Air Link (Rex) ceases RPT operations
Now if it was the ABC Child Care Centre out the back of Bourke then the KRudd government would be throwing cash at it like it was going out of fashion, but essential air services to remote communities put that in the too hard basket.
I heard on Melbourne radio recently some dim witted politician saying that the collapse of the ABC Child Care Centres was the greatest crisis facing Australia and was far more significant than the collapse and eventual demise of Ansett and this would impact on real people. I thought that about sums up the clown running the country very nicely.
With that outlook what hope has GA and small regional airline companies got!
I heard on Melbourne radio recently some dim witted politician saying that the collapse of the ABC Child Care Centres was the greatest crisis facing Australia and was far more significant than the collapse and eventual demise of Ansett and this would impact on real people. I thought that about sums up the clown running the country very nicely.
With that outlook what hope has GA and small regional airline companies got!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call me naive and ill-informed, but there are two things that the governments in their various forms and responsibilities should look at. First is the issue of subsidies and second is the RPT regulations.
Subsidies are going to the wrong crowd. Certainly in modern times, subsidies have gone to the large operator based in a capital city with the purpose of serving rural communities. Rural communities are absolutely essential to Australia's trade. Mining and agriculture are two areas where any other country finds Australia an extremely difficult competitor. In the future, Australia's competitiveness in these areas, by geography alone, will only enhance its lead. Rural aviation subsidies are going to the large operators based in the cities. There are many valid reasons behind this, but on the flip side, much of the money (both subsidy and fares from rural areas) transfers or stays in the cities and not in the rural communities where it should be going. I can’t recall the figures off the top of my head, but seem to remember something about $1 earned in a community creates something like $13 in flow-on effects. To a significant extent, so-called rural aviation subsidies seem to be a misnomer for metropolitan aviation subsidies.
Which brings me to the second part of the argument about RPT regulations. I harp on this subject, but RPT regulations in Australia are geared towards airline protectionism. In this case, airlines based in the major cities. Many of the rural areas don’t have the passenger numbers to support a full-blown RPT operation, but the regulations nevertheless prohibit a more flexible, enhanced and locally-based charter operation. An argument might be made that the regional communities can’t attract pilots and engineers. As a counter, there are quite a few ag operators in these areas already with qualified pilots, engineers and ground staff. I think many of us would be surprised at the level of innovation if the rural aviation industry was given a go.
I don’t mean this as a panacea, but as a suggestion. I think many aviation industry professionals are at a loss in how to encourage change. Local governments have enormous pull with the state and federal governments. At the same time, local government officials only know what they know. Have a chat with your local council members and bring some suggestions to the table.
Subsidies are going to the wrong crowd. Certainly in modern times, subsidies have gone to the large operator based in a capital city with the purpose of serving rural communities. Rural communities are absolutely essential to Australia's trade. Mining and agriculture are two areas where any other country finds Australia an extremely difficult competitor. In the future, Australia's competitiveness in these areas, by geography alone, will only enhance its lead. Rural aviation subsidies are going to the large operators based in the cities. There are many valid reasons behind this, but on the flip side, much of the money (both subsidy and fares from rural areas) transfers or stays in the cities and not in the rural communities where it should be going. I can’t recall the figures off the top of my head, but seem to remember something about $1 earned in a community creates something like $13 in flow-on effects. To a significant extent, so-called rural aviation subsidies seem to be a misnomer for metropolitan aviation subsidies.
Which brings me to the second part of the argument about RPT regulations. I harp on this subject, but RPT regulations in Australia are geared towards airline protectionism. In this case, airlines based in the major cities. Many of the rural areas don’t have the passenger numbers to support a full-blown RPT operation, but the regulations nevertheless prohibit a more flexible, enhanced and locally-based charter operation. An argument might be made that the regional communities can’t attract pilots and engineers. As a counter, there are quite a few ag operators in these areas already with qualified pilots, engineers and ground staff. I think many of us would be surprised at the level of innovation if the rural aviation industry was given a go.
I don’t mean this as a panacea, but as a suggestion. I think many aviation industry professionals are at a loss in how to encourage change. Local governments have enormous pull with the state and federal governments. At the same time, local government officials only know what they know. Have a chat with your local council members and bring some suggestions to the table.
Last edited by Lodown; 16th Dec 2008 at 01:42.
Should go back to the good old days of Reg 203 operations.
Lot of dollars to justify all the crap Casa want, when you are only flying a single route twice a day.
Unfortunately the Casa policy of one size fits all, may apply to Qantas and Virgin but doesn't suit the smaller operators.
Lot of dollars to justify all the crap Casa want, when you are only flying a single route twice a day.
Unfortunately the Casa policy of one size fits all, may apply to Qantas and Virgin but doesn't suit the smaller operators.
