CAPER DECISION & services to Cooma
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAPER DECISION & services to Cooma
We were recently looking at CAPER decision after being asked if we could fly closed charters to Cooma (IATA: OOM).
OOM lost all commercial services when Brindabella fell over in December.
Looking at CASA statement
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...rtificates.pdf
in paragraph 2 under CLOSED CHARTERS, CASA says
“it is uncontroversial that closed charters in eg.
a church group which organises regular trips for its congregants to a particular location for attending a religious retreat”
If instead of church group it was a snowboarder/ski group & instead of congregants, it was members of a club & instead of religious, it was a sporting group, surely this would mean, any charter operator could fly into OOM on a regular CLOSEE CHARTER basis, where seats were not available for purchase by the general public.
The only obvious restriction, would be that that operator couldn't sell seats to eg. a Cooma local who wanted to fly ex OOM, although you'd think that if a medical emergency, that person could be taken to eg. a Sydney hospital. Presume that a seat or seats could be given away in such cases.
OOM has in the past had nonstop F28 services from both SYD & BNE. BNE was only once a week Sun am in winter & many years ago.
OOM lost all commercial services when Brindabella fell over in December.
Looking at CASA statement
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...rtificates.pdf
in paragraph 2 under CLOSED CHARTERS, CASA says
“it is uncontroversial that closed charters in eg.
a church group which organises regular trips for its congregants to a particular location for attending a religious retreat”
If instead of church group it was a snowboarder/ski group & instead of congregants, it was members of a club & instead of religious, it was a sporting group, surely this would mean, any charter operator could fly into OOM on a regular CLOSEE CHARTER basis, where seats were not available for purchase by the general public.
The only obvious restriction, would be that that operator couldn't sell seats to eg. a Cooma local who wanted to fly ex OOM, although you'd think that if a medical emergency, that person could be taken to eg. a Sydney hospital. Presume that a seat or seats could be given away in such cases.
OOM has in the past had nonstop F28 services from both SYD & BNE. BNE was only once a week Sun am in winter & many years ago.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bnea,
the question is completely academic.
Probably there is no difference in the two examples you describe.
Unfortunately if CAsA decide it is not a closed charter, someone would need very deep pockets, because CAsA would and could empty the national treasury to defend their decision.
As that recently departed deviate said "reg 206 is bad law"
Its bad law, but its also very useful for preventing aviation, which is why its never been changed.
Bugger the punters who are desperate for affordable service.
the question is completely academic.
Probably there is no difference in the two examples you describe.
Unfortunately if CAsA decide it is not a closed charter, someone would need very deep pockets, because CAsA would and could empty the national treasury to defend their decision.
As that recently departed deviate said "reg 206 is bad law"
Its bad law, but its also very useful for preventing aviation, which is why its never been changed.
Bugger the punters who are desperate for affordable service.
Last edited by thorn bird; 5th Oct 2014 at 07:55.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it would seem with the trans Tasman agreement a NZ AOC holder could operate.
I wouldn't bet my money on it but.
A few "Gifts" in the right CAsA pockets may get you operating, but who would risk the capital when it could be pulled out from under you at anytime.
The problem when corruption becomes endemic and condoned by the government is working out the right person to pay off.
The problem with Cooma was privatisation.
The new owner thought they had a monopoly and got greedy.
Airlines reconsidered their options and Cooma airport is now is probably not much good even to graze sheep.
I wouldn't bet my money on it but.
A few "Gifts" in the right CAsA pockets may get you operating, but who would risk the capital when it could be pulled out from under you at anytime.
The problem when corruption becomes endemic and condoned by the government is working out the right person to pay off.
The problem with Cooma was privatisation.
The new owner thought they had a monopoly and got greedy.
Airlines reconsidered their options and Cooma airport is now is probably not much good even to graze sheep.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Kiwi's are a lot smarter than us, just look at their aviation Regulations compared to ours.
They are also smart enough to wait for an Australian airline to hit rock bottom, buy it for nothing, and if it aint worth saving, asset strip it back to NZ.
They are certainly smart enough not to try and run an aviation enterprise under Australia's suffocating regulatory regime.
The catch 22 is when operating in a foreign country you must comply with the laws of that country.
They are also smart enough to wait for an Australian airline to hit rock bottom, buy it for nothing, and if it aint worth saving, asset strip it back to NZ.
They are certainly smart enough not to try and run an aviation enterprise under Australia's suffocating regulatory regime.
The catch 22 is when operating in a foreign country you must comply with the laws of that country.
They are also smart enough to wait for an Australian airline to hit rock bottom, buy it for nothing, and if it aint worth saving, asset strip it back to NZ.
