Competition for the first time in ATC
Thread Starter
Competition for the first time in ATC
It is hard to imagine but for the first time ever in Australia, competition will exist for air traffic control services. With the recent amendment of CAR 2, Airservices will be able to sub-contract services to the lowest bidder.
This is clear. It means that a tower like Bankstown or Moorabbin will be able to be put out to bid and the lowest tenderer will be able to provide the service.
Yes, full competition, just as you get when you go to a Harvey Norman store or when you go to the local supermarket.
Come on air traffic controllers! Why not set up your own business? Run the towers without the huge overheads and $500,000+ salaries of the Airservices head office, and make yourself a small fortune. Who is going to take up the challenge?
This is clear. It means that a tower like Bankstown or Moorabbin will be able to be put out to bid and the lowest tenderer will be able to provide the service.
Yes, full competition, just as you get when you go to a Harvey Norman store or when you go to the local supermarket.
Come on air traffic controllers! Why not set up your own business? Run the towers without the huge overheads and $500,000+ salaries of the Airservices head office, and make yourself a small fortune. Who is going to take up the challenge?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick is referring to the following:
When Dick says "Full Competition" just like Harvey Norman, well, yeah I guess if Harvey Norman says it's ok and you enter a commercial agreement with Harvey Norman to compete against Harvey Norman, and Harvey Norman want you to compete against Harvey Norman, and you have insurance and.....
Unless I missed the full competition part of the amendment Dick, I don't see any opportunities soon for Air traffic Controllers to set up their own business.
What is more likely, and probably the raison d'etre to this legislation, (despite Dicks "working behind the scenes" claims), is to allow AirServices Australia to set up a LCC equivalent of their Towers division (Airport Services) as a sort of 'AirServices-Lite', pay their controllers whatever they can get away with, put them on contracts, keep all the really profitable bits (Enroute Airways Charges) for themselves. Of course, this will reduce costs for GA and stimulate aviation in Australia. Ahem.
And here was me thinking that ATC was about Air Safety. How wrong I was - it is all about making profits. Like NATS in the UK? Oops - the government (read: taxpayers) there had to pay for it - privatise it - then bail it out 6 months later!
Some things should be not be commercial operations. ATC is a fine example.
(BTW - don't know how often you get down the supermarket, but it looks like a sweet little duopoly to me these days!)
One Fanatastic outcome: This will enable the new Broome Tower to be opened just a little later than scheduled.
http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/rules/c...04/stat217.htm
The changes will ensure that the term ‘air traffic control’ for the purposes of the 1988 Regulations will also include any person who provides air traffic control services in cooperation with AA or under arrangement with AA
The changes will ensure that the term ‘air traffic control’ for the purposes of the 1988 Regulations will also include any person who provides air traffic control services in cooperation with AA or under arrangement with AA
When Dick says "Full Competition" just like Harvey Norman, well, yeah I guess if Harvey Norman says it's ok and you enter a commercial agreement with Harvey Norman to compete against Harvey Norman, and Harvey Norman want you to compete against Harvey Norman, and you have insurance and.....
Unless I missed the full competition part of the amendment Dick, I don't see any opportunities soon for Air traffic Controllers to set up their own business.
What is more likely, and probably the raison d'etre to this legislation, (despite Dicks "working behind the scenes" claims), is to allow AirServices Australia to set up a LCC equivalent of their Towers division (Airport Services) as a sort of 'AirServices-Lite', pay their controllers whatever they can get away with, put them on contracts, keep all the really profitable bits (Enroute Airways Charges) for themselves. Of course, this will reduce costs for GA and stimulate aviation in Australia. Ahem.
And here was me thinking that ATC was about Air Safety. How wrong I was - it is all about making profits. Like NATS in the UK? Oops - the government (read: taxpayers) there had to pay for it - privatise it - then bail it out 6 months later!
Some things should be not be commercial operations. ATC is a fine example.
(BTW - don't know how often you get down the supermarket, but it looks like a sweet little duopoly to me these days!)
One Fanatastic outcome: This will enable the new Broome Tower to be opened just a little later than scheduled.
Last edited by Uncommon Sense; 28th Jul 2004 at 12:00.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, you and I both know that getting insurance as private entity would stop your ability to go into competition with or work for Airservices as an ATC provider. This reg change is nothing new, it means that ASA must own or directly 'supervise' the operating certificate. That is the only new players able to play must be owned by Airservices.
What this does enable is the ASG (Airport Services Group) to become a true seperate business, a sibling of the parent company instead of the different 'bucket' that it now is. It would still need to operate under the parent companies 'operating certificate'.
I can't believe you would promote only half the story; if you truly believed it is so, where is the DSATC Co? There must be a buck in it?
What this does enable is the ASG (Airport Services Group) to become a true seperate business, a sibling of the parent company instead of the different 'bucket' that it now is. It would still need to operate under the parent companies 'operating certificate'.
I can't believe you would promote only half the story; if you truly believed it is so, where is the DSATC Co? There must be a buck in it?
Dick,
With respect I don't think its a case of the cheapest price gets the contract.
I have always thought safety came first and maybe as you put it "affordable safety" is then considered.
To the detriment of all concerned the GA ethic of the lowest price gets the charter / endorsement / rating ect is killing GA!!
With respect I don't think its a case of the cheapest price gets the contract.
I have always thought safety came first and maybe as you put it "affordable safety" is then considered.
To the detriment of all concerned the GA ethic of the lowest price gets the charter / endorsement / rating ect is killing GA!!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: aus
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote Uncommon Sense on another thread:
If this is the case what a joke. Talk about too many chiefs not enough indians. As a professional Pilot, it makes me really angry that my colleagues and I suffer financially because of the added costs airservices add (directly or indirectly) to the bottom line of my flights.
Competition is badly needed. Nothing against controllers, It's the guys at the coalface who provide the safety... not administrators.
The savings made by a cull of this dead wood could be put back into reviving the fortunes of Aviation in this country.
Any organisation like this would never compete against decent competition... to survive it'd shape up REAL fast.
Those who bleat otherwise have NFI.
Anyone remember Telecom (telstra) before Optus came along?? I do.
Total Staff: 2885
Management:340
Clerical Admin:266
ATC:978
Management:340
Clerical Admin:266
ATC:978
Competition is badly needed. Nothing against controllers, It's the guys at the coalface who provide the safety... not administrators.
The savings made by a cull of this dead wood could be put back into reviving the fortunes of Aviation in this country.
Any organisation like this would never compete against decent competition... to survive it'd shape up REAL fast.
Those who bleat otherwise have NFI.
Anyone remember Telecom (telstra) before Optus came along?? I do.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Unfortunately some things are natural monopolies.
Of course for BK and MB one could have the right runway(s) for tight right circuits, left for tight left circuits and the center for the "airline" trainees on their (not so) mini cross countries, direction optional. Of course the three competing controllers would need to be on different frequencies.
Of course for BK and MB one could have the right runway(s) for tight right circuits, left for tight left circuits and the center for the "airline" trainees on their (not so) mini cross countries, direction optional. Of course the three competing controllers would need to be on different frequencies.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not be too hasty in disregarding this possibility just because it comes from DS. Before the legislation was knocked back last time, my own station investigated all the possibilities, and for a while it was an exciting idea. Setting up our own company with a core of controllers who wanted to be part of a team that would do what was necessary to provide the service required was a dream for a while and we all pondered it.
Think about it without the contaminating idea that DS favours it. A station like Mackay can be massively profitable just on the existing income from the RPT aircraft who want us there. I couldn't possibly tell you how much of our supposedly self regulated budget is taken away from us before we even start the calculations about profitability. We could employ a well paid admin clerk full time at about a fifth of the cost of the admin overheads from AirServices. We would also no longer have expenses that we know absolutely nothing about removed from our budget by the remote entity of AirServices Canberra.
We could have a 25% pay increase and still reduce costs by 25%, we could hire our own staff so we knew we were getting people who were committed to our own , err, what do they call it again.. Vision of Excellence! And we wouldn't need to be empowered to do it!
People would want to come to work because they are responsible for their own income. They are part of a team, and if they don't turn up they're letting the other bloke down. If something needs doing it gets done by whomever is available, unhindered by rostering principles or class warfare ideals. The BIG stumbling block was insurance.
On this one, Dick, I'm with you. How it would work in bigger centres I've no idea. It's too late to make a difference to me, but for the sake of future controllers who have been brought up in the last fifteen years of strict adherence to the bottom line being the only criterion for anything, and covering your arse being the major decision-making criterion for control decisions, I hope it can happen. ATC used to be a really good job guys! Maybe it still can.
Edited to say that those costings included nil charges for VFR aircraft. We should be encouraging training organisations, not penalising them.
Think about it without the contaminating idea that DS favours it. A station like Mackay can be massively profitable just on the existing income from the RPT aircraft who want us there. I couldn't possibly tell you how much of our supposedly self regulated budget is taken away from us before we even start the calculations about profitability. We could employ a well paid admin clerk full time at about a fifth of the cost of the admin overheads from AirServices. We would also no longer have expenses that we know absolutely nothing about removed from our budget by the remote entity of AirServices Canberra.
We could have a 25% pay increase and still reduce costs by 25%, we could hire our own staff so we knew we were getting people who were committed to our own , err, what do they call it again.. Vision of Excellence! And we wouldn't need to be empowered to do it!
People would want to come to work because they are responsible for their own income. They are part of a team, and if they don't turn up they're letting the other bloke down. If something needs doing it gets done by whomever is available, unhindered by rostering principles or class warfare ideals. The BIG stumbling block was insurance.
On this one, Dick, I'm with you. How it would work in bigger centres I've no idea. It's too late to make a difference to me, but for the sake of future controllers who have been brought up in the last fifteen years of strict adherence to the bottom line being the only criterion for anything, and covering your arse being the major decision-making criterion for control decisions, I hope it can happen. ATC used to be a really good job guys! Maybe it still can.
Edited to say that those costings included nil charges for VFR aircraft. We should be encouraging training organisations, not penalising them.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Privatised towers work very very well the world over. I for one support the idea. The costs can be lowered dramatically for the local users. I think that anyone with any ideals of a privatised Enroute ATC system in this country for a very long time has rocks in their head. Aviation is viewed by the public as one of the industries (like medicine etc) that can have no mistakes. This is why NAS if crumbling and why an outsourced solution to Enroute needs will not gain enough credit to be viable.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROO LOOSE.................ROO LOOSE
Wake up!
You want to work for Serco for 45g ?
PEANUTS and MONKEYS
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who are you talking to, Hempy?
I don't think any of the guys currently in the ME employed by Serco took a 50% pay cut. If you think somebody like Serco is going to come in and undercut our current conditions, you have to ask where they are going to get the employees. They'll get lots of applicants from countries ending in -stan, and the aces from Swaziland, but I don't know anybody else in the world of air traffic control who would jump at the chance to earn what we procedural approach controllers are getting.
We certainly have difficulty attracting raw recruits up here from Brisbane, and that message is finally getting through to the bigwigs. Unless they can shake the towers loose to a private consortium, they're up **** creek because they haven't trained anybody in years. Trainees go to an outstation tower and think phark that, I'll stay in the capital city thanks. Clear to land, clear for takeoff, and another 20K a year. Airservices say no, you are now our new hope, you're staying there. Staff management remains as good as ever.
Stuff it, time for bed.
I don't think any of the guys currently in the ME employed by Serco took a 50% pay cut. If you think somebody like Serco is going to come in and undercut our current conditions, you have to ask where they are going to get the employees. They'll get lots of applicants from countries ending in -stan, and the aces from Swaziland, but I don't know anybody else in the world of air traffic control who would jump at the chance to earn what we procedural approach controllers are getting.
We certainly have difficulty attracting raw recruits up here from Brisbane, and that message is finally getting through to the bigwigs. Unless they can shake the towers loose to a private consortium, they're up **** creek because they haven't trained anybody in years. Trainees go to an outstation tower and think phark that, I'll stay in the capital city thanks. Clear to land, clear for takeoff, and another 20K a year. Airservices say no, you are now our new hope, you're staying there. Staff management remains as good as ever.
Stuff it, time for bed.
Last edited by Binoculars; 29th Jul 2004 at 00:09.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binoc's
True!, but
Have ya spoken to anyone who has worked for Serco in recent years?
Currently, geography is the only 'attractive' for procedural app/towers. As you point out, pay v's complexity certainly ain't.
If privatisation were to happen, Sector/Radar App people will not resign to take up a position with 'Acme ATC services' in the outstations, will they?
Thus the -stan, -frican, and any other half baked bod that will work for sh1t all (and there will be plenty of them) making up the potential staff list!
and, where will they all go after getting there nice shiny new App P/Tower ratings?..........ELSEWHERE........back to square one repeatedly!
Who's gunna train em?
What do ya do with them when they do not rate?
Will a private company apply pressure to rate after an investment of training dollars?
Administration?
Compliance tracking?
The ever mounting paper war?
Who in there right mind would want to run one of these stations?
Licencing?
INSURANCE? Know a bit about this one, good luck getting any, let alone how much it would cost!. AsA will not underwrite a private provider!
Not for this littl' black duck I'm afraid
Unless and until network pricing is permitted to support services at regional airports, the results will be the same! What is happening right now...!
Privatisation makes the network option disappear for the industry entirely
Cost effective? questionable IMHO
Safe and expeditious? questionable IMHO
Nighty night
Edited to currect bludy baad spelin
True!, but
Have ya spoken to anyone who has worked for Serco in recent years?
Currently, geography is the only 'attractive' for procedural app/towers. As you point out, pay v's complexity certainly ain't.
If privatisation were to happen, Sector/Radar App people will not resign to take up a position with 'Acme ATC services' in the outstations, will they?
Thus the -stan, -frican, and any other half baked bod that will work for sh1t all (and there will be plenty of them) making up the potential staff list!
and, where will they all go after getting there nice shiny new App P/Tower ratings?..........ELSEWHERE........back to square one repeatedly!Who's gunna train em?
What do ya do with them when they do not rate?
Will a private company apply pressure to rate after an investment of training dollars?
Administration?
Compliance tracking?
The ever mounting paper war?
Who in there right mind would want to run one of these stations?
Licencing?
INSURANCE? Know a bit about this one, good luck getting any, let alone how much it would cost!. AsA will not underwrite a private provider!
Not for this littl' black duck I'm afraid
Unless and until network pricing is permitted to support services at regional airports, the results will be the same! What is happening right now...!
Privatisation makes the network option disappear for the industry entirely
Cost effective? questionable IMHO
Safe and expeditious? questionable IMHO
Nighty night
Edited to currect bludy baad spelin
Last edited by Capcom; 28th Jul 2004 at 16:46.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just glad to see Dick has dropped his crusade for "the US system". Well done Dick, glad you've come to your senses. Otherwise, I would've expected you to be out there, threatening ministers etc. in order to achieve ' a more modern, world's best practice' system of funding air safety infrastructure- just like the FAA. The FAA are actively looking at reducing/removing privatised towers. Yes, that BASTION of privatisation, the United States, has a system more akin to funding by general revenue- non of this profit-driven malarky for them!
Good to see you moving away from that mindless following of all things yank, Dick. Sense, at last.
I mean, if you REALLY believed in the US system, you'd want to copy the whole thing, right? It could just be the funding part of their model that allows their GA to flourish. So, you wouldn't want to totally stuff the oz system by not making ALL the changes, especially the CRITICAL funding aspect, would you? Good work.
As the US system is "proven", "modern", "world's best practice" etc. etc., I look forward to your reasoning on WHY you are diverging from their model. There are some people at AOPA and the ARG I need to help with this.
Good to see you moving away from that mindless following of all things yank, Dick. Sense, at last.
I mean, if you REALLY believed in the US system, you'd want to copy the whole thing, right? It could just be the funding part of their model that allows their GA to flourish. So, you wouldn't want to totally stuff the oz system by not making ALL the changes, especially the CRITICAL funding aspect, would you? Good work.
As the US system is "proven", "modern", "world's best practice" etc. etc., I look forward to your reasoning on WHY you are diverging from their model. There are some people at AOPA and the ARG I need to help with this.
The federal contract tower program seems to work very well in the US and I hear that even AirServices are bidding to run some FAA towers in the pacific at the moment.
Privatised towers - bring it on.
Bevan..
Privatised towers - bring it on.
Bevan..
Thread Starter
SM4 Pirate, the claim that private companies won’t be able to get insurance to run ATC is a total furphy. It happens all around the world. In the UK many of the terminal services are run by competitive businesses, not the Airservices equivalent. In the USA a percentage of the Class D control towers are run by businesses other than the FAA. They all have insurance and the tendering process is a very competitive one.
You state:
Where did you get this? From what I have been advised this is not true. Airservices will be able to contract the tower to the lowest bidder. The amendments to CAR 2, which I was instrumental in having done, were nothing to do with the ASG within Airservices becoming a separate business. If that were so, it would have been Airservices pushing the amendment to CAR 2. As it was, I don’t think they even knew we were working on it.
As Airservices loses money on all of the smaller towers, they should be pushing to subcontract to the lowest bidder. Of course, it is obvious that any operator of the tower will have to comply with the CASA safety standards. That is why a large amount of money was spent a number of years ago in setting CASA up to be able to separately regulate air traffic control service providers.
I ask again. Come on! There must be a few air traffic controllers out there with some entrepreneurial skills who can set up a company to operate these towers. I’m sure if you were operating five or six towers from one company with low overheads, that really good money could be made. 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.
You state:
That is the only new players able to play must be owned by Airservices
As Airservices loses money on all of the smaller towers, they should be pushing to subcontract to the lowest bidder. Of course, it is obvious that any operator of the tower will have to comply with the CASA safety standards. That is why a large amount of money was spent a number of years ago in setting CASA up to be able to separately regulate air traffic control service providers.
I ask again. Come on! There must be a few air traffic controllers out there with some entrepreneurial skills who can set up a company to operate these towers. I’m sure if you were operating five or six towers from one company with low overheads, that really good money could be made. 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.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capcom,
My reference to Serco was only in response to Hempy. My own belief is based on what DS suggested (sigh), namely a private company set up by the controllers on the station concerned, and to those whose world can't encompass anything outside a row of radars, yes, I'm talking outstation towers here.
I'll repeat that the reason why most such places are currently "unprofitable" is because of ASA overheads and expenses taken out of our budget over which we have no control. I don't have the actual figures in front of me, but an example I remember from a year or so ago was about $5000 a month taken out of our budget for Central training. Training??? We hadn't had a trainee for ten years!
Having done the figures, I can assure you that with the ASA overheads removed from our budget, we could pay our controllers very handsomely and still undercut the Sercos of the world. Do you honestly believe that ASA wouldn't award the contract to a group who have rated controllers already in place, ready and willing to take over? We would not have to recruit from the -stan countries, in fact we would suddenly become a very attractive place to work, financially speaking. If the insurance aspect could be worked out we could be up and running in six months.
Yes, I speak only of outstation towers, because they are the ideal candidates for such an operation. I wasn't aware of the passage of this legislation until DS mentioned it, and I haven't done any research on it to prove it's kosher, but if it is, what are we waiting for? ASA have been looking for an excuse to hive off the towers for years; well, guys, all you have to do is mention it. You know our number.
My reference to Serco was only in response to Hempy. My own belief is based on what DS suggested (sigh), namely a private company set up by the controllers on the station concerned, and to those whose world can't encompass anything outside a row of radars, yes, I'm talking outstation towers here.
I'll repeat that the reason why most such places are currently "unprofitable" is because of ASA overheads and expenses taken out of our budget over which we have no control. I don't have the actual figures in front of me, but an example I remember from a year or so ago was about $5000 a month taken out of our budget for Central training. Training??? We hadn't had a trainee for ten years!
Having done the figures, I can assure you that with the ASA overheads removed from our budget, we could pay our controllers very handsomely and still undercut the Sercos of the world. Do you honestly believe that ASA wouldn't award the contract to a group who have rated controllers already in place, ready and willing to take over? We would not have to recruit from the -stan countries, in fact we would suddenly become a very attractive place to work, financially speaking. If the insurance aspect could be worked out we could be up and running in six months.
Yes, I speak only of outstation towers, because they are the ideal candidates for such an operation. I wasn't aware of the passage of this legislation until DS mentioned it, and I haven't done any research on it to prove it's kosher, but if it is, what are we waiting for? ASA have been looking for an excuse to hive off the towers for years; well, guys, all you have to do is mention it. You know our number.