Merged: Aero Tropics Grounded.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA
Federal Court of Australia has overturned CASA's case against Lip Air Pty Ltd this afternoon.
Lip Air/AeroTropics can be back in the air as soon as they can crank engines over.
Moderator
Jaba and flying-spike.
Don't shoot the messenger!
Justiceseeker was unable to post and sent me his post by email asking I post on his behalf, which I did as Moderator.
I am not entering the debate.
Tail Wheel
Don't shoot the messenger!
Justiceseeker was unable to post and sent me his post by email asking I post on his behalf, which I did as Moderator.
I am not entering the debate.
Tail Wheel
Spike. Surely you did not mean to post these statements???? 
So, you're saying that a charter operator, selling single seats on a scenic flight that is advertised (by whatever means) as departing at a certain time (or why else would those who purchased seats know when the scenic departs...), over a specific scenic route, is somehow different to "....scheduled services, open to the public on a ticket basis (that) is RPT."
I am aware, as you obviously are, of "bucketloads of scenic" flights that are advertised by various mediums, depart at the same time each day, over the same scenic route, for which individual tickets are sold - and are being operated on a charter AOC.
Read CAR206 and particularly the differences between 1 (b) and 1 (c).
Back at post # 83, we agreed that for a flight to be legally classified RPT, five conditions must exist:
* Transporting passengers or cargo;
* For hire and reward;
* In accordance with fixed schedules;
* From fixed terminals;
* Over specified routes;
Considering your statement above, could you tell me the difference between the two scenarios you mention - or perhaps advance a theory as to the meaning of "fixed terminals" and "specific routes"?
Now, the inference one draws from that statement is a real worry!!!
"...selling single seats has nothing to do with the argument.There are bucketloads of joyflight/scenic operators around doing that quite legally on charters. When you start running scheduled services, open to the public on a ticket basis that is RPT."
I am aware, as you obviously are, of "bucketloads of scenic" flights that are advertised by various mediums, depart at the same time each day, over the same scenic route, for which individual tickets are sold - and are being operated on a charter AOC.
Read CAR206 and particularly the differences between 1 (b) and 1 (c).
Back at post # 83, we agreed that for a flight to be legally classified RPT, five conditions must exist:
* Transporting passengers or cargo;
* For hire and reward;
* In accordance with fixed schedules;
* From fixed terminals;
* Over specified routes;
Considering your statement above, could you tell me the difference between the two scenarios you mention - or perhaps advance a theory as to the meaning of "fixed terminals" and "specific routes"?
"...that will let people die before we act"
The travelling public expect a higher level of service, safety and reliability on an RPT service.
It is outside the scope of this thread, but IMHO there should be no difference between Charter and RPT.
Why should it require a higher level of maintenance, regulation or pilot training to fly from A to B at 0900 daily than to fly to F when somebody walks in the door?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Not Pluto
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Federal Court of Australia has overturned CASA's case against Lip Air Pty Ltd this afternoon."
So where does this fit into the CASA victory or defeat.......
What CASA didn't have enough evidence to convince the Federal Court that they had a case? Unbelieveable... Casa are always so precise, so justified, so thorough, leave no corner un turned, how could they not have enough evidence???
How much has this little excursion cost AT? Reimbursements for lost business, yadda yadda yadda?
So where does this fit into the CASA victory or defeat.......
What CASA didn't have enough evidence to convince the Federal Court that they had a case?
Unbelieveable... Casa are always so precise, so justified, so thorough, leave no corner un turned, how could they not have enough evidence???How much has this little excursion cost AT? Reimbursements for lost business, yadda yadda yadda?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tailwheel,
What do you know about, what was the term again,,,"Interposed Travel?", the use of a travel agent as the organisation booking a charter to which they sold seats to the general public has previously been accepted by CASA, where's Creampuff when you need him ( some would suggest its a short cut around the RPT requirements, although i believe there was some guidance from OLC on the criteria, had to be a registered Agent.... ).
So what is shady about the Travel Agent bit i'm not quite sure ?.
Sober up did we Mr I ?.
What do you know about, what was the term again,,,"Interposed Travel?", the use of a travel agent as the organisation booking a charter to which they sold seats to the general public has previously been accepted by CASA, where's Creampuff when you need him ( some would suggest its a short cut around the RPT requirements, although i believe there was some guidance from OLC on the criteria, had to be a registered Agent.... ).
So what is shady about the Travel Agent bit i'm not quite sure ?.
Sober up did we Mr I ?.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 2nd Jul 2008 at 10:53. Reason: more goodera spelling
Moderator
I think the term you are referring to is "interposed entity"?
I suspect that term refers the Child Support Agency when it comes between a miscreant father's employer and his bank account?
I suspect that term refers the Child Support Agency when it comes between a miscreant father's employer and his bank account?
LRT
An “interposed travel agency” is a Furphy thrown in by CASA when they’ve hit rock bottom of the bull sh!t barrel and are determined to keep digging.
Travel agencies have been around for 100 years. They sell tickets on an agency basis, on behalf of airlines, train and bus services, tourist attractions, motels, hotels and resorts, fishing trips, parachute operations and even circuses.
Travel agencies neither hold an AOC, nor are they regulated in CASA legislation. They have no place, in any way, in differentiating between RPT and air charter.
If by reference to the pre 1988 ANRs, one assumes:
Are Qantas and Virgin scheduled air services therefore, air charter services???
Twenty years of regulatory reform and CASA can’t still even rectify that simple legislative error!!!
An “interposed travel agency” is a Furphy thrown in by CASA when they’ve hit rock bottom of the bull sh!t barrel and are determined to keep digging.
Travel agencies have been around for 100 years. They sell tickets on an agency basis, on behalf of airlines, train and bus services, tourist attractions, motels, hotels and resorts, fishing trips, parachute operations and even circuses.
Travel agencies neither hold an AOC, nor are they regulated in CASA legislation. They have no place, in any way, in differentiating between RPT and air charter.
If by reference to the pre 1988 ANRs, one assumes:
- “specified routes” were dedicated, licensed airline routes, defined on Air Navigation Charts, over which an air charter operator could not operate more than once in 28 days; and
- “fixed terminals” were Commonwealth owned airport terminals on Commonwealth owned airports, specified in legislation at that time;
Are Qantas and Virgin scheduled air services therefore, air charter services???
Twenty years of regulatory reform and CASA can’t still even rectify that simple legislative error!!!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Back in Oz
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying that CASA's got any credibility, but if they had an ounce of it anyway, surely they just lost some more. I'm sitting here shaking my head profusely if you hadn't noticed.
If I call you a spade, I'm going to be bloody well sure I can back that accusation up!!!! Does anyone else get my drift here??!!??
Defamation, for what it's worth, is definately worth it here. What a joke.
If I call you a spade, I'm going to be bloody well sure I can back that accusation up!!!! Does anyone else get my drift here??!!??
Defamation, for what it's worth, is definately worth it here. What a joke.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justice seeker,
Is that a fact ?.
Trying to point the bone over YLHR IMHO is laughable, A/T did not own the Aircraft or have M23 on their AOC or own the crew.
Everyone in Cairns knew of the relationship, even CASA,,,,,,,,,,,, from memory it was also stated in an ad i saw in the Cairns Post, you know, that it was operated by Transair, no way anyone, especially CASA could deny knowledge of the working relationship.
There are many many working relationships of a similar ( Alliance / Qantas, NJS / Qantas for eg ), operating flights for other companies etc etc, who's been doing the mail runs this week ?.
In A/T's case I believe they were trying to build a route they could put their very own B1900D on.
Torres, ageed, it would be nice if this and other "issues" with the base legislation was fixed, life would be much simpler.
Denied evidence presented, was aggressive and rude and mislead CASA
Trying to point the bone over YLHR IMHO is laughable, A/T did not own the Aircraft or have M23 on their AOC or own the crew.
Everyone in Cairns knew of the relationship, even CASA,,,,,,,,,,,, from memory it was also stated in an ad i saw in the Cairns Post, you know, that it was operated by Transair, no way anyone, especially CASA could deny knowledge of the working relationship.
There are many many working relationships of a similar ( Alliance / Qantas, NJS / Qantas for eg ), operating flights for other companies etc etc, who's been doing the mail runs this week ?.
In A/T's case I believe they were trying to build a route they could put their very own B1900D on.
Torres, ageed, it would be nice if this and other "issues" with the base legislation was fixed, life would be much simpler.
In administrative law, an act may be judicially reviewable ultra vires in a narrow or broad sense. Narrow ultra vires applies if an administrator did not have the substantive power to make a decision or it was wrought with procedural defects. Broad ultra vires applies if there is an abuse of power (e.g., Wednesbury unreasonableness or bad faith) or a failure to exercise an administrative discretion (e.g., acting at the behest of another or unlawfully applying a government policy). Either doctrine may entitle a claimant to various prerogative writs, equitable remedies or statutory orders if they are satisfied.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 66
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me get this right...CASA get bagged for never acting and when they do some judge who does not know the pointy end from the blunt end over rules the decision!
CASA need power or they should join the ACCC.
CASA need power or they should join the ACCC.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crashdummy
The "some judge" in this matter obviously thought CASA didn't know the legal standard to be applied. He/she doesn't need to "know the pointy end from the blunt end", only the way in which law should be applied to fact, something the majority of posters on this thread have complained that CASA does not know how to do.
It used to be the case that CASA were able to take legal action through the AAT which is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. No rules of evidence or procedure, hearsay allowed, it was a plaintiffs version of parliamentary "coward's castle". Not sure whether they can still use the AAT but it appears that a defendant has to use the Federal Court where the rules of evidence and procedure are far more restrictive.
Let me get this right...CASA get bagged for never acting and when they do some judge who does not know the pointy end from the blunt end over rules the decision!
CASA need power or they should join the ACCC.
CASA need power or they should join the ACCC.
It used to be the case that CASA were able to take legal action through the AAT which is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. No rules of evidence or procedure, hearsay allowed, it was a plaintiffs version of parliamentary "coward's castle". Not sure whether they can still use the AAT but it appears that a defendant has to use the Federal Court where the rules of evidence and procedure are far more restrictive.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 66
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLovett
People who have no understanding of aviation and charge 10G an hour should not be involved in any decissions relating to flying.
Perhaps CASA & the ACCC should merge?
People who have no understanding of aviation and charge 10G an hour should not be involved in any decissions relating to flying.
Perhaps CASA & the ACCC should merge?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash Dummy
What does the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have to do with this?
Are there allegations of price fixing, collusion, or predatory pricing?
No? Perhaps, Dummy, you are thinking of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal?
What does the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have to do with this?
Are there allegations of price fixing, collusion, or predatory pricing?
No? Perhaps, Dummy, you are thinking of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal?