Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

The $89.9m question

Old 23rd Jun 2014, 03:50
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
A "productivity bonus" when applied to an industry equals more production of the manufactured goods which equals more profit for the Industrialist and his shareholders, more tax paid and more employment because the industry flourishes, the Country flourishes and governments flourish with more cash to spend on their constituents.

A "productivity bonus" when applied to a Bureaucracy equals more paperwork, more prosecutions for regulatory offences, more fines, more tax, more people employed to oversee those in the lower levels of the triangle, more costs to industry, more government burden, less money to spend on constituents, oh! and more trips to overseas troughs, 5 star hotels and first class travel.

In "the real world, if the bloke up the road is doing better than you in his fish and chip shop, you either give a better product, give a better service or drop your prices.

In the "fairyland" of fort fumble if you aren't making enough money, you simply put your prices up because you have a monopoly or ask the government to give you more to keep your little empire going. Some governments waste money pandering to these parasites, some more than others.

In both cases money is finite. I guess it's how you spend it.

Dick is a good bloke, he's already said he doesn't want into this theatre of fools any more, but tell us Pete, what would YOU do?

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 23rd Jun 2014 at 04:02. Reason: Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 05:44
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
I would dispute the so called 37,000 licenced pilots. A more accurate figure would be the number of medicals renewed each year., an awful lot of that 37,000 are inactive licenses, and I am informed anecdotally that the number decreases each year as does the number of aircraft that actively fly.
From a business perspective hours flown per year have steadily declined, one would have expected CAsA numbers to reflect that decline in the industry. It would seem that the law of diminishing returns applies to CAsA.

Which begs the question " What happens to CAsA when there is no industry left to surpress?

Last edited by thorn bird; 23rd Jun 2014 at 07:58.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 10:01
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 559
Which begs the question " What happens to CAsA when there is no industry left to surpress?
The parasite finds a new host. In this case maybe AMSA or NOPSEMA. There is always a regulatory vein to leech from Thorny
004wercras is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 10:39
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Yeah but 850 incompetents???
thorn bird is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2014, 11:53
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 54
Posts: 697
It's not just the figure of 850, it's the growth of 25% over four years.

You'd think with technology like the CASA Self Service Portal it would save jobs because you need fewer people answering phones and updating details.

What about all the functions, such as Testing Officers, delegated out to industry.

Don't forget the consultants and law firms assisting with legislative changes.

What are all of these people doing?

Tell you what, I'd like to meet the guy who writes the CASA budget submissions and gets them this type of funding. He must be good.
peterc005 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2014, 08:40
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 999
mail room
If it landed in the CAsA mail room and was not signed for, they will deny all knowledge of it.
601 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2014, 10:28
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,935
I thought the fuel tax was removed as it was deemed unfair and the cost of operation could be lowered by removing a unecessary tax on operation. I am 'suprised' that we still have a fuel tax which somehow CASA gets to spend.
Neville N,
Let's get a few facts straight, shall we.
Don't make a target of me for a fraction of a cent, but the then levy on Avgas only (which meant no turbine operator paid anything) was largely to subsidize secondary airport towers.

As I recall, the total levy was 15.2 cents per litre, of which 13.8 cents went to Airservices, the rest went to CAA/CASA ---- avgas only, no turbine operator paid, so Dick paid nothing at his home base (he always made it VERY clear that he thought this was most unfair), no significant airline paid a cent.

Absolutely nothing to do with towers at secondary or the occasional smaller towered airports, some time later an excise was levied on ALL domestic aviation fuel use, and most of the funds went to CASA. Instead of further jacking up CASA service chargers, plus consolidated revenue, CASA received a steady income, with the kero burners and avgas users all paying.

The nature of this excise, and it use, is completely different to the one Dick had removed.

It was never fair, that GA outside the major cities (the major part of GA) got slugged 13.8 cents per litre for avgas, for a service they never or rarely received, so a few operators at the capital city secondary airports received services at a cost far below the cost of the service ---- and turbine operators paid nothing at all for the services.

Indeed, I used to have some figures for avgas sales, to show who paid and who got the heavily subsidized ( by out-of- towners), as I recall, (about 1996??) about 80% of sales were NOT at capital city secondary airports (air ag. were big users).

Now I keep hearing people complain about landing charges that are paid to the airport operator, nothing to do with an excise, although I will say that the, in my opinion, dirty deal between AsA and Archerfield is very naughty, as I understand it, you wind up paying an AsA component, even if the tower is closed?

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2014, 00:03
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383

Who gets the levee at BK?. It's now cheaper to buy Jet A at Bourke than Bankstown.

If the airport fees weren't so high, it would certainly be cheaper to ferry to Mascot to pick up fuel.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2014, 01:48
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Age: 55
Posts: 425
Hi frank,

The commonwealth bank or Macquarie private bank have a great deal for you with your retirement/investment funds. Stay away from those dastardly industry funds, retail bank funds are the only way to go

frank, if you are really serious and want to do your own research go to the APRA website and download the super funds returns tables. Has been published annually for the last few years and give 1, 5 and 10 year results. It has about 180-190 funds, these are the top funds and includes retail, industry and corporate funds. Worth a read and fun to see how your fund is doing compared to others. Even the white rat is there.
Oh, to be an employee at Goldman Sachs and in their super fund

Apologies to Frank for the late reply to your post 22 May, been away for a while

Last edited by indamiddle; 3rd Jul 2014 at 02:59. Reason: Adding stuff
indamiddle is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.