to 'on costs' getting the ATC labour off the books does nothing to reduce the 'on costs'; this includes ILS maintainance, as well as corporate overheads etc.

Airservices will be able to contract the tower to the lowest bidder

No dick they won't; why would they remove themselves from the business of providing ATC services. They also wouldn't allow a cheap operator to take over a place like Bankstown, as that would constitute a transmission of business and the current employees would get current conditions, so where is the advantage, financial or otherwise, given the 'new company' would then also factor in a profit margin (wouldn't they?).
ASG knows it is running a tight financial ship, the new GM could not believe how tight it was when he came on board, and he came from the dept. of Finance!
ASG might just beat Serco and others for some FAA towers, they couldn't do that if their cost structures were not extremely competitive.

It would also allow air traffic controllers to have greater flexibility – i.e. head off to the beach when there are no RPT services present, then come back and man the tower when required.

Baaawwwwaaaahhhh! Best line ever. Is this a secret split shift policy or is a new competitive 'ATC provider' going to pay ATCs to lay on the beach at the same time as complying with

it is obvious that any operator of the tower will have to comply with the CASA safety standards

Dick, 15 Sitting days is a long way off, I'm affraid that gazetting doesn't mean L.A.W. It is a regulation change which can be dissallowed at any time within those 15 days, at this rate for the next 3 months.

I suspect that Mr. Ferguson and the Democrats haven't even noticed this little blip on the table yet, let alone endorsed it by 'passing it', you don't "pass" a regulation you disallow them.

[Baldricks Mum]

I'm with you Whistle Blower.

Cut out the dead wood in management and get some backup for the controllers who actually have a schmick about aviation.

BM

[R4+Z]

Binocs

Whilst you may initially be right, the situation would change with time as the founding controllers start to retire but still have ownership and expect an income. The only way it could work as described is as a co-operative. Personal opinion is that in a situation like this a co-operative could not survive for many reasons one example would be that the most highly trained would expect the biggest cut so the subject of who gets training and hence the ability to demand a bigger slice of the pie, would become a very divisive issue.

Whistle blower

Anyone remember Telecom (telstra) before Optus came along?? I do.

Yes they became more streamlined, they became more efficient, they even became more profitable. but would you want the level of customer service they now provide. Just imagine voice recognition software putting you through to the controller or service you require. "dial 1 for airways clearance". The problem is that service costs money, accept that fact and move forward instead of this constant shuffle towards the edge of the precipice.

If the service was moved to india because staff is cheaper there as with call centres everybody would be appalled. Yet here in Perth we accept that it is cheaper to run our skies from Melbourne. So where would the problem be in running these services from places like India. Dick Do you think I am on to a winner here?

[DirtyPierre]

Dick,

Contract towers to the lowest bidder.

Hmmm. The space shuttle program of NASA springs to mind. Billion dollars of air/spacecraft made of and built by the lowest bidder. Wonder how safe they are?

[Bevan666]

SM4 Pirate

You state;

The reason ASA doen't make money at most tower locations is due to 'on costs' getting the ATC labour off the books does nothing to reduce the 'on costs'; this includes ILS maintainance, as well as corporate overheads etc.

I think you will find the corporate overheads are, as Bino's states, are significant. Just look at the breakdown between the controllers and the management, and you'll see where all the money goes. With a streamlined management structure, you can achieve significant cost savings. Where is there any incentive for AsA to actually reduce overheads and save the industry money? There is none. They just need to raise prices to ensure that their mandated annual return is met.

By introducing contract towers, significant cost reductions to industry can be made, and pay and conditions to controllers, the ones actually provinding the service, can be improved. My discussions earlier this year with an ex FAA Center(sp) manager gave me the overriding impression that the contract tower principle works well can can easily be applied to Australia. There are aprox 200 VFR contract towers in the US, run by about 3 companies. These provide GAAP/Class D type services, and can be compared to the likes of Hamilton Island, Mackay, Albury etc. There is no reason they cannot contract out the operation of the GAAP towers as well.

Just look at how much the current terminal infrastructure and management cost per year (which is published by AsA). You will see for yourself how much savings can be made.

Bevan..

[Uncommon Sense]

SM4:

Is that correct about it being 15 sitting days of the Senate as opposed to 15 days after gazetting? If so, as you say , those moving to disallow will have to be made aware.

[gaunty]

SM4 is correct it is 15 sitting days, not calendar days, so depending on when the Senate is sitting, it could well be three months.

Go to the Parliament House website, go to the Senate and check out the "sitting pattern". It will explain which sitting days are counted and which are not, say senate Estimates may not be.

Or ring the Clerk of the Senate and you will get some very helpful advice. There are no secrets or tricks, it's called democracy in action.

If you want a dissallowance you will need to find a Senator who will sponsor it AND who can get the support in the house to pass it.

You can also play, with the Senators cooperation, "relays" on the 15 sitting day routine for a long time if you need time to get your act together.

[Chimbu chuckles]

How can allegedly intelligent people claim that it is possible to have true competition within something like AsA?

How can you compare the situation with price competition between companies like Harvey Norman and whomever else sells like product in the marketplace?

The only way true competition happens is multiple sellers competing for a larger share of a given market. This scenario is clearly impossible within aviation infrastructure like towers or enroute services.

What Dick is talking about is NOT competition it's MONOPOLY. One or possibly two companies will end up with all the D and GAAP towers and then set about making a profit that will need to increase over time to appease shareholders.

It's already happening at places like BK, do we really believe anything will change by changing the MONOPOLY holder from a Govt MONOPLOY to a private MONOPOLY.

This is economics 101 people!!!!

And lets all be wary of Dick's motives at this time. Does smoke and mirrors ring any bells?

Lets not drop the ball on NAS, believing the battle is won, while Dick distracts us with this latest BS

Chuck

[SM4 Pirate]

I think you will find the corporate overheads are, as Bino's states, are significant.

Bevan whilst trying to pick an argument with me, stop agreeing with me....

My point is that the corporate 'on costs' are not reduced by having "Disk Cmith ATC Co." run Bankstown, the 'on costs' did not magically dissapear, the NAVAID, Frequency costs are still there, no admin staff in Canberra were reduced, in fact we probably just employed some to negotiaite with "Disk Cmith ATC Co." and enforce compliance with our operating certificate.

To be really clear, reducing the ATCs from the Airservices umbrella does nothing to the "on costs", which will still be borne by the aviation industry. This is why it won't happen there will be no, repeat no overall savings in transofrming a current business into a private operation.

Different animal if you were for example proposing that "Disk Cmith ATC Co." was going to establish a new business at say Broome for example. You could do so as a new business, reduced ATC pay and conditions, because it is new (no transmission of business) and no need to apportion existing costs (ie overheads) to the new entity; because the costs would remain where they are.