Airservices Board holidays in Hawaii
Thread Starter
Airservices Board holidays in Hawaii
It is now just over two years since I announced in a media release that Airservices was undermining Australian aviation by providing tower services in the USA at a 50% reduction in cost (See here).
I now understand that Airservices has had one or more Board meetings in Hawaii at our industry’s expense for the new company they set up.
Why has no one dared to debate this hypocrisy on PPRuNe? We have a situation where Airservices reversed the less expensive Class E above Class D airspace here, whilst at the same time announcing they had won the contract to operate towers in the USA with Class D airspace with Class E above – at a 50% reduction in cost. They have now been operating these towers for over two years, with (I understand) a safety record of 100%.
More concerning is that the cost to learn to fly or hire an aircraft from airports with these towers is about 50% of cost in Australia. (See here). Particularly note the chart in this linked article, which shows the very much lower rates to learn to fly at one of these towers operated by Airservices.
I am amazed that no one on PPRuNe says anything. Are people frightened? Why can’t we get a comment from the invisible man of Boorowa – the Chairman of Airservices?
I can’t imagine anything more un-Australian. It reeks of what happened with the Australian Wheat Board.
The very week that Airservices reversed the less expensive and more efficient Government policy NAS airspace of Class E over D in Australia, they crowed that they had won a contract to run the identical airspace at a lower cost in the USA.
United States general aviation has now been achieving these savings for over two years. Airservices has not seen fit to make any comment at all about the hypocrisy – and no one other than myself has asked them to! I’m disappointed that my fellow Australians and people in the media are not prepared to be game enough to expose what is going on.
General aviation in the USA is booming. One of the reasons for this is that the FAA has tendered for the most competitive price to run Class D towers for over a decade. They have been able to get good prices because the Class D controllers do not have to operate huge blocks of Class C airspace above.
Airservices Australia has produced a report (the Airspace Risk Assessment Class E over Class D towers study) which claims that this type of airspace is unbelievably dangerous and will result in over 500 airline passenger deaths per 20 year period in the USA – in fact, there has not been one airline passenger fatality in this airspace in the last 20 years. Airservices obviously knows that these claims are not truthful as they are operating the towers with this airspace in total safety in the USA.
Come on PPRuNers! Have some guts and show your wrath at such un-Australian behaviour!
I now understand that Airservices has had one or more Board meetings in Hawaii at our industry’s expense for the new company they set up.
Why has no one dared to debate this hypocrisy on PPRuNe? We have a situation where Airservices reversed the less expensive Class E above Class D airspace here, whilst at the same time announcing they had won the contract to operate towers in the USA with Class D airspace with Class E above – at a 50% reduction in cost. They have now been operating these towers for over two years, with (I understand) a safety record of 100%.
More concerning is that the cost to learn to fly or hire an aircraft from airports with these towers is about 50% of cost in Australia. (See here). Particularly note the chart in this linked article, which shows the very much lower rates to learn to fly at one of these towers operated by Airservices.
I am amazed that no one on PPRuNe says anything. Are people frightened? Why can’t we get a comment from the invisible man of Boorowa – the Chairman of Airservices?
I can’t imagine anything more un-Australian. It reeks of what happened with the Australian Wheat Board.
The very week that Airservices reversed the less expensive and more efficient Government policy NAS airspace of Class E over D in Australia, they crowed that they had won a contract to run the identical airspace at a lower cost in the USA.
United States general aviation has now been achieving these savings for over two years. Airservices has not seen fit to make any comment at all about the hypocrisy – and no one other than myself has asked them to! I’m disappointed that my fellow Australians and people in the media are not prepared to be game enough to expose what is going on.
General aviation in the USA is booming. One of the reasons for this is that the FAA has tendered for the most competitive price to run Class D towers for over a decade. They have been able to get good prices because the Class D controllers do not have to operate huge blocks of Class C airspace above.
Airservices Australia has produced a report (the Airspace Risk Assessment Class E over Class D towers study) which claims that this type of airspace is unbelievably dangerous and will result in over 500 airline passenger deaths per 20 year period in the USA – in fact, there has not been one airline passenger fatality in this airspace in the last 20 years. Airservices obviously knows that these claims are not truthful as they are operating the towers with this airspace in total safety in the USA.
Come on PPRuNers! Have some guts and show your wrath at such un-Australian behaviour!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, FYI I very often agree with your views on aviation in Australia and the reasons behind its parlous state. However surely by now you must realise that almost everyone else disagrees with you! Amazingly the average idiot in Australia takes the contrary view of your position in spite of the facts. I do admire your ability to endure the following
More concerning is that the cost to learn to fly or hire an aircraft from airports with these towers is about 50% of cost in Australia.
This would seem to imply you believe that simply re-introducing E airspace would reduce the cost of hiring aircraft by 50%.
Clearly this is not the truth.
The only possible conclusions that can be drawn from this are-
1) This is not what you meant and the sentence is badly phrased, or
2) You know this is not true but have mischievously included it to stress your point or
3) You have no idea of the actual costs involved in running an Aviation business.
Could you please clarify which?
Thread Starter
Wizofoz, my statement is factually correct – look at the actual costs to learn to fly in the USA compared to Australia. I have never said that it is just because of the cost of the control towers – there are a myriad of extra cost imposts placed on the industry here. Many of them are because of our onerous and expensive, out of date regulatory requirements.
I find it fascinating that you do not comment on the complete injustice of the present system – i.e. Airservices has refused to allow the obvious cost advantages of Class E above D in a competitive environment of sub-contracted towers to operate in Australia.
I find it fascinating that you do not comment on the complete injustice of the present system – i.e. Airservices has refused to allow the obvious cost advantages of Class E above D in a competitive environment of sub-contracted towers to operate in Australia.
Thread Starter
CaptainMidnight, surely after 308 posts you can do better than “Here we go again.” Why not comment on the Airservices press release which says:
Perhaps you could comment on what has happened in two years. Surely two years is a reasonable time to bring some of these “learnings” back. I haven’t seen one change in that period – have you?
Perhaps you could comment on the following quote in relation to safety from Airservices Chief Executive, Bernie Smith:
Perhaps you could comment that the Airservices Class E over D safety case claims that this type of airspace is unbelievably dangerous. I look forward to hearing from you.
We will also be bringing back to Australia learnings gained from operating in US airspace to directly input into the airspace reform program currently underway in Australia under the auspices of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson.
Perhaps you could comment on the following quote in relation to safety from Airservices Chief Executive, Bernie Smith:
Mr Smith said the contract demonstrated confidence in Airservices' professional management of safety critical services. "We look forward to providing an excellent standard of air traffic service for operators using this airspace", he said.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, your so called "road block" protects airliners climbing out of certain airports - who cares if it is inconvienient for private pilots - no really?
Not everything is about cost - EVERY aircraft above 500' should have a radio and a mode C transponder. That would cost money - but once again who cares if this extra cost makes aviation a little less atractive to sports plots or GA outfits, many of which should not be flying anyway.
Eventually in this country we will have airliner, most likely a regional 50 seat or under collide with a budget aviator with no transponder and maybe no radio. Unalerted see and avoid - it doesn't work, but yet we persist with it to avoid further burdening GA operators.
Not everything is about cost - EVERY aircraft above 500' should have a radio and a mode C transponder. That would cost money - but once again who cares if this extra cost makes aviation a little less atractive to sports plots or GA outfits, many of which should not be flying anyway.
Eventually in this country we will have airliner, most likely a regional 50 seat or under collide with a budget aviator with no transponder and maybe no radio. Unalerted see and avoid - it doesn't work, but yet we persist with it to avoid further burdening GA operators.
there are a myriad of extra cost imposts placed on the industry here.
unbelievably dangerous.
Different countries have different standards according to their own assessments on every thing from social health to gun control (Hey let's emulate the US on THOSE things).
You act as if the whole world consists of the US and Australia. There are airspace systems more restrictive than Australia (E.G Japan) and some much less restrictive than the US (Was over Somalia the other day-now THAT must be some cheap airspace to run!!).
It is up to sovereign nations to decide what system they use dependent on their own conditions, laws and culture. I applaud your zeal for Australian Aviation. I, like many others, get frustrated when you harp endlessly when you don't get things COMPLETELY your own way.
To suggest there is something sinister about a service provider running an operation under local conditions and laws is ridiculous. If a US company provide ATC under a contract in Australia, you would expect them to do so under Australia Law.
"More concerning is that the cost to learn to fly or hire an aircraft from airports with these towers is about 50% of cost in Australia"
Are you saying that it's 50% cheaper only at Airservices managed Towers, OR, at ANY American Tower?
If it's just the Airservices Towers, show us the figures. If it's all American towers (as your chart seems to say) ... then what have these Hawaiian Towers got to do with anything ... other than giving you an opportunity to get your head in public again?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is rather duplicitous to claim E over D is unsafe, remove it from our airspace then state, rather proudly it seems that they can provide “an excellent standard of air traffic services for operators using this airspace” for the US.
I have written several times already to the minister seeking more accountability an aviation matters and I believe this is another issue that should be held to public scrutiny. Regardless of your position on airspace reform, this sort of thing should upset any Australian.
WalterMitty, I agree wholeheartedly. I don’t know where you get the energy Dick Smith but we need more folks to stand up and hold those in power to account.
I have written several times already to the minister seeking more accountability an aviation matters and I believe this is another issue that should be held to public scrutiny. Regardless of your position on airspace reform, this sort of thing should upset any Australian.
WalterMitty, I agree wholeheartedly. I don’t know where you get the energy Dick Smith but we need more folks to stand up and hold those in power to account.
- Radio facilities
- Data Transmission facilities
- Documentation
- Training, Licensing, Recency & Refresher Systems
- Safety Management Systems
- Risk Management Systems
- HR & Payrioll Systems
It gets a bit exxy ... unless you want to develop and maintain your own systems ...
Thread Starter
Pass-A-Frozo, you ask why a group of qualified ATCs can’t band together to operate the towers. In fact, there are two groups I know of that want to do this. However at the present time the Government has stopped it. This is despite the policy that was announced by Minister John Anderson in his media release dated 4 November 1999:
I understand that the Government is interested in “local ownership” of the towers so they can be operated without the very high Airservices overhead costs. However to do this the cooperation of Airservices is required. I understand that behind the scenes they do everything they can to viciously keep their monopoly. Why wouldn’t they? I think about a dozen of their senior executives are paid a very substantial amount of their remuneration from the profits of Airservices.
Let’s not get off the track. Why won’t someone from Airservices come on this thread and explain why they are operating towers in the USA when they will not allow that type of airspace to operate in Australia? Surely they want to have some goodwill with their customers in Australia – or don’t they care?
By the way, for those who are interested in the tower costing I suggest that you check here. Of course these figures are old (I’m not sure how much they have changed) but over $3 million per annum to run Bankstown would be a pretty good figure for air traffic controllers to halve and still make a fortune for themselves operating their own business. I understand that the tower at Ardmore Airport (Bankstown’s equivalent in New Zealand) costs about $120,000 per year to operate using Class G and flying instructors from the local businesses.
I have previously announced that the Government has given CASA a 30 June 2000 deadline to finalise standards for air traffic control and rescue and fire fighting services. The new regulatory framework will make it possible for new operators to provide control tower and rescue and firefighting services in competition with Airservices Australia.
Let’s not get off the track. Why won’t someone from Airservices come on this thread and explain why they are operating towers in the USA when they will not allow that type of airspace to operate in Australia? Surely they want to have some goodwill with their customers in Australia – or don’t they care?
By the way, for those who are interested in the tower costing I suggest that you check here. Of course these figures are old (I’m not sure how much they have changed) but over $3 million per annum to run Bankstown would be a pretty good figure for air traffic controllers to halve and still make a fortune for themselves operating their own business. I understand that the tower at Ardmore Airport (Bankstown’s equivalent in New Zealand) costs about $120,000 per year to operate using Class G and flying instructors from the local businesses.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well I really should have left for work 10 minutes ago, but your thread has urged me to reply...
Why is that you have taken 3 totally unrelated subjects and bunched them together to try and prove some sort of Airservices conspiracy? If you took any one of your points seperately and discussed it on it's merits, you might even garner some support.
Lets look at the points shall we?
1. Airservices board meets in Hawaii. Now on the face if it without knowing the facts, I would have to agree that I am not happy with the board meeting in Hawaii. But could it be that they may have had some reason for the meeting? ie: Meetings with the FAA regarding the Hawaii contract?
2. That flying in Hawaii is cheaper in Hawaii because Aircervices man the towers at a 50% cheaper cost. How is this so? My understanding is that is that the FAA provides ATC at no cost to the travelling public, that it is an essential service, like Medicare or the Police. So who is saving the 50%? Surely it is the government not the GA operators!
Could it perhaps be that flying is cheaper in Hawaii because:
-Taxes are lower.
-Fuel is cheaper.
-Fuel is traded in US dollars, so fuel in the US is not subject to currency fluctuations.
-Maintenance is cheaper due to availability and the regulations.
-There is more competition with regard to airfield choice an cost.
-There is no charge by the FAA for ATC? (I stand to be corrected on this but it is my understanding).
-Perhaps the only associated cost in Oz which would be comparable with the US is insurance!
3. The old chestnut about E over D, once again you want the American system without the infrastructure, you also seem to oppose ADSB (or that is the impression I got from one of your previous threads), which would make E over D more workable in this country.
Let me just finish by saying that Australia is a democracy not a Dictatorship (sp?), it seems at this stage the majority is happy with the status quo (it may not be so in the future).
Cheers, HH.
Now I better get to work before I am late.
Why is that you have taken 3 totally unrelated subjects and bunched them together to try and prove some sort of Airservices conspiracy? If you took any one of your points seperately and discussed it on it's merits, you might even garner some support.
Lets look at the points shall we?
1. Airservices board meets in Hawaii. Now on the face if it without knowing the facts, I would have to agree that I am not happy with the board meeting in Hawaii. But could it be that they may have had some reason for the meeting? ie: Meetings with the FAA regarding the Hawaii contract?
2. That flying in Hawaii is cheaper in Hawaii because Aircervices man the towers at a 50% cheaper cost. How is this so? My understanding is that is that the FAA provides ATC at no cost to the travelling public, that it is an essential service, like Medicare or the Police. So who is saving the 50%? Surely it is the government not the GA operators!
Could it perhaps be that flying is cheaper in Hawaii because:
-Taxes are lower.
-Fuel is cheaper.
-Fuel is traded in US dollars, so fuel in the US is not subject to currency fluctuations.
-Maintenance is cheaper due to availability and the regulations.
-There is more competition with regard to airfield choice an cost.
-There is no charge by the FAA for ATC? (I stand to be corrected on this but it is my understanding).
-Perhaps the only associated cost in Oz which would be comparable with the US is insurance!
3. The old chestnut about E over D, once again you want the American system without the infrastructure, you also seem to oppose ADSB (or that is the impression I got from one of your previous threads), which would make E over D more workable in this country.
Let me just finish by saying that Australia is a democracy not a Dictatorship (sp?), it seems at this stage the majority is happy with the status quo (it may not be so in the future).
Cheers, HH.
Now I better get to work before I am late.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: seq
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, how did you go with your rent increase with BAL. Bankstown is in real trouble, people are not pulling their money out of their pockets and spending it.
BAL charges are just wrong and the tower charges, well it has a life of 5 or 6 years before it is finished with no money to pay for it. Time to move my aircraft.
Dick keep up the good work.
BAL charges are just wrong and the tower charges, well it has a life of 5 or 6 years before it is finished with no money to pay for it. Time to move my aircraft.
Dick keep up the good work.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Do you realy think privatised towers will make flying cheaper?
The same way privatised airports have made flying cheaper?! Like at Bankstown, Brisbane, Sydney? It's just taking the monoply from one owner (the government - who atl least have some degree of public accountability every 3 years), and giving it to a private company whose only accountability is to their shareholders and directors bonuses.
Witness MacBank and Sydney, Schipol and Brisbane, BAL and Bankstown.
You are not going to convince many of the aircraft operators here if they are the examples of 'competition'. Lets face it - there are so few airports in Australia, there is no bloody competition - making the towers private as well will just be viewed as a cash cow for those 'rich playboy aviators' to be milked - such is the public perception I am afraid.
When councils have got hold of the airports, they have bascially made them too expensive to use when they have wanted to get more lucrative rates income for property development - e.g. Casino, Evans Head, 100's of others.
Do you realy think privatised towers will make flying cheaper?
The same way privatised airports have made flying cheaper?! Like at Bankstown, Brisbane, Sydney? It's just taking the monoply from one owner (the government - who atl least have some degree of public accountability every 3 years), and giving it to a private company whose only accountability is to their shareholders and directors bonuses.
Witness MacBank and Sydney, Schipol and Brisbane, BAL and Bankstown.
You are not going to convince many of the aircraft operators here if they are the examples of 'competition'. Lets face it - there are so few airports in Australia, there is no bloody competition - making the towers private as well will just be viewed as a cash cow for those 'rich playboy aviators' to be milked - such is the public perception I am afraid.
When councils have got hold of the airports, they have bascially made them too expensive to use when they have wanted to get more lucrative rates income for property development - e.g. Casino, Evans Head, 100's of others.
Last edited by Shitsu_Tonka; 21st Dec 2006 at 23:08.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Dick,
En-rooter (ATC) with a few questions.
I heard your comments the other day in relation to the Qantas takeover. You stated that American Airlines (not the company of the same name, just in general) were crap, a disgrace, had no idea when it came to service etc.
Why do American ATC do it so well when their airlines are such crap?
Also, if you want E over D to remain, do you agree with spending the money to upgrade the radar over these towers. I work in an area where radar paints are routinely lost up to F120 (I kid you not, come sit with me at the console and see) How can I give traffic to RPT or IFR if the radar feeds are not reliable? Who's going to pay for this?
How can I tell the IFR or RPT what these VFR chaps are up to if someone has told them to shut up and say nothing on the radio? I try calling these doods, no answer?
Thanks in anticipation mate for your answers.
En-rooter (ATC) with a few questions.
I heard your comments the other day in relation to the Qantas takeover. You stated that American Airlines (not the company of the same name, just in general) were crap, a disgrace, had no idea when it came to service etc.
Why do American ATC do it so well when their airlines are such crap?
Also, if you want E over D to remain, do you agree with spending the money to upgrade the radar over these towers. I work in an area where radar paints are routinely lost up to F120 (I kid you not, come sit with me at the console and see) How can I give traffic to RPT or IFR if the radar feeds are not reliable? Who's going to pay for this?
How can I tell the IFR or RPT what these VFR chaps are up to if someone has told them to shut up and say nothing on the radio? I try calling these doods, no answer?
Thanks in anticipation mate for your answers.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Luny Tunes
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You know the answer to this question regarding the ASA Board having a holiday OS. They are getting some quiet time before the 2007 onset of NAS reforms that are hovering in the wings.
Dick,
Who is your pick for the top job in CASA to direct the airspace regulatory function? I have heard whispers that the majority of the interview panel is Pro your NAS reforms. One wonders whether the winning candadate will be a past DOTARS / NASIG member??
Time will tell.
You know the answer to this question regarding the ASA Board having a holiday OS. They are getting some quiet time before the 2007 onset of NAS reforms that are hovering in the wings.
Dick,
Who is your pick for the top job in CASA to direct the airspace regulatory function? I have heard whispers that the majority of the interview panel is Pro your NAS reforms. One wonders whether the winning candadate will be a past DOTARS / NASIG member??
Time will tell.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason why GA is booming in the US is because they have an administration that know what they are doing. Sure, airspace management is a factor in this but it is certainly not the key factor. Another reason why GA is cheaper in the US is that they have a much much bigger industry as a whole.
On the other hand, I can see where you are coming from with the whole hipocrasy thing, but it's the same in every other governemnt department in Australia.
On a side note, stop using the term "Un-Australian", it really has no meanng now, with current affairs programs throwing it about so flippantly, with things like 'oh, your un-australian if you don't eat Vegemite blah blah'. It doesnt have much meaning anymore, and just makes your argument look un-professional.
From looking at things like the AWB, HIH, Qantas management, it would seem things like this (AsA's Hawaii junket) are very Australian indeed.
On the other hand, I can see where you are coming from with the whole hipocrasy thing, but it's the same in every other governemnt department in Australia.
On a side note, stop using the term "Un-Australian", it really has no meanng now, with current affairs programs throwing it about so flippantly, with things like 'oh, your un-australian if you don't eat Vegemite blah blah'. It doesnt have much meaning anymore, and just makes your argument look un-professional.
From looking at things like the AWB, HIH, Qantas management, it would seem things like this (AsA's Hawaii junket) are very Australian indeed.
Last edited by WilliamOK; 22nd Dec 2006 at 00:28. Reason: some spelling errors
Why won’t someone from Airservices come on this thread and explain why they are operating towers in the USA when they will not allow that type of airspace to operate in Australia? Surely they want to have some goodwill with their customers in Australia – or don’t they care?
Yet more misinformation.
I am not speaking for AsA, but as you well know, AsA are only managing the Towers - they have nothing to do with deciding what airspace system operates at those Towers.