Big economic problems in aviation
Thread Starter
Big economic problems in aviation
We all know the economic problems that are besetting the world. Unfortunately in regards to Australian aviation (especially general aviation) I can see the problems striking very, very hard indeed.
Any properly run business copies the most efficient practices that exist. This is normally done by looking at competitors all around the world and making sure you perform as well – or even slightly better.
This has not happened in aviation. For example, let’s look at the regulatory reform process. I originally started this in about 1990 with the very capable Ron Cooper responsible. In those days there was an important direction – to remove every unnecessary cost. By unnecessary costs, we meant costs that did not add in an effective way to safety.
In the early days we were able to get some major changes through, which have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. However after about the first two years, almost all change stopped.
We now have a situation where over $100 million has been spent on the regulatory reform process in the last five years, with basically no results at all. When I say no results – well, good results for the people in the regulator who have been paid very high amounts of money to spend thousands of hours on bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, but without actually making a decision. Because of the lack of decision making, the current economic downturn will doubly affect aviation in this country. That is, the effect from the economic downturn, plus the effect of not having modern, efficient regulations which allocate our safety dollars effectively.
Only recently I spoke to a number of the reform people in relation to the fact that we are prohibited from joining directly on base at a non-tower aerodrome. This is allowed in every other country in the world. The savings in Australia would be many millions of dollars, and there is the potential for safety to be improved.
Amazingly enough, when I spoke to one of the industry people who is on a reform panel, and appears to be responsible for making the final decision on this (don’t ask me why) it became apparent that he couldn’t see any advantage in harmonising with modern international circuit procedures. Then I realised that he worked for a Government department and didn’t pay for his flying. In fact, a few more minutes in a corporate jet at each airfield, performing a full circuit, was probably considered good because it would contribute to his flying hours!
Let’s look at some of the other changes that have never been made.
1. Rescue and Fire Fighting
When I last looked, our RFFS charges were double what they were per tonne landed in New Zealand. We are the only modern aviation country in the world that still has rescue and fire fighting run by a Government based monopoly. Even in the United States (which we all know is quite socialistic with aviation) has the rescue and fire fighting run by local airports in a totally competitive environment.
Even though there have been announcements that competition would be allowed, I have been in communication with a number of good Aussie companies who want to provide rescue and fire fighting at some of our airports at more competitive prices, however they have got nowhere.
2. Competition with towers
We all know that even in the United States, the Class D control towers are open to competition. This is apparent because even Airservices Australia bid on one of the contracts and is running towers in Hawaii.
No such competition is allowed in Australia. That means that towers at places like Bankstown, Moorabbin and Archerfield are incredibly expensive because they have the huge Airservices Australia Canberra overheads.
I know of air traffic controllers who would like to quote on operating the towers. It would probably result in better working conditions and pay for the controllers, but a more flexible arrangement and not having to pay $500,000 salaries in Canberra. Nothing has happened.
3. The ASIC card
This was introduced by bureaucrats in the Department, however there is no similar requirement in the United States – the home of September 11. Obviously millions of dollars of expenditure and time is wasted on this – all money which is added to the overheads of anyone flying, and makes the whole thing uncompetitive.
4. Duplicated military/civilian ATC system
Imagine the cost to our country! It must be a waste of tens of millions of dollars per year. Remember, it is not just that the controllers are duplicated, but we have a duplicated radar and training system.
There are many other examples like this. Here is another one.
In other leading aviation countries, a non-pressurised aircraft can fly at 12,500 feet without additional oxygen. Our limit is 10,000 feet. It has been worked out that the fuel saving in allowing this modern, international approach would be up to 3% - i.e. millions of dollars per year saved in avgas. The advantage is that the pilot could often be above the inversion layer and flying in smooth air, rather than in the thermals. Nothing has happened.
There are lots of other examples.
Most importantly, I have always mentioned that the safety regulations must be affordable by those who pay. I know I am rubbished on this site by a few ill-informed people who claim that I introduced “affordable safety.” Of course I didn’t do this. I simply pointed out to everyone that it was a fact of life – the money spent on safety must be affordable by our society, otherwise the service does not exist.
As the industry starts to downturn further, with more and more people out of work, I would imagine that all of the people in the Department (under Mike Taylor), people within the ATSB and within CASA will be smiling. Remember the “Yes, Minister” episode on the hospital without any patients? What could be better for the Department, the regulator and the investigator to hardly have anyone flying?
A terrible catastrophe is about to happen with aviation in this country. I can see huge numbers out of work, businesses going broke, and opportunities lost. All we need is some capable people who understand that running efficient businesses depends on having efficient practices and minimum waste. I wonder if the changes will be made when it is too late and the industry is basically destroyed?
Any properly run business copies the most efficient practices that exist. This is normally done by looking at competitors all around the world and making sure you perform as well – or even slightly better.
This has not happened in aviation. For example, let’s look at the regulatory reform process. I originally started this in about 1990 with the very capable Ron Cooper responsible. In those days there was an important direction – to remove every unnecessary cost. By unnecessary costs, we meant costs that did not add in an effective way to safety.
In the early days we were able to get some major changes through, which have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. However after about the first two years, almost all change stopped.
We now have a situation where over $100 million has been spent on the regulatory reform process in the last five years, with basically no results at all. When I say no results – well, good results for the people in the regulator who have been paid very high amounts of money to spend thousands of hours on bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, but without actually making a decision. Because of the lack of decision making, the current economic downturn will doubly affect aviation in this country. That is, the effect from the economic downturn, plus the effect of not having modern, efficient regulations which allocate our safety dollars effectively.
Only recently I spoke to a number of the reform people in relation to the fact that we are prohibited from joining directly on base at a non-tower aerodrome. This is allowed in every other country in the world. The savings in Australia would be many millions of dollars, and there is the potential for safety to be improved.
Amazingly enough, when I spoke to one of the industry people who is on a reform panel, and appears to be responsible for making the final decision on this (don’t ask me why) it became apparent that he couldn’t see any advantage in harmonising with modern international circuit procedures. Then I realised that he worked for a Government department and didn’t pay for his flying. In fact, a few more minutes in a corporate jet at each airfield, performing a full circuit, was probably considered good because it would contribute to his flying hours!
Let’s look at some of the other changes that have never been made.
1. Rescue and Fire Fighting
When I last looked, our RFFS charges were double what they were per tonne landed in New Zealand. We are the only modern aviation country in the world that still has rescue and fire fighting run by a Government based monopoly. Even in the United States (which we all know is quite socialistic with aviation) has the rescue and fire fighting run by local airports in a totally competitive environment.
Even though there have been announcements that competition would be allowed, I have been in communication with a number of good Aussie companies who want to provide rescue and fire fighting at some of our airports at more competitive prices, however they have got nowhere.
2. Competition with towers
We all know that even in the United States, the Class D control towers are open to competition. This is apparent because even Airservices Australia bid on one of the contracts and is running towers in Hawaii.
No such competition is allowed in Australia. That means that towers at places like Bankstown, Moorabbin and Archerfield are incredibly expensive because they have the huge Airservices Australia Canberra overheads.
I know of air traffic controllers who would like to quote on operating the towers. It would probably result in better working conditions and pay for the controllers, but a more flexible arrangement and not having to pay $500,000 salaries in Canberra. Nothing has happened.
3. The ASIC card
This was introduced by bureaucrats in the Department, however there is no similar requirement in the United States – the home of September 11. Obviously millions of dollars of expenditure and time is wasted on this – all money which is added to the overheads of anyone flying, and makes the whole thing uncompetitive.
4. Duplicated military/civilian ATC system
Imagine the cost to our country! It must be a waste of tens of millions of dollars per year. Remember, it is not just that the controllers are duplicated, but we have a duplicated radar and training system.
There are many other examples like this. Here is another one.
In other leading aviation countries, a non-pressurised aircraft can fly at 12,500 feet without additional oxygen. Our limit is 10,000 feet. It has been worked out that the fuel saving in allowing this modern, international approach would be up to 3% - i.e. millions of dollars per year saved in avgas. The advantage is that the pilot could often be above the inversion layer and flying in smooth air, rather than in the thermals. Nothing has happened.
There are lots of other examples.
Most importantly, I have always mentioned that the safety regulations must be affordable by those who pay. I know I am rubbished on this site by a few ill-informed people who claim that I introduced “affordable safety.” Of course I didn’t do this. I simply pointed out to everyone that it was a fact of life – the money spent on safety must be affordable by our society, otherwise the service does not exist.
As the industry starts to downturn further, with more and more people out of work, I would imagine that all of the people in the Department (under Mike Taylor), people within the ATSB and within CASA will be smiling. Remember the “Yes, Minister” episode on the hospital without any patients? What could be better for the Department, the regulator and the investigator to hardly have anyone flying?
A terrible catastrophe is about to happen with aviation in this country. I can see huge numbers out of work, businesses going broke, and opportunities lost. All we need is some capable people who understand that running efficient businesses depends on having efficient practices and minimum waste. I wonder if the changes will be made when it is too late and the industry is basically destroyed?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 24th Oct 2008 at 00:58.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Even in the United States. . . ."
"however there is no similar requirement in the United States. . ."
Do we really need to emulate the US model of ensuring that profit trumps all other facets of society. Watching the news on a daily basis, it appears to me that market forces are not as clever as we once thought.
"however there is no similar requirement in the United States. . ."
Do we really need to emulate the US model of ensuring that profit trumps all other facets of society. Watching the news on a daily basis, it appears to me that market forces are not as clever as we once thought.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Listen to the ABC last night enroute to a private ppruners party, the share price and liquidity of ALLCO was being discussed. Some quick mental maths suggests they are in the poo big time and worth about 1.5% of what they were when the Q bid was on.
What a mess that would be today.
J
What a mess that would be today.
J
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
It's good to have a thread where I can agree with you Dick!
1. Agree, RFFS should be tendered.
2. Agree, there should definitely be competition for ATC services.
3. AGREE, what an absolute waste of time and money this has been. I wouldn't mind if an ASIC card carried some clout ie: No requirement for screening at airports!
4. Agree, Please get rid of the military controllers, they have no idea of the limitations involved with civilian aircraft, descending from 9000 feet at 5 miles, ain't good for the passengers! Also you don't need to leave us at the holding point for another civilian aircraft which hasn't even crossed the FAF on the ILS!
The one area where we can still disagree is adopting procedures 'just because it's done that way in the USA'! You say yourself in the second sentence, we should be looking for the 'World's best practice', then why not search the whole World rather than just the US, as we have been witnessing the last few weeks, the US's way of doing things isn't always the best!
Cheers, HH.
PS: I was under the impression the higher limit for using oxygen in the US, was to do with getting unpressurised normally aspirated aircraft over the Rockies. What is the limit in Europe/Asia? Does the saving outweigh any decrease in safety? As I recall from my time in the States, isn't there a recommended limit on time spent at that altitude?
1. Agree, RFFS should be tendered.
2. Agree, there should definitely be competition for ATC services.
3. AGREE, what an absolute waste of time and money this has been. I wouldn't mind if an ASIC card carried some clout ie: No requirement for screening at airports!
4. Agree, Please get rid of the military controllers, they have no idea of the limitations involved with civilian aircraft, descending from 9000 feet at 5 miles, ain't good for the passengers! Also you don't need to leave us at the holding point for another civilian aircraft which hasn't even crossed the FAF on the ILS!
The one area where we can still disagree is adopting procedures 'just because it's done that way in the USA'! You say yourself in the second sentence, we should be looking for the 'World's best practice', then why not search the whole World rather than just the US, as we have been witnessing the last few weeks, the US's way of doing things isn't always the best!
Cheers, HH.
PS: I was under the impression the higher limit for using oxygen in the US, was to do with getting unpressurised normally aspirated aircraft over the Rockies. What is the limit in Europe/Asia? Does the saving outweigh any decrease in safety? As I recall from my time in the States, isn't there a recommended limit on time spent at that altitude?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent points, Dick!
Let the military keep their radar though. When considering the duplicated civil/military ATC we would gain more benefit by removing most of the Restricted Areas. I have never really understood why a few military aircraft feel so threatened by the sparse civil traffic here in Australia. Know all about dynamic manoeuvring and traffic density, and neither of those are really a factor in a country this big to the extent they justify the allocation of special airspace to the military, except for the occasional bombing range, live firing area or similar. To tie up as much air space as do the Sale, Richmond, Willy, Amberly and Townsville restricted areas seems way over the top given how few aircraft ever use them. I am not even mentioning Pearce! The highest density military operation in Australia warrants FIS, RIS and RAS...not restriction. For those services we could use the military radars/controllers.
The flight safety counter claim and fear of collision is anxiety rather than reality based. The presumption that regulation reduces risk can be countered by the fact that complacency kills. All pilots should look out more. We should adopt best practice and use the scarily empty OCTA as do most European and North American countries. The truth is that in a massive country like Australia there is really not much traffic out there to avoid.
Let the military keep their radar though. When considering the duplicated civil/military ATC we would gain more benefit by removing most of the Restricted Areas. I have never really understood why a few military aircraft feel so threatened by the sparse civil traffic here in Australia. Know all about dynamic manoeuvring and traffic density, and neither of those are really a factor in a country this big to the extent they justify the allocation of special airspace to the military, except for the occasional bombing range, live firing area or similar. To tie up as much air space as do the Sale, Richmond, Willy, Amberly and Townsville restricted areas seems way over the top given how few aircraft ever use them. I am not even mentioning Pearce! The highest density military operation in Australia warrants FIS, RIS and RAS...not restriction. For those services we could use the military radars/controllers.
The flight safety counter claim and fear of collision is anxiety rather than reality based. The presumption that regulation reduces risk can be countered by the fact that complacency kills. All pilots should look out more. We should adopt best practice and use the scarily empty OCTA as do most European and North American countries. The truth is that in a massive country like Australia there is really not much traffic out there to avoid.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Some good points there. Unfortunately aviation in Australia appears to be one of the last of the “cargo cults”.
Don’t quite agree with lifting the limit for no supplemental oxygen to above 10,000FT AMSL though. Firstly, given the terrain (or lack of it!) in Australia I don’t think there’s a real need. Secondly, given the size of the country and therefore potentially longer flight times, the prolonged exposure to the reduced oxygen levels above 10,000FT AMSL could contribute to increased incidents of hypoxia. Have read some interesting accident reports concerning crashes in the US where this point was put forward as a contributing factor.
And then we have DBTW.
Yes, we do have restricted airspace in Australia for the exclusive use of military aircraft. How about telling the full story mate. The vast majority (in fact I reckon it’s “all”!) of these restricted areas are de-activated when they’re not needed. There’s a very good reason some military flying activity is segregated from civilian flying activity. If you’ve seen what goes on in some of them you wouldn’t want to be anywhere near it!
I am sure that if you had your way and all these areas were removed, you would be the first to squeal when you spotted (assuming you’re one of those that actually looks out!) a 4-ship of F-18’s whistling past your wingtips.
Oh BTW, the US has plenty of restricted areas, and a whole bunch of prohibited ones as well.
Some good points there. Unfortunately aviation in Australia appears to be one of the last of the “cargo cults”.
Don’t quite agree with lifting the limit for no supplemental oxygen to above 10,000FT AMSL though. Firstly, given the terrain (or lack of it!) in Australia I don’t think there’s a real need. Secondly, given the size of the country and therefore potentially longer flight times, the prolonged exposure to the reduced oxygen levels above 10,000FT AMSL could contribute to increased incidents of hypoxia. Have read some interesting accident reports concerning crashes in the US where this point was put forward as a contributing factor.
And then we have DBTW.
Yes, we do have restricted airspace in Australia for the exclusive use of military aircraft. How about telling the full story mate. The vast majority (in fact I reckon it’s “all”!) of these restricted areas are de-activated when they’re not needed. There’s a very good reason some military flying activity is segregated from civilian flying activity. If you’ve seen what goes on in some of them you wouldn’t want to be anywhere near it!
I am sure that if you had your way and all these areas were removed, you would be the first to squeal when you spotted (assuming you’re one of those that actually looks out!) a 4-ship of F-18’s whistling past your wingtips.
Oh BTW, the US has plenty of restricted areas, and a whole bunch of prohibited ones as well.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things
Age: 52
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry dick, don’t agree with everything your peddling.
What I would like is for you and all pilots to take a big pay cut right now.
Why not, it will save the industry millions if all of you come in to work for free.
In regards to your so called good aussie companies (are they really aussie?), you know the ones that own all of our airports that were sold off and make the owners squillions whilst the customer (read me) has to pay huge amounts for using them.
You say they want to tender for ARFF services. Well the only company that has managed it in Townsville has their employees on around 15k to 20k less. So thank you dick for decreasing the wages of those who need it most in these times.
You are the one who pushed for location specific pricing and got it. What happened? The prices at the big airports got smaller and the little airports (read the backbone of GA Australia, got over inflated prices of over 1000%)
Now they have averaged it out so that small businesses do not have to pay as much. This was done because of the complaints from the businesses that you talk about.
And don’t bring up New Zealand. Go have a chat to the ARFF over there. Disgruntled workers on worse pay and conditions and a fire service that has lost a lot.
So in your theory, dick, employees take it in the a@@ whilst businesses make big savings. I am sure Mr Rudd just made a big song and dance about corporate greed. Whether you agree with him or not, the world is in a pretty bad place at the moment because of just that.
What I would like is for you and all pilots to take a big pay cut right now.
Why not, it will save the industry millions if all of you come in to work for free.
In regards to your so called good aussie companies (are they really aussie?), you know the ones that own all of our airports that were sold off and make the owners squillions whilst the customer (read me) has to pay huge amounts for using them.
You say they want to tender for ARFF services. Well the only company that has managed it in Townsville has their employees on around 15k to 20k less. So thank you dick for decreasing the wages of those who need it most in these times.
You are the one who pushed for location specific pricing and got it. What happened? The prices at the big airports got smaller and the little airports (read the backbone of GA Australia, got over inflated prices of over 1000%)
Now they have averaged it out so that small businesses do not have to pay as much. This was done because of the complaints from the businesses that you talk about.
And don’t bring up New Zealand. Go have a chat to the ARFF over there. Disgruntled workers on worse pay and conditions and a fire service that has lost a lot.
So in your theory, dick, employees take it in the a@@ whilst businesses make big savings. I am sure Mr Rudd just made a big song and dance about corporate greed. Whether you agree with him or not, the world is in a pretty bad place at the moment because of just that.
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
Oh BTW, the US has plenty of restricted areas, and a whole bunch of prohibited ones as well.
Restricted and prohibited areas are saved for firing ranges and areas of political sensitivity, they are in general very small, not great chunks of airspace along the major East Coast trunk route!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Capricorn
Age: 57
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...the RAF has it's own Air Traffic Controllers (complete with own radars etc)!!!"
I am sure that Dick doesn't know the difference between RAAF, RAF and ARFF, Scran.
He had better ask the Queen before privatising two of them though.
I am sure that Dick doesn't know the difference between RAAF, RAF and ARFF, Scran.
He had better ask the Queen before privatising two of them though.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You title the thread "big economic problems", yet dont even mention the real big costs.
eg Fuel tax. People generally pay their petrol tax because of some vague notion about paying for roads. Why does the govt tax aviation fuel to such an extent? To pay for the sky? What would be so bad about paying NO TAX on avgas? Most avgas is consumed in what amounts to essential infrastructure.
Then there are the factory outlets with runways, essential services that make profits etc etc.
Something else that has always puzzled me; who generates the changes that subsequently become "worlds best practice"? Why are some things done in the US "worlds best practice" yet other things "inefficient"? (the US mil has mil ATC, govt run ANSP etc). Who gets to be the arbiter on what things get called what?
eg Fuel tax. People generally pay their petrol tax because of some vague notion about paying for roads. Why does the govt tax aviation fuel to such an extent? To pay for the sky? What would be so bad about paying NO TAX on avgas? Most avgas is consumed in what amounts to essential infrastructure.
Then there are the factory outlets with runways, essential services that make profits etc etc.
Something else that has always puzzled me; who generates the changes that subsequently become "worlds best practice"? Why are some things done in the US "worlds best practice" yet other things "inefficient"? (the US mil has mil ATC, govt run ANSP etc). Who gets to be the arbiter on what things get called what?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Some sympathy for some of your points.
However, who championed "user pays". I seem to remember a line that went "free in G".
As for a "duplicated" ATC system, I wasn't aware that the miliitary and civil agencies provided the same service in the same piece of airspace. Which, I am sure you will agree would represent a "duplicated system". If this is not the case, would you please let us know exactly where services are "duplicated".
Some sympathy for some of your points.
However, who championed "user pays". I seem to remember a line that went "free in G".
As for a "duplicated" ATC system, I wasn't aware that the miliitary and civil agencies provided the same service in the same piece of airspace. Which, I am sure you will agree would represent a "duplicated system". If this is not the case, would you please let us know exactly where services are "duplicated".
In isolation, what Mr Smith says may (though not inarguably) have merit.
The problem is, as always, Dick will let no opportunity go by, be it the tragic deaths of people (and cynical conscription of their grieving relatives into ridiculous sideshows) to a global financial meltdown (caused by the greed and incompetence of free-marketeers whom he has trumpeted in the past) to push his own, narrow agenda.
Yes Aviation is in financial difficulty. Globally. Along with the entire capitalist system!!! Largely because of the kind of de-regulated thinking he has long espoused
Neither CASA nor ASA had anything to do with the sub-prime disaster and all it's ramifications. It had more to do with the kind of politics Dick wants to now introduce into the regulation of Aviation in Australia. The areas where this has happened so far have largely had a very negative outcome on Aviation in Australia. A couple of examples:-
1) The sell off of Australian Airports- All very market driven and justified in economic terms. It has opened up the kind of competition Dick holds so dear- unfortunately that has included competition from non-aviation sources of revenue meaning many airports have either been closed and re-developed or had a large part of their areas hived off for non-aviation use, and those that remain becoming increasingly costly to use. I do not know of one case of a general use airport being built greenfields by private enterprise. It is a classic case of an individuals right to gain the most from his investment robbing the wider community of a valuable piece of infrastructure. It is a government role to facilitate commerce, and as such it should be the government providing airports just as they provide roads and railways.
2)ATC and ASA. A relentless drive for productivity has led to a chronic shortage of staff and a collapse in moral. The real world consequence is TIBA. Zimbabwe still has 100% ATC coverage, Australia does not.
What then might some of the consequences be for Dicks other "Improvements"?
Well, lets start with RFF and Towers, and opening them up to competition. First up, will it be cheaper? Well, perhaps. Lets look at something like the free market US health system as opposed to Medicare. Cheaper, right? NOPE!!! Hideously expensive to point where 40% of Americans do not have affordable health care. Have other examples of governments ceding infrastructure to private enterprise resulted in cheaper, more efficient service? Been on a Sydney tole way recently??:?????
The other point is that these are ESSENTIAL services. You cannot set up an RFF service or a tower operation over night. So what happens next time there is a financial glitch thanks to our free-market gurus and Sams Rent-a-fiery, or Rent-a-mouth INC finds that it is over exposed to the stock market, or put next weeks pay-role into Lehman brothers, and goes broke? The financial impact of one of our major airports not being able to operate for one day would negate the savings made for decades. Think it can't happen? the name ANSETT mean anything to you??
But the major point is that it is simply not worth it. As Dick says, 100M has been spent on a fruitless reform process, largely initiated by him and his co-horts. Could we have that back please Dick? And for what? Dick, give an honest estimate as to how much regulatory costs, as a percentage, contribute to the expenses of an Aviation business. My estimate would be 5-10%, less impact than a $10 spike in a barrel of oil. So lets have a huge win and reduce those costs by 25%- now instead of 5-10% it's down to 4-8%.Cool. But at what cost? If it's ANOTHER 100M, and means exposing vital infrastructure to the vagaries of the market, it's not worth it.
If nothing else, this should teach you no to post after I'm just back from an all-nighter from Shanghai!!!!
The problem is, as always, Dick will let no opportunity go by, be it the tragic deaths of people (and cynical conscription of their grieving relatives into ridiculous sideshows) to a global financial meltdown (caused by the greed and incompetence of free-marketeers whom he has trumpeted in the past) to push his own, narrow agenda.
Yes Aviation is in financial difficulty. Globally. Along with the entire capitalist system!!! Largely because of the kind of de-regulated thinking he has long espoused
Neither CASA nor ASA had anything to do with the sub-prime disaster and all it's ramifications. It had more to do with the kind of politics Dick wants to now introduce into the regulation of Aviation in Australia. The areas where this has happened so far have largely had a very negative outcome on Aviation in Australia. A couple of examples:-
1) The sell off of Australian Airports- All very market driven and justified in economic terms. It has opened up the kind of competition Dick holds so dear- unfortunately that has included competition from non-aviation sources of revenue meaning many airports have either been closed and re-developed or had a large part of their areas hived off for non-aviation use, and those that remain becoming increasingly costly to use. I do not know of one case of a general use airport being built greenfields by private enterprise. It is a classic case of an individuals right to gain the most from his investment robbing the wider community of a valuable piece of infrastructure. It is a government role to facilitate commerce, and as such it should be the government providing airports just as they provide roads and railways.
2)ATC and ASA. A relentless drive for productivity has led to a chronic shortage of staff and a collapse in moral. The real world consequence is TIBA. Zimbabwe still has 100% ATC coverage, Australia does not.
What then might some of the consequences be for Dicks other "Improvements"?
Well, lets start with RFF and Towers, and opening them up to competition. First up, will it be cheaper? Well, perhaps. Lets look at something like the free market US health system as opposed to Medicare. Cheaper, right? NOPE!!! Hideously expensive to point where 40% of Americans do not have affordable health care. Have other examples of governments ceding infrastructure to private enterprise resulted in cheaper, more efficient service? Been on a Sydney tole way recently??:?????
The other point is that these are ESSENTIAL services. You cannot set up an RFF service or a tower operation over night. So what happens next time there is a financial glitch thanks to our free-market gurus and Sams Rent-a-fiery, or Rent-a-mouth INC finds that it is over exposed to the stock market, or put next weeks pay-role into Lehman brothers, and goes broke? The financial impact of one of our major airports not being able to operate for one day would negate the savings made for decades. Think it can't happen? the name ANSETT mean anything to you??
But the major point is that it is simply not worth it. As Dick says, 100M has been spent on a fruitless reform process, largely initiated by him and his co-horts. Could we have that back please Dick? And for what? Dick, give an honest estimate as to how much regulatory costs, as a percentage, contribute to the expenses of an Aviation business. My estimate would be 5-10%, less impact than a $10 spike in a barrel of oil. So lets have a huge win and reduce those costs by 25%- now instead of 5-10% it's down to 4-8%.Cool. But at what cost? If it's ANOTHER 100M, and means exposing vital infrastructure to the vagaries of the market, it's not worth it.
If nothing else, this should teach you no to post after I'm just back from an all-nighter from Shanghai!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put together there Dick. Of course all that you wrote is just your personal opinions as is everyone elses in here. The trouble is what is actually right & wrong with the way we run aviation in this country? Again any asnwer is just personal opinons. Worlds best practice? Why can't we (Aus) be worlds best practice? I wouldn't look to the states for advice, they can hardly manage their own economy never lone aviation as a stand alone industry.
Safety the root basis for all costs outside of DOC's comes under the heading of 'afforable safety', where do we draw the line in the sand with that one? That line moves with progress & progress isn't always for the best.
'ferris' that's a good point why do we need to pay fuel tax on avgas etc?
Because ALL taxes end up in the melting pot to be used as the Govt of the day sees fit, aviation fuel tax is a real gravy train for the Govt.
Still overall I agree that this country is in a fair bit of trouble as is the worlds economics but the degree of it's severity is based upon how well the humans of this planet know of it in the first place. That can only come from the media, now there in lies a real can of worms!
CW
Safety the root basis for all costs outside of DOC's comes under the heading of 'afforable safety', where do we draw the line in the sand with that one? That line moves with progress & progress isn't always for the best.
'ferris' that's a good point why do we need to pay fuel tax on avgas etc?
Because ALL taxes end up in the melting pot to be used as the Govt of the day sees fit, aviation fuel tax is a real gravy train for the Govt.
Still overall I agree that this country is in a fair bit of trouble as is the worlds economics but the degree of it's severity is based upon how well the humans of this planet know of it in the first place. That can only come from the media, now there in lies a real can of worms!
CW
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Horse Trailer
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the changes will be made when it is too late and the industry is basically destroyed?
The alternative is to keep patching and hoping for the best, something that's been going on in aviation for a long time now.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just going to pick on the oxygen thing.
Human performance decreases with decreased oxygen in the the blood - a pO2 of <90% produces measurable decreases in performance similar to intoxication or fatigue. Most non-smokers without lung disease are at this level at 10,000'. Smokers and those with lung disease are at worse levels and the effects are cumulative with fatigue etc.
The effects of hypoxia are felt on night vision at even lower altitudes.
The reason the USA have the 12,000 limit to allow non-pressurised aircraft get over the highest parts ofthe Rockies, ans was intended only to be used for the period of time required for terrain clearance. I believe there was considerable pressure from AOPA USA (correct me if I'm wrong) on this "relaxed" level, but there is not good medical reasoning behind it.
STC'ed portable oxygen sets are not expensive and will save themselves in fuel costs fairly quickly and small pulse oximeters are available for ~ $400. I regularly fly in the flight levels SE IFR on portable O2 and find it comfortable and covenient. BTW pax don't need to share in it <FL140!
I agree with much of the rest of Dick's posting and addiotionally mourn the decrease in access to airports for GA as a result of privatisation of what is essential transport infrastructure.
Human performance decreases with decreased oxygen in the the blood - a pO2 of <90% produces measurable decreases in performance similar to intoxication or fatigue. Most non-smokers without lung disease are at this level at 10,000'. Smokers and those with lung disease are at worse levels and the effects are cumulative with fatigue etc.
The effects of hypoxia are felt on night vision at even lower altitudes.
The reason the USA have the 12,000 limit to allow non-pressurised aircraft get over the highest parts ofthe Rockies, ans was intended only to be used for the period of time required for terrain clearance. I believe there was considerable pressure from AOPA USA (correct me if I'm wrong) on this "relaxed" level, but there is not good medical reasoning behind it.
STC'ed portable oxygen sets are not expensive and will save themselves in fuel costs fairly quickly and small pulse oximeters are available for ~ $400. I regularly fly in the flight levels SE IFR on portable O2 and find it comfortable and covenient. BTW pax don't need to share in it <FL140!
I agree with much of the rest of Dick's posting and addiotionally mourn the decrease in access to airports for GA as a result of privatisation of what is essential transport infrastructure.