Not disputing your facts, Peter. Problem is you included only one fact:

37000 divided by 850 equals circa 44.

It's the decision to use that fact on its own that leads to a conclusion of "ignorance". To suggest that CASA only oversees aircrew licences is misleading.

Now that you have parked the Gen Y approach, your argument is stronger indeed. Not sure that you'd get too much support on the 'Dick Smith return' concept.

People may criticise Dick Smith, but his motivation seems genuine and I think he put a lot of effort into changing things at CASA to improve aviation.

I'd still like to know why all of these extra warm bodies were needed at CASA over the past four years?

Why can't we expect a "Productivity Bonus" from the recent tech projects at CASA? Surely this would mean less staff, not more?

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?

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?

The parasite finds a new host. In this case maybe AMSA or NOPSEMA. There is always a regulatory vein to leech from Thorny :ok:

Yeah but 850 incompetents???

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.

If it landed in the CAsA mail room and was not signed for, they will deny all knowledge of it.

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!!

Leadie,


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.

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