AUS GA- the state in 2015
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to be picking up a fair bit of difference between the states here. Seems FNQ, WA and NT have a totally different set of issues to the south of the Capricorn. Understandably so. Given that 10% of the population lives there it is a unique situation, both in type of activity, population density and infrastructure (lack of), supported I would hazard to guess by government contracts, tourism and mining. None of these are likely to go away in the near to mid term.
There is definitely a bigger struggle for survival in the southern half of the country. I don't think there will always be dreamers willing to give it all away for the love of flying. The capital cities are very expensive these days and levels of disposable income are dropping. Baby boomers are not so willing any more to fund their kids' fanciful ideas especially when the prospect of a return in terms of wages is pitiful and the career path to success rather long and uncertain. They also want to retain their lifestyles and not rock the boat too much.
I have met quite a few dreamers who have said 'Let's just make it a hobby then' when faced with the reality. It is much more difficult now than 10 years ago to live on the minimum wage. We will also have to start paying Krudds bills soon.
I agree with Mach E A, I think you have a fairly good model of the crystal ball. The end result will be the shrinking of the industry though, not growth.
Is it somehow possible to bring about ideas that will promote growth rather than simply natural change (which is inevitable, by law). By this I mean ideas the encourage a greater uptake and use of GA services by the general public and business (some have been mentioned-service and presentation), say education campaigns that promote GA and highlight the benefits it brings to the community, its usefulness as a mode of transport for anyone, not just the select few (seemingly). I think GA needs a serious image lift and a good PR campaign.
What I'm getting at is that unless we get a mass of support behind clearly defined goals or objectives GA will continue to decline-it may survive in some parts where it is an essential service for some time, but generally it will continue to die a slow death. There will be no mass support in the current disjointed and dysfunctional state.
Even the regulator-I have met wonderful and very highly skilled and capable people within that organisation, hampered by a stiff, inflexible, illogical, dysfunctional, conflicting, indecisive system that cannot and is incapable of taking responsibility or making progressive and evolutionary decisions. It is an organisation so deeply buried in its own sea of red tape and buck-passing that the only thing it can do is create more of what it has created already in order to create more layers of bureaucracy that require more layers of regulations to administer......and cannot make an end to CASRs. Even these are now so convoluted the only thing it can think of is to take someone elses instead-ie EASA, which are even worse than what it has now!
I think as far as the regulator is concerned the cost of compliance will be the quickest GA killer of all.
There is definitely a bigger struggle for survival in the southern half of the country. I don't think there will always be dreamers willing to give it all away for the love of flying. The capital cities are very expensive these days and levels of disposable income are dropping. Baby boomers are not so willing any more to fund their kids' fanciful ideas especially when the prospect of a return in terms of wages is pitiful and the career path to success rather long and uncertain. They also want to retain their lifestyles and not rock the boat too much.
I have met quite a few dreamers who have said 'Let's just make it a hobby then' when faced with the reality. It is much more difficult now than 10 years ago to live on the minimum wage. We will also have to start paying Krudds bills soon.
I agree with Mach E A, I think you have a fairly good model of the crystal ball. The end result will be the shrinking of the industry though, not growth.
Is it somehow possible to bring about ideas that will promote growth rather than simply natural change (which is inevitable, by law). By this I mean ideas the encourage a greater uptake and use of GA services by the general public and business (some have been mentioned-service and presentation), say education campaigns that promote GA and highlight the benefits it brings to the community, its usefulness as a mode of transport for anyone, not just the select few (seemingly). I think GA needs a serious image lift and a good PR campaign.
What I'm getting at is that unless we get a mass of support behind clearly defined goals or objectives GA will continue to decline-it may survive in some parts where it is an essential service for some time, but generally it will continue to die a slow death. There will be no mass support in the current disjointed and dysfunctional state.
Even the regulator-I have met wonderful and very highly skilled and capable people within that organisation, hampered by a stiff, inflexible, illogical, dysfunctional, conflicting, indecisive system that cannot and is incapable of taking responsibility or making progressive and evolutionary decisions. It is an organisation so deeply buried in its own sea of red tape and buck-passing that the only thing it can do is create more of what it has created already in order to create more layers of bureaucracy that require more layers of regulations to administer......and cannot make an end to CASRs. Even these are now so convoluted the only thing it can think of is to take someone elses instead-ie EASA, which are even worse than what it has now!
I think as far as the regulator is concerned the cost of compliance will be the quickest GA killer of all.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Amongst the weeds and the dust
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA in 5 years time? Maybe the same, but the planes aren't getting any younger.
GA in 10 years time will be interesting, as I'd say it will become increasingly hard to keep 50+ year old aircraft economically viable, let alone safe. Think about it - 50 year old machinery expected to make money? What other non-niche industry has to put up with that?
I doubt you could launch a successful public awareness campaign to get them all geed up about flying when you look at the state of the GA fleet presently. If you're trying to get GA into the realms of something you'd expect the public to use by choice with any regularity you need to raise the bar to meet with people's expectations of modern travel. Even the local bus service has relatively new busses with comfy seats and air-con.
Let's face it - 90% of the current GA fleet are old, tired, noisy, smelly, cramped and sorry-looking frames that are well past their original design brief. The fact that there's nothing viable to replace the vast bulk of it with is a testament to how difficult (read expensive) it is to jump through all the legal hoops these days.
And to anyone who has a vision to revitalise the industry - best of luck.
Try starting with a modern engine
GA in 10 years time will be interesting, as I'd say it will become increasingly hard to keep 50+ year old aircraft economically viable, let alone safe. Think about it - 50 year old machinery expected to make money? What other non-niche industry has to put up with that?
I doubt you could launch a successful public awareness campaign to get them all geed up about flying when you look at the state of the GA fleet presently. If you're trying to get GA into the realms of something you'd expect the public to use by choice with any regularity you need to raise the bar to meet with people's expectations of modern travel. Even the local bus service has relatively new busses with comfy seats and air-con.
Let's face it - 90% of the current GA fleet are old, tired, noisy, smelly, cramped and sorry-looking frames that are well past their original design brief. The fact that there's nothing viable to replace the vast bulk of it with is a testament to how difficult (read expensive) it is to jump through all the legal hoops these days.
And to anyone who has a vision to revitalise the industry - best of luck.
Try starting with a modern engine
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In five years or ten years you will have a change in government's but the same faceless bureaucrats will still be there doing the same things to stifle and strangle the industry in the name of "productivity" which is directly proportional to how much paperwork they can generate.
Look at the good side however. When all industry is dead there will be no need for a regulator or it's bludging bureaucrats.
Look at the good side however. When all industry is dead there will be no need for a regulator or it's bludging bureaucrats.
When all industry is dead there will be no need for a regulator or it's bludging bureaucrats.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 years from now.
The same dirty old 172's will be at my local flying school, I'll book one and it will be u/s.
Some schools will have many more glass cockpit Archers and G1000 172's but they will be $400 ph dual +
CFI's will still mostly be old and crusty.
A few more fields will close.
In Melb, much pressure will be applied to shut down Moorabbin and Essendon.
RAA will grow, but not as quick as they are now (market flooded).
LSA imported aircraft will get more expensive, too expensive for the average man or syndicate.
Pprune will still be here under again renewed ownership.
The same dirty old 172's will be at my local flying school, I'll book one and it will be u/s.
Some schools will have many more glass cockpit Archers and G1000 172's but they will be $400 ph dual +
CFI's will still mostly be old and crusty.
A few more fields will close.
In Melb, much pressure will be applied to shut down Moorabbin and Essendon.
RAA will grow, but not as quick as they are now (market flooded).
LSA imported aircraft will get more expensive, too expensive for the average man or syndicate.
Pprune will still be here under again renewed ownership.
Grandpa Aerotart
Lotta glass half empty people here.
Pure fun aviation is thriving.
Is it cheap? No but then again it NEVER has been. It may have been more affordable in the past before politicians inflated our currency to almost worthlessness but it was never cheap.
Is it ubiquitous? No but then again it NEVER has been.
30-50 year old ****boxes? Age does not HAVE to equal poor condition - how many 60+ year old Mustangs are in poor condition? A lot fewer than 40 years ago when they were common and of no great value.
I am in the middle of restoring a 40 year old Bonanza - it will be better than new when I am finished and at a cost somewhere around 20% of the cost of buying a new Bonanza. A 50 year old V tail (in remarkable structural condition due to a life hangared out west) is in a hangar at Redcliffe. Its just been bought by someone for 30k (they probably paid 5-10k too much) and will be restored at a cost of probably another 100k. It may not be 'worth' 130k when it is finished (because 'the market' is populated by idiots) but it will be a wonderful aircraft for its new owner at a cost dramatically less than many other options. A mate owns a 1971 A36 that is immaculate after a new interior/avionics/paint and inspection/correction of ALL structural issues - thanks largely to it being properly corrosion proofed at the factory in 1971, unlike mine, there were remarkably few of those. A 40+ yr old Piper Commanche turned up in the same hangar mine is in recently - apparently virtually abandoned in the long grass on some airfield far from the sea air and in great structural condition - I don't know what was paid for it but I bet it was next to nothing - its going to have LOTS of money spent on it and when its finished it will be as reliable, efficient and beautiful as it was when new - at a fraction of the cost of a new equivalent.
Other mates have done the same with Twin Commanches, Commanche, C180s, 182s, 185s, 195s, Stearmans, Tiger moths, Piper Cubs and Chipmunks - others, like Jaba, have spent similar money to build an RV10 which is a remarkable aircraft both in its flying qualities, load carrying ability (true 4 seater+bags) and the technology in the panel. It does 165kts on 40 liters/hr!!.
If you don't want to hire tatty old ****boxes then don't. No one I know does. But NONE of the aircraft in the above list will EVER again grace a flying school/aeroclub flight line because its the hirers that turned them into ****boxes!!!. The only reason hire cars are so nice is the fleet is rolled over every 2 years or so - they get treated about the same, maybe worse, than rental aircraft - except unlike a Ford Falcon a G1000 C182 costs 1/2 million dollars. And you people whinge because it costs $400+ to rent one for an hour? That's CHEAP!!!
Instead of whining about the death of GA why don't you eschew your next new car and get together with 1 or 2 others and buy a nice older Cessna/Piper/Beechcraft and restore it to as new condition? Or buy one someone else already has restored. Or get a fast build kit for a RV7,8 or 10?
Engines? Well all those who whinge about 50yr old technology need to accept that the engines we bolt on our Bonanzas or RV10s are NOT the same as their forbears - they may look the same and function similarly (magnetos etc) but they are vastly more efficient, 20%+, thanks to aftermarket mods like gamijectors and engine monitors. The economies of scale just DO NOT exist, and NEVER will, for other than that sort of incremental improvement. A mate who restored the Tiger moth I have been flying of late incorporated modern Slick mags, sodium filled exhaust valves and an alluminium head and has a Gipsy 1C that is vastly more reliable than when new - you can buy NEW Lom engines in eastern europe that look the same (inline inverted 4) but are vastly better than the 1930s/40s equivalent - yet another mate is restoring his Ryan STM after a crash with one of those to replace the original Menasco that failed on him. People have tried and failed to shoehorn car technology into certified airframes. Maybe it will work next time someone tries.
You think recreational GA is dead? Come out to Redcliffe or Caboulture on a weekend
SAA/LSA both fixed and rotary? They are like flies
Recreational GA will be BETTER in 2015 than now
Pure fun aviation is thriving.
Is it cheap? No but then again it NEVER has been. It may have been more affordable in the past before politicians inflated our currency to almost worthlessness but it was never cheap.
Is it ubiquitous? No but then again it NEVER has been.
30-50 year old ****boxes? Age does not HAVE to equal poor condition - how many 60+ year old Mustangs are in poor condition? A lot fewer than 40 years ago when they were common and of no great value.
I am in the middle of restoring a 40 year old Bonanza - it will be better than new when I am finished and at a cost somewhere around 20% of the cost of buying a new Bonanza. A 50 year old V tail (in remarkable structural condition due to a life hangared out west) is in a hangar at Redcliffe. Its just been bought by someone for 30k (they probably paid 5-10k too much) and will be restored at a cost of probably another 100k. It may not be 'worth' 130k when it is finished (because 'the market' is populated by idiots) but it will be a wonderful aircraft for its new owner at a cost dramatically less than many other options. A mate owns a 1971 A36 that is immaculate after a new interior/avionics/paint and inspection/correction of ALL structural issues - thanks largely to it being properly corrosion proofed at the factory in 1971, unlike mine, there were remarkably few of those. A 40+ yr old Piper Commanche turned up in the same hangar mine is in recently - apparently virtually abandoned in the long grass on some airfield far from the sea air and in great structural condition - I don't know what was paid for it but I bet it was next to nothing - its going to have LOTS of money spent on it and when its finished it will be as reliable, efficient and beautiful as it was when new - at a fraction of the cost of a new equivalent.
Other mates have done the same with Twin Commanches, Commanche, C180s, 182s, 185s, 195s, Stearmans, Tiger moths, Piper Cubs and Chipmunks - others, like Jaba, have spent similar money to build an RV10 which is a remarkable aircraft both in its flying qualities, load carrying ability (true 4 seater+bags) and the technology in the panel. It does 165kts on 40 liters/hr!!.
If you don't want to hire tatty old ****boxes then don't. No one I know does. But NONE of the aircraft in the above list will EVER again grace a flying school/aeroclub flight line because its the hirers that turned them into ****boxes!!!. The only reason hire cars are so nice is the fleet is rolled over every 2 years or so - they get treated about the same, maybe worse, than rental aircraft - except unlike a Ford Falcon a G1000 C182 costs 1/2 million dollars. And you people whinge because it costs $400+ to rent one for an hour? That's CHEAP!!!
Instead of whining about the death of GA why don't you eschew your next new car and get together with 1 or 2 others and buy a nice older Cessna/Piper/Beechcraft and restore it to as new condition? Or buy one someone else already has restored. Or get a fast build kit for a RV7,8 or 10?
Engines? Well all those who whinge about 50yr old technology need to accept that the engines we bolt on our Bonanzas or RV10s are NOT the same as their forbears - they may look the same and function similarly (magnetos etc) but they are vastly more efficient, 20%+, thanks to aftermarket mods like gamijectors and engine monitors. The economies of scale just DO NOT exist, and NEVER will, for other than that sort of incremental improvement. A mate who restored the Tiger moth I have been flying of late incorporated modern Slick mags, sodium filled exhaust valves and an alluminium head and has a Gipsy 1C that is vastly more reliable than when new - you can buy NEW Lom engines in eastern europe that look the same (inline inverted 4) but are vastly better than the 1930s/40s equivalent - yet another mate is restoring his Ryan STM after a crash with one of those to replace the original Menasco that failed on him. People have tried and failed to shoehorn car technology into certified airframes. Maybe it will work next time someone tries.
You think recreational GA is dead? Come out to Redcliffe or Caboulture on a weekend
SAA/LSA both fixed and rotary? They are like flies
Recreational GA will be BETTER in 2015 than now
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 27th Dec 2009 at 23:39.
CC, Ditto for Tyabb
When those doors open it is amazing whats stored around a "quiet" little aerodrome.
Chuck, just remember one thing and go ask Mr Poiet (I think that is how he spells his name..ex councillor and drives a really nice 177 or used to) for confirmation. If the City Council had it's way. Redcliffe would have been closed over ten years ago.
Five years from now? Around here, probably little difference. More warbirds will be flying. My club will finally start getting into some late model glass ships at a reasonable price....Have you seen the price of C182S' with low hours in the US lately? Reading here about AVGAS and looking up on the web..methinks a new product called 92UL will be the norm. Excepting for the CASA BS for quality it will be easier for the refiners to produce because of no risk in contamination of fuel stocks with TEL.
I know I will never have my 182RG that I lust over....Maybe an RV-10 will be a better choice.
When those doors open it is amazing whats stored around a "quiet" little aerodrome.
Chuck, just remember one thing and go ask Mr Poiet (I think that is how he spells his name..ex councillor and drives a really nice 177 or used to) for confirmation. If the City Council had it's way. Redcliffe would have been closed over ten years ago.
Five years from now? Around here, probably little difference. More warbirds will be flying. My club will finally start getting into some late model glass ships at a reasonable price....Have you seen the price of C182S' with low hours in the US lately? Reading here about AVGAS and looking up on the web..methinks a new product called 92UL will be the norm. Excepting for the CASA BS for quality it will be easier for the refiners to produce because of no risk in contamination of fuel stocks with TEL.
I know I will never have my 182RG that I lust over....Maybe an RV-10 will be a better choice.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Chimbu. I agree with what you say. If you talk it down (the industry) then it will go down. There will always be the "flying school", be it RAA or GA in general. there will ALWAYS be the WANT to fly. Nobody can predict tomorrow let alone what is going to be in place in 5 years time.
The interest in aviation is still strong. i was out at AF to see the old DC4 go and i can tell you it was amazing to see how many of the "public" were there to watch. It was like a mimi airshow, people walking through hangars to get airside, people who haven't even heard of an ASIC card, the road was chockers with traffic and people trying to find a parking space. I don't believe there was any advertising or public notices for the old girls departure (DC4). There will always be GA. The structure, and costs in 5 yrs are unknown. If we're not happy with the regulator or the system, get together and stand up and be counted, after all they are supposed to be representing you guys! Think positive and get off our arses and make it happen. (Off the soapbox now).
The interest in aviation is still strong. i was out at AF to see the old DC4 go and i can tell you it was amazing to see how many of the "public" were there to watch. It was like a mimi airshow, people walking through hangars to get airside, people who haven't even heard of an ASIC card, the road was chockers with traffic and people trying to find a parking space. I don't believe there was any advertising or public notices for the old girls departure (DC4). There will always be GA. The structure, and costs in 5 yrs are unknown. If we're not happy with the regulator or the system, get together and stand up and be counted, after all they are supposed to be representing you guys! Think positive and get off our arses and make it happen. (Off the soapbox now).
Grandpa Aerotart
I dont agree about Redcliffe - its safe until 2034 at least. Caboulture probably the same but hard to believe it will be still under the auspices of the aeroclub. Caloundra is a different story - it will be gone eventually.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in them thar hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu the fun end of aviation that you describe may be thriving now, but CASA is already doing their darndest to kill it. Engines that must run on avgas will be for the wealthy only because the stuff will become as rare as rocking horse guano. The sorts who can afford racing cars and other assorted costly toys. Fun aviation like you describe is not really a commercial industry except for those who specialise in restorations. So the authorities and airport operators etc really don't want to bother with it. If they could legally ban it they probably would.
Recreation aviation will be the go for enthusiasts but that will remain limited to very light planes, not your Bonanzas etc because it would be a very brave CASA that allowed 50 year old general aviation airplanes into the hands of self-maintainers. CASA has already signalled that it does not attach any priority to a weight upgrade so it will probably stay where it is for a long time, with CASA calling the shots on anything over 1200 lbs weight. In any case the recreational self-governing body is not in any position to assume any more responsibilities than it currently has. It does not have the experience or expertise. The CASA knock-back has done them a favor even if they don't appreciate it. Liability insurance is a further problem for them.
But, I like your positive outlook. Let us hope that magnificent older airplanes soldier on for another 50 years so our kids can see what it was like.
Recreation aviation will be the go for enthusiasts but that will remain limited to very light planes, not your Bonanzas etc because it would be a very brave CASA that allowed 50 year old general aviation airplanes into the hands of self-maintainers. CASA has already signalled that it does not attach any priority to a weight upgrade so it will probably stay where it is for a long time, with CASA calling the shots on anything over 1200 lbs weight. In any case the recreational self-governing body is not in any position to assume any more responsibilities than it currently has. It does not have the experience or expertise. The CASA knock-back has done them a favor even if they don't appreciate it. Liability insurance is a further problem for them.
But, I like your positive outlook. Let us hope that magnificent older airplanes soldier on for another 50 years so our kids can see what it was like.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All we need, that we are losing, to keep the older ones flying, is the fuel availability sorted. Engines that run on high quality Diesel, (or Avtur), and high octane Mogas that is readily available for vehicle use as well, as a replacement for the Avgas engines, can be speced or fitted at overhaul time. There will always be a need for PERSONAL transportation, at all levels, even moreso in the next 10 years, and it is different from mass airline use.
Last edited by frigatebird; 28th Dec 2009 at 08:17. Reason: add 'at all levels'
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was Kempsy one of those with a hand out during the local airport ownership scheme?
A lot of airports similarly smitten with government handouts for security may have to pay for new gear as per the White paper.
Interesting given that taxpayers owned most of the airports that were given away to ratepayers so they could charge taxpayers for using what they used to own. Now they want to give them back?
A lot of airports similarly smitten with government handouts for security may have to pay for new gear as per the White paper.
Interesting given that taxpayers owned most of the airports that were given away to ratepayers so they could charge taxpayers for using what they used to own. Now they want to give them back?
Grandpa Aerotart
And what does it cost each rate payer to maintain the aerodrome at Kempsey - $1 each/annum?
Small price to pay for a place where RFDS/Air Ambo/Fire Bombers can operate from.
100LL surely will go the way of 80/87 and 115/145 - was always going to happen eventually after the airline industry stopped using it when the jets came along and then the SGFs (Simpering Gaian Fckwits) in the EPA set there sights on TEL.
BUT go to General Aviation Modifications, Inc. and you will see they have technology in the wings that will allow the big bore flat 6s to run on lower octane/unleaded fuel - PRISM - apparently George is also working on a new fuel. The flat 4s and radials/inline engines as found in Stearmans/Tigers/Cubs/Cherokees/172s etc were running/will run perfectly happily on lower octane fuel before TEL was discovered so I guess they will again.
CASA cannot destroy GA any more than the MSB can destroy private boat ownership.
Edit: This would seem to indicate that avgas has some future yet as a viable fuel.
http://www.iaopa.eu/mediaServlet/sto...ct06/Avgas.pdf
Small price to pay for a place where RFDS/Air Ambo/Fire Bombers can operate from.
100LL surely will go the way of 80/87 and 115/145 - was always going to happen eventually after the airline industry stopped using it when the jets came along and then the SGFs (Simpering Gaian Fckwits) in the EPA set there sights on TEL.
BUT go to General Aviation Modifications, Inc. and you will see they have technology in the wings that will allow the big bore flat 6s to run on lower octane/unleaded fuel - PRISM - apparently George is also working on a new fuel. The flat 4s and radials/inline engines as found in Stearmans/Tigers/Cubs/Cherokees/172s etc were running/will run perfectly happily on lower octane fuel before TEL was discovered so I guess they will again.
CASA cannot destroy GA any more than the MSB can destroy private boat ownership.
Edit: This would seem to indicate that avgas has some future yet as a viable fuel.
http://www.iaopa.eu/mediaServlet/sto...ct06/Avgas.pdf
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 28th Dec 2009 at 11:50.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The term GA is very broad. In terms of private flying, I'm in full agreement with the comments of Chimbu. In commercial/charter flying, there is no reason why many piston aircraft cannot continue with long life, but recip engines are slowly succumbing to turbines as the equipment becomes less expensive (in comparable terms)and the growth in RPT services. Rules are favouring the growth industry: turbines. New designs (turbines) favour new and innovative instrument panels and control options. IMO, the sooner the CASA drops route protection associated with RPT the better. It will revitalize the commercial side of the GA industry and encourage competition and better services.
Airports being over-run by development are a fact of life. We all need to make sure we have relationships with our local government officials to be able to press the importance of regional airports. There's nothing wrong if one is developed (just like the drive-in movie theatres), but there needs to be an alternative to take its place and prefereably something that has aspects that are improved over the old one: ease of access, close to a freeway and/or public transport, away from airline routes, better access to/from tourism services, etc.
Airports being over-run by development are a fact of life. We all need to make sure we have relationships with our local government officials to be able to press the importance of regional airports. There's nothing wrong if one is developed (just like the drive-in movie theatres), but there needs to be an alternative to take its place and prefereably something that has aspects that are improved over the old one: ease of access, close to a freeway and/or public transport, away from airline routes, better access to/from tourism services, etc.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not blaming the CASA. Not intentionally anyway. It's outdated legislation at odds with modern business practices and standards. There's another thread running about a potential RPT route Toowoomba-Sydney. If I own/operate a charter company, why can't I sell tickets, publish flight times, run regular flights and adjust the times of those flights as I see fit to meet demand and aircraft availability to a schedule between points A, B and C? Business owners in other fields can have sales when they see fit, establish a business where and when they see fit and operate it as they see fit (within the boundaries of local and national restrictions that promote competition and capitalism) and importantly....advertise individual products.
Supposedly the CASA is protecting the fare-paying passenger. What's the difference between fare-paying passengers on Lodown Air Services and those on a current RPT service?
Why does a passenger have to arrange his/her schedule around current scheduled flight services when another operator emphasising flexibility might be able to sell tickets in advance to a changeable schedule? Assuming I can operate 5 days a week Tamworth-Sydney in a Citation, then why can't I vary the schedule over the other 2 days to run via Moree, Coffs Harbour or Brisbane if I can match the aircraft's availability to that of some well-heeled passengers? An operator of a 50 passenger RPT turboprop based in a capital city wouldn't be able to do it, but why does that restrict a locally based operator from attempting to do it? Why can't a potential passenger who wants to do a trip to some real estate in Grafton in a day from Sydney contact me and see if I am able to pick him up within the schedule to get him back again close to the time he wants to get back? He can't justify the cost of a dedicated charter, but if he can combine the expense with 3 or 4 (or more) other people with similar requirements, and I have the ability to cater to them, then why can't it be done? The digital age has made the contacts and organisation possible, but aviation regs are still stuck in the dark ages.
At present, Lodown Air Services might be able to run a little money-making venture between points A and B on a small-scale charter operation. An RPT operator can get route approval and snatch a significant portion of my business overnight and lock me out of running an effective competitive campaign. I embrace competition, but this isn't competition when I am essentially bullied off a route by paperwork. This has occurred many times at regional airports all over Australia where a locally based operator has for years operated a charter service to regional demand; employing and buying locally. An RPT operator from the big smoke has seen an opportunity and muscled in. The local operator has seen his/her bread and butter disappear overnight and has had his hands tied in responding through protective RPT legislation. It's left local councils wondering why they should be funding airports that are only used sparingly and any monies generated have been going out of the local area. It's no wonder GA commercial operations are suffering.
When an RPT operator has approval, there is very little impetus for efficiency gains and improvements and it's almost impossible to compete within the bounds of legislation. It's a significant force behind the scrapping of the 2 airline policy. I'd like to see those advances promoting competition between airlines go a little further to promoting competition between ALL commercial passenger carrying operations.
Supposedly the CASA is protecting the fare-paying passenger. What's the difference between fare-paying passengers on Lodown Air Services and those on a current RPT service?
Why does a passenger have to arrange his/her schedule around current scheduled flight services when another operator emphasising flexibility might be able to sell tickets in advance to a changeable schedule? Assuming I can operate 5 days a week Tamworth-Sydney in a Citation, then why can't I vary the schedule over the other 2 days to run via Moree, Coffs Harbour or Brisbane if I can match the aircraft's availability to that of some well-heeled passengers? An operator of a 50 passenger RPT turboprop based in a capital city wouldn't be able to do it, but why does that restrict a locally based operator from attempting to do it? Why can't a potential passenger who wants to do a trip to some real estate in Grafton in a day from Sydney contact me and see if I am able to pick him up within the schedule to get him back again close to the time he wants to get back? He can't justify the cost of a dedicated charter, but if he can combine the expense with 3 or 4 (or more) other people with similar requirements, and I have the ability to cater to them, then why can't it be done? The digital age has made the contacts and organisation possible, but aviation regs are still stuck in the dark ages.
At present, Lodown Air Services might be able to run a little money-making venture between points A and B on a small-scale charter operation. An RPT operator can get route approval and snatch a significant portion of my business overnight and lock me out of running an effective competitive campaign. I embrace competition, but this isn't competition when I am essentially bullied off a route by paperwork. This has occurred many times at regional airports all over Australia where a locally based operator has for years operated a charter service to regional demand; employing and buying locally. An RPT operator from the big smoke has seen an opportunity and muscled in. The local operator has seen his/her bread and butter disappear overnight and has had his hands tied in responding through protective RPT legislation. It's left local councils wondering why they should be funding airports that are only used sparingly and any monies generated have been going out of the local area. It's no wonder GA commercial operations are suffering.
When an RPT operator has approval, there is very little impetus for efficiency gains and improvements and it's almost impossible to compete within the bounds of legislation. It's a significant force behind the scrapping of the 2 airline policy. I'd like to see those advances promoting competition between airlines go a little further to promoting competition between ALL commercial passenger carrying operations.
Last edited by Lodown; 29th Dec 2009 at 17:39.