Forum for free speech on industry: AAAF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forum for free speech on industry: AAAF
Article In The Australian -
A DIVERSE group of aviation industry players has formed a new body aimed at providing a more unified response to government moves to introduce operational changes.
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, informally tagged The Forum, involves aviation groups representing sectors of the industry ranging from agricultural and recreational pilots to engineers and airlines. It hopes to provide governments with an independent sounding board on policy issues.
It has already met several times and the issues within its sights include changes to general aviation aerodrome procedures (GAAP) airports, regulatory reform and the lack of government support for aviation manufacturing.
AAAF chairman and former Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning said the organisation had been started because there was no forum that was not government sponsored where the operational sector of aviation could talk.
Mr Manning said The Forum aimed to foster free and open communication between aviation groups across the country and overcome an industry culture where "no one agrees on anything and everyone believes there's an ulterior motive for everything".
"Which, of course, is insane, but that's just the way they think," he said.
"So it was envisaged that this would be a Chatham House rule forum where all the people can talk. That way, at least when CASA or government came up with some scheme ... we can at least sit down and say what's our response.
"Individual groups might still have different responses but at least they can talk among themselves."
Chatham House rules allow participants to use information raised but not identify individuals or their organisations.
Mr Manning said it was envisaged that the group would meet four or five times a year in Canberra and that it would limit itself to operational, rather than commercial, issues.
He said The Forum had also made its presence known to Transport Minister Anthony Albanese's office and that Transport Department head Mike Mrdak had been invited to address the next meeting in November.
"I think that's appropriate, he said. "They've invited him to come and have a chat -- not a speech, just a chat -- about where he sees it going and what problems the industry has."
This is not the first attempt to establish a national aviation forum and an attempt to form a lobby group similar to those representing farmers and tourism, the Australian Aviation Council (Ausac), fell flat because it could not get everyone on board.
Mr Manning said The Forum would be self-funded and did not intend to be another National Farmers Federation or Australian Medical Association.
He said the meeting would not respond publicly to issues unless there was agreement among members and it would be more of a co-ordinating body rather than a lobby group.
"It's not for me to stand up and deliver impassioned speeches about GAAP," he said. "It's for all these groups to go away and say we all agree with this so we'll all write a letter."
The Forum chairman conceded that the group could eventually take on more of a lobbying role but that would be a decision its members would have to make.
"What I've said is crawl first and then walk and then run," he said, adding that he believed Ausac failed because it wanted to do too much too soon.
A DIVERSE group of aviation industry players has formed a new body aimed at providing a more unified response to government moves to introduce operational changes.
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum, informally tagged The Forum, involves aviation groups representing sectors of the industry ranging from agricultural and recreational pilots to engineers and airlines. It hopes to provide governments with an independent sounding board on policy issues.
It has already met several times and the issues within its sights include changes to general aviation aerodrome procedures (GAAP) airports, regulatory reform and the lack of government support for aviation manufacturing.
AAAF chairman and former Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning said the organisation had been started because there was no forum that was not government sponsored where the operational sector of aviation could talk.
Mr Manning said The Forum aimed to foster free and open communication between aviation groups across the country and overcome an industry culture where "no one agrees on anything and everyone believes there's an ulterior motive for everything".
"Which, of course, is insane, but that's just the way they think," he said.
"So it was envisaged that this would be a Chatham House rule forum where all the people can talk. That way, at least when CASA or government came up with some scheme ... we can at least sit down and say what's our response.
"Individual groups might still have different responses but at least they can talk among themselves."
Chatham House rules allow participants to use information raised but not identify individuals or their organisations.
Mr Manning said it was envisaged that the group would meet four or five times a year in Canberra and that it would limit itself to operational, rather than commercial, issues.
He said The Forum had also made its presence known to Transport Minister Anthony Albanese's office and that Transport Department head Mike Mrdak had been invited to address the next meeting in November.
"I think that's appropriate, he said. "They've invited him to come and have a chat -- not a speech, just a chat -- about where he sees it going and what problems the industry has."
This is not the first attempt to establish a national aviation forum and an attempt to form a lobby group similar to those representing farmers and tourism, the Australian Aviation Council (Ausac), fell flat because it could not get everyone on board.
Mr Manning said The Forum would be self-funded and did not intend to be another National Farmers Federation or Australian Medical Association.
He said the meeting would not respond publicly to issues unless there was agreement among members and it would be more of a co-ordinating body rather than a lobby group.
"It's not for me to stand up and deliver impassioned speeches about GAAP," he said. "It's for all these groups to go away and say we all agree with this so we'll all write a letter."
The Forum chairman conceded that the group could eventually take on more of a lobbying role but that would be a decision its members would have to make.
"What I've said is crawl first and then walk and then run," he said, adding that he believed Ausac failed because it wanted to do too much too soon.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intersting spin. While I wish them luck, given all the competing views they will need more than luck.
QUOTE: "the Australian Aviation Council (Ausac), fell flat because it could not get everyone on board. "
Including Mr Manning and QANTAS from what I remember.
QUOTE: 'What I've said is crawl first and then walk and then run," he said, adding that he believed Ausac failed because it wanted to do too much too soon. "
Ausac failed because they really didn't do anything and were seen as ineffectual. Lots of people just like Mr Manning decided that they (in this case read QANTAS) would represent only their own secular interests.
QUOTE: "the Australian Aviation Council (Ausac), fell flat because it could not get everyone on board. "
Including Mr Manning and QANTAS from what I remember.
QUOTE: 'What I've said is crawl first and then walk and then run," he said, adding that he believed Ausac failed because it wanted to do too much too soon. "
Ausac failed because they really didn't do anything and were seen as ineffectual. Lots of people just like Mr Manning decided that they (in this case read QANTAS) would represent only their own secular interests.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rudder to Starboard !
Rudder,I couldnt agree more my friend !!
I started the thread because the article was in The Australian and starting to 'take off' so to speak, and I am curious as to what all us aviation punters think about this latest community development/discussion proposal ?
In the end, talk is cheap, so it will be interesting to see where it all goes. Plus the article made me nervous when I read the term 'lobbyist' mentioned a few times!! Lobbying for a large fee perhaps ??
Lets just hope that if the gig kicks off, the forum is used for genuine reasons and discussions rather than everybody beating each other up !!
I started the thread because the article was in The Australian and starting to 'take off' so to speak, and I am curious as to what all us aviation punters think about this latest community development/discussion proposal ?
In the end, talk is cheap, so it will be interesting to see where it all goes. Plus the article made me nervous when I read the term 'lobbyist' mentioned a few times!! Lobbying for a large fee perhaps ??
Lets just hope that if the gig kicks off, the forum is used for genuine reasons and discussions rather than everybody beating each other up !!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Cactus.
Unfortunately I must admit that after watching the AUSAC fiasco directlyand I am not for one minute saying that Mr. Manning was the only one that came out with the fact that they were not interested having any voice but thier own represent them. You had other organisations like AOPA essentially saying that they in fact represented aviation. (at that point, internally they were just acting like rabble but seem to have moved on which is good).
It is however now interesting to heare Mr. Manning saying there could be a representative organisation. I agree you must be concerned when the word lobbying is sprouted. Lobbying in whose interest I would ask.
After your intro from now on I'll sign off
Rudder: Keeping it balanced!
Unfortunately I must admit that after watching the AUSAC fiasco directlyand I am not for one minute saying that Mr. Manning was the only one that came out with the fact that they were not interested having any voice but thier own represent them. You had other organisations like AOPA essentially saying that they in fact represented aviation. (at that point, internally they were just acting like rabble but seem to have moved on which is good).
It is however now interesting to heare Mr. Manning saying there could be a representative organisation. I agree you must be concerned when the word lobbying is sprouted. Lobbying in whose interest I would ask.
After your intro from now on I'll sign off
Rudder: Keeping it balanced!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Australian Aviation Industry Association (AAIA) worked well during the late 80's and early 90's as a representative organisation until AOPA took a new direction in about 95 and pulled out. One of its base rules was that any comments it made had to have the sign-off off ALL the members, otherwise it would be silent on that issue. Seemed to work ok, however it did have the support of the then airline industry, who in fact provided the secretarial support and venue/s for meetings. (I always remember the then AAIA Chairman leading a walk out of a meeting in CBR with the CAA over proposed charges. CAA returned with new proposals within a day!!!)
AUSAC tried to raise the same flag, but as said previously it floundered as some of the key members of the industry thought they could do better alone. Funding was also an issue. Their aim was to copy the Farmers Federation, but sadly the aviation industry is full of self interest and ego's and although it had merit, it was always going to be very difficult.
Aviation in Australia needs a representative body more than anything else but sadly I can't see that occurring any time soon, unless of course there is some significant matter that brings them all together (as if there is not enough of those already!)
Good luck to this new venture, they will need it.....
AUSAC tried to raise the same flag, but as said previously it floundered as some of the key members of the industry thought they could do better alone. Funding was also an issue. Their aim was to copy the Farmers Federation, but sadly the aviation industry is full of self interest and ego's and although it had merit, it was always going to be very difficult.
Aviation in Australia needs a representative body more than anything else but sadly I can't see that occurring any time soon, unless of course there is some significant matter that brings them all together (as if there is not enough of those already!)
Good luck to this new venture, they will need it.....
