Merged: Aviation White Paper

[tasdevil.f27]

Be interesting to see who will be paying for the security screening at regional airports, be some airports that would struggle to afford the equipment without greatly increasing fees. The increases would be passed onto the airline & passenger, but how would some of the marginal routes survive increased prices?

There must be some sort of balance between security & loss of service to a community. Will the government be subsidising these regional airports???

[my oleo is extended]

Return Of The Swiss Cheese

I think the return of silver cutlery is excellent.Onbaord snacks of swiss cheese taste much more delightful eaten with silver cutlery, not to mention the contrast between the cheese and the silverware, it's a beautiful sight.
Actually, Albanese rhymes with cheese, perhaps there is some sort of subliminal message in the policy ??

[MsBuster]

My Oleo - nice one!

[LeadSled]

Pedota et al,

For all you train enthusiasts, just have a look at the actual size of Australia, versus western Europe. Most of the "original EEC", western Europe plus UK and Ireland, with a few bits hanging out the edges, will fit in NSW and Victoria.

The whole of the UK, plus bits of France, Belgium and Ireland, fit on two "half million" charts.

Then have a look at the EU population density= potential train passengers.

The capital cost plus running costs, compared to any reasonable expectations of revenue, just doesn't fit. Not to mention the Ryanair or Easyjet fares compared to current EU train fares, despite outrageous taxpayer subsidies for rail in most European countries, and increasingly discriminatory taxes on airlines.

As the man from Boeing said:"3000m of rail line gets you 3000m, 3000m of runways gets you anywhere".

I rather think aeroplanes are going to be around in Australia for a while yet.

Tootle pip!!

[Fueldrum]

another problem with railroading

Why do we assume that railroading is good for the environment?
According to Countrylink’s website their typical trains (the xplorer class) use 1600 litres of diesel per carriage per 1600 km. That carriage typically has a dozen or so people on it.
From this it will be seen that the typical fuel consumption is around 8 litres per passenger per 100km. That’s no better than a typical family car. It’s worse for the environment that a typical passenger aeroplane. If you increase the speed of the train you will correspondingly increase the fuel consumption and emissions. Double the speed and you will need four times the horsepower.
So a long-range high-speed train offers
1. Less convenience
2. More pollution
3. More cost
And for what?
For politicians to look like they’re doing something decisive and responsible and far-sighted. It’s a shame we no longer have transport specialist journalists in the mainstream press.

[gobbledock]

Planes,Trains And Automobiles

Fueldrum -

That’s no better than a typical family car. It’s worse for the environment that a typical passenger aeroplane.

But,family cars vary. For example there is the Toyota Yaris and Honda Civic,then you have Jaguar V12 and the Chevy Silverado !!
Perhaps the family dirive a 1981 XD Falcon with a clagged 6 in it with white paint work and a fat orange pin stripe,complete with 'car bog and chicken wire' body repair which may add weight to the vehicle, hinder road performance and increase fuel and oil burn ?
Too many variables to consider, I think !

[busdriver007]

Blow up your arse......

Again you seem to be living in a vacuum.....The Sale Act Case was and will always be a dead end.....Get off your arse and look at your navel because without a united approach noone will ever stand a chance....Qantas are running on empty they are clutching at straws...Mr Oldmeadow has run out of ideas.....when will the pilots understand...

[Fueldrum]

Too many variables to consider, I think !

There are always heaps of variables. Just use a range of reasonable assumptions.

The important point to understand is that high-speed rail is not inherently better for the atmosphere than flying, especially if the distance to be covered is long. Voters and "activists" in Australia assume that trains are cleaner than planes, but they're not.

[Frank Arouet]

The primary focus of rail is it's ability to carry hugh loads of freight, which it does more economically than road or air.

Only sea freight can compare in any way.

Passenger rail travel used to be a novelty, even romantic. Today it is a poorly maintained nightmare mainly used by pensioners with travel vouchers.

If God wanted trains to travel at 250 KPH he would have given them wings.

[Fueldrum]

The primary focus of rail is it's ability to carry huge loads of freight, which it does more economically than road or air.

True, but only if freight owners choose to use the rail system. They won't choose to use freight trains if they are unreliable and inefficient. Currently the passenger trains with their outdated and poorly maintained engines have priority in rail traffic control; freight trains often wait so many hours for a late passenger train to pass that they can't make it to their destination on schedule.

If we got rid of long-distance passenger trains we could run the freight trains on time, so freight owners wouldn't be so reluctant to use them. It's a shame that so few voter/taxpayers realise this; we need transport specialist journalists back in the mainstream press

If God wanted trains to travel at 250 KPH he would have given them wings.

Said like a true pilot!! And very true!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

...did anyone catch the bunfight between Truss and Albanese today? Truss rightly argues that someone has to pay for all this gear at those regional airports and Albanese attempts to make Truss sound out of touch because paying passengers are missing out on being scrutinesed like on the jets and feeling like second class citizens because they only got to fly on a propellor aircraft instead of a jet???? Albanese does not see the immense costs involved in setting up at each individual regional aerodrome....like Longreach or Blackall or Toowoomba...someone has to pay for the gear and a shed to put it in!

[Worrals in the wilds]

I think it's more that he doesn't care where the money comes from. Government types never do.
Remind me again why anyone would want to blow up Blackall Airshed or a half empty turboprop when Westfield Chermside is full of thousands of happy infidels, has no entry security and front doors you could literally drive a semi trailer through.

[gobbledock]

Knitting Revival

WOW. Now who said Australian Aviation wasn't moving in a forward direction ??

Security screening changes to take effect on Xmas Day: Albanese
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
From: The Australian December 23, 2009 12:00AM

Airlines had expressed concern that the process for introducing the changes might be drawn out and said last week they were already receiving complaints from confused passengers.
But Mr Albanese said the modified regulations, announced in last week's aviation white paper, would come into effect on Christmas Day after the Governor-General yesterday approved the changes.
The changes also allow tennis racquets on as cabin baggage and will let airlines offer metal cutlery. This brings Australia into line with the US, Israel, Canada, Europe, NZ and Singapore.
Items still prohibited include knives, firearms, letter openers, scissors, baseball and cricket bats, golf clubs and hockey sticks.
People are also not allowed to take their own metal cutlery through airport screening points.

Mr Albanese said the government was working to introduce early next year new regulations that would allow passengers to leave duty-free liquids on board an aircraft during international transit stops. This would allow them to buy duty free in Australia without the risk of it being confiscated by security at a transit stop.

If the Taxpayer throws another $200 million into the kitty, we may even get the following -

• Mandatory $5.00 meal tickets for flights delayed more than 6 hours.
• An extra set of '3 orange marker cones' at each Regional Airport, for use on apron works.
• An extra layer of barbed wire around most Regional Airports 18 cm high security fences.
• Complimentary Wool, to go with Nana's knitting needles while waiting for the standard delayed NTL flight.

Some personal favourites from this folly filled exercise which should be re-named The ****e Paper :

The changes also allow tennis racquets on as cabin baggage and will let airlines offer metal cutlery.

TRANSPORT Minister Anthony Albanese has moved quickly to introduce security screening changes that will allow items such as knitting needles, crochet hooks and nail clippers on flights.

Mr Albanese said the government was working to introduce early next year new regulations that would allow passengers to leave duty-free liquids on board an aircraft during international transit stops. This would allow them to buy duty free in Australia without the risk of it being confiscated by security at a transit stop.

Great sense of humour these Politicians..........

[YPJT]

With current aircraft the airports I see in WA getting caught up in this are Esperance, Albany, Geraldton, Carnarvon, Shark Bay and Kablarri which according to the Skywest schedule has one service a week. I can really see a cost benefit installing a million bucks worth of screening equipment and associated infrastrucure for that.

The last round of regional CBS cost the government something like 16 million bucks for the 29 airports and many of them only received partial funding as the grants were based on pax numbers. Even if these turbo prop serviced airports do get full funding, unless the government moves the goalposts from the last exercise, it will only be for the capital equipment purchase and not the required infrastructure changes to their terminal buildings.

As for the relaxation on restricted items in the cabin, I am overjoyed at once again being able to do my knitting on board. Not to mention carry my umbrella that will be immensly useful inside the cabin. But best of all, on those longer flights, we can string a net across the aisle and have a hit of tennis or badminton.

I guess the minister did as much as he could in terms of allowing some of the more harmless items to be allowed on board.

[bilbert]

What do you expect from a Minister for eh um (Aviation?) who only sees aviation from the viewpoint of a passenger on a B737?. That's his only qualification for the job!

[gobbledock]

White Paper Update

White Paper Update

Rudd government's white paper lashed as lacking vision

• Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
• From: The Australian
• February 05, 2010 12:00AM

THE aviation industry has been urged to become more vocal about the "wasted opportunity" of the Rudd government's white paper and the need for more recognition of the sector.
With the dust settled after the pre-Christmas release of the paper, criticism of the document's lack of vision is bubbling to the surface from several quarters.
The Australian Aviation Associations Forum this week released a communique on behalf of six aviation groups expressing disappointment with the paper.
The groups -- the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia, the Australian Airports Association, the Australian Business Aircraft Association, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia and the Aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Business Association -- represent thousands of workers and operators nationally. While acknowledging the value of the federal government's decision to launch the policy review and the fact it was an historic first, the groups said it had missed a great opportunity to establish more aviation jobs in Australia and help the industry deliver better services.
They labelled the white paper "little more than a description of the past and present initiatives with little or no vision for the future".

It did little to address government costs imposed on the industry and nothing to paint a vision of a vibrant and growing aviation industry in a similar way to that of Brazil and Canada.
The aviation groups highlighted seven areas of particular concern, including a lack of government engagement with the industry, a failure to recognise the importance of aviation infrastructure to the nation and a lack of rationale for security measures.
They criticised the government's failure to detail how it would address the long-term aviation skills shortage and an urgent need for improvements in the aviation industry.
They were also worried about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's regulatory reform schedule and its consultation, as well as government cost impositions and their lack of consistency.
A spokeswoman for federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese rejected the criticism, saying the white paper had more than 130 recommendations on the way forward that the government was considering.
She said the government had consulted extensively with the industry on the document and noted that several industry players, including the major airlines, had not supported the communique.
"There were well over 500 submissions from the industry as well as the broader community, to the aviation white paper," the spokeswoman said.
"The white paper stresses the importance that aviation has, not only for transport but for the economy, and what we have done for the first time is bring together various aspects and developed a comprehensive national aviation policy."
The government was supported by the 100,000-member Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, which said the paper represented "the most significant policy initiative by this or previous governments for many years".
The confederation said the white paper, which was not intended as a detailed position paper but a basis for ongoing discussion, development and initiative.
"This paper makes clear that the government is taking responsibility for strategic planning for the aviation industry and it behoves the industry to respond and become directly involved in the evolution and implementation of these strategies," the group said.
Industry veteran Peter Lloyd also defended the white paper as a step forward and urged industry members to take advantage of it.
But the regional airline umbrella group criticised it as an "underwhelming experience" .
"Make no mistake, the white paper is a wasted opportunity," RAAA chief executive Paul Tyrrell said. "Anybody who was involved in the discussion and green paper responses knows that the industry was looking for dynamic government leadership."
Mr Tyrrell said very few of the ideas contained in industry submissions had made it into the white paper.
"Many in the industry thought there was always a 50-50 chance the white paper would provide little progressive direction for the Australian aviation industry," he said. "Now that has been confirmed, it is up to the industry to chart its own course."
Mr Tyrrell said the RAAA was not sulking about the government's response but urging the industry to take control of its own future.
The government had made it clear aviation was a "pretty low" priority. Issues included pilot and engineering shortages, the Henry tax review's impact on investment, the strengthening resource sector and replacements for ageing small regional aircraft.
Airports association chief executive Ken Keech said little in the white paper was innovative and it had disappointed industry expectations.
The industry had taken the exercise seriously and had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on submissions.
Many of the submissions contained ideas that were worthy of recognition and further consideration, and the government should explain why this did not occur.
Mr Keech also questioned the fact that 51 of the 230 pages in the white paper were devoted to airports over which the government exercised a great deal of control.
New weight-based security screening requirements for regional airports could sound the death knell of many regional services because of increased costs to regional communities.
It was up to the industry to get involved in the regulatory consultative process and airports would be meeting this month for discussions.
Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said only eight pages of the white paper were devoted to general aviation and the government had underestimated the number of people in the industry.
Mr Hurst said the paper had left the industry no clearer about the government's long-term intentions and there should have been more industry involvement in the process.
"It's all very well to ask for submissions but that's not engagement, that's a process," he said.
"Real engagement comes from sitting down and talking to people about what their aspirations are. We've had none of that from this government." Mr Hurst said issues he wanted addressed included HECS funding for pilot training, support for manufacturing, and accelerating CASA's long-term move to outcome-based regulation for non-passenger carriers.
The lack of ministerial engagement may be a function of the portfolio being too big, he said.

[Frank Arouet]

This from Avweb, Feb 08/2010.

Pretty well sums up the end result in Australia;

TSA To Leave Most GA Security To GA?



Reports surfaced Friday that the TSA is backing off of plans to create regulations proposed in 2008 that would have required operators of general aviation aircraft to provide special security measures and screen people and cargo. The agency is now said to be leaning toward leaving security mostly to the judgment of pilots and operators. According to NPR, the general aviation industry, an industry "worth $150 billion a year," sent regulators "thousands of complaints." As a result, the TSA has concluded it will make better progress working with the industry than moving ahead with a "combative back and forth." In a revised security plan expected this fall, the TSA is now expected to increase the size of aircraft that must adhere to stricter regulation (presumably above the previously suggested 12,500 pound limit) and leave the security of smaller aircraft largely in the hands of the pilots who fly them. News reports Friday stated that the changes would spare hundreds of smaller airports from the burdens of costly security programs, personnel and equipment.


The TSA had originally thought to create security regulations for smaller airports and aircraft through the logic that improved security at the airlines would drive potential evil-doers to smaller, less-regulated aircraft. However, industry advocates responded that the personal nature of general aviation was, in itself, a level of security and that regulation would add cost burdens and inconveniences, crippling the industry without adding significant security benefits.