Will Airasia obtain AOC in AUS??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: always ahead of my aircraft
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will Airasia obtain AOC in AUS??
AirAsia group is expanding and operates many major cities in AUS. Will this operator obtain AUS AOC in the near future?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Florida USA
Age: 61
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems they may have one for the Malaysian reg A330s already ??
Shouldn't be to hard as Air India have one there Cat 2 country so is Indonesia ( Garuda/Airfast ), the Ukrania Air Alliance AN12 has FAOC there country is toast and that's where Malaysian was shot down the AN12 recently crashed one killing all aboard....
From reading I believe CASA just push Australian operators out of business.
Shouldn't be to hard as Air India have one there Cat 2 country so is Indonesia ( Garuda/Airfast ), the Ukrania Air Alliance AN12 has FAOC there country is toast and that's where Malaysian was shot down the AN12 recently crashed one killing all aboard....
From reading I believe CASA just push Australian operators out of business.
I wonder if CASA simply accept the AOC of a foreign jurisdiction on face value and automatically issue one for specific routes and aircraft so that the respective foreign carriers may operate in Australian airspace?
All international airlines operating into Australia have an Australian AOC, it is for the CASA oversight. Likewise All international operators that operating into the US including Qantas and Virgin have an FAA Part 129 certificate and a FAA Ops Spec, it does not permit domestic ops either.
It has nothing to do with being able to operate domestic flights, it is the way CASA enforces Australian rules onto international operators like TCAS, RVSM, ADS-B, noise, English language etc.
It has nothing to do with being able to operate domestic flights, it is the way CASA enforces Australian rules onto international operators like TCAS, RVSM, ADS-B, noise, English language etc.
Problem is the way that CASA interpret the rules as opposed to foreigner regulators. The FAA make blanket rulings on this such as IPADs and RVSM but over here each individual AOC holder has to get an individual approval, even if it come as standard out of the factory.
Personally I think it would be hilarious to see a foreign airline get a local AOC. The amount of BS that they would have to endure and the million approvals they would need for things that in their country are automatic would blow their minds.
Personally I think it would be hilarious to see a foreign airline get a local AOC. The amount of BS that they would have to endure and the million approvals they would need for things that in their country are automatic would blow their minds.
According to the company eba negotiators in one of the top ten safest LCCS in the world, lion air will start operating domestically in Australia 
I wonder how long it'll be until we see a sealion in Botany Bay?
I wonder how long it'll be until we see a sealion in Botany Bay?
Foreign AOC
As swh says all foreign carriers operating scheduled services into Australia require a foreign AOC, as do Australian operators to operate into the various countries they serve. An operator like QF must hold about 50 AOC's.
See CASA Search -- CASA - Aircraft Operators Certification -- x
See CASA Search -- CASA - Aircraft Operators Certification -- x
Join Date: May 2014
Location: AUS
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, swh didn't say that Chimbu. He said 'all international airlines operating into Australia have an Australian AOC' which is not quite correct.
They have an AOC, issued by Australia (CASA), but as you (Chimbu) rightly point out, it is a Foreign Aircraft AOC. A very different animal to a high capacity international AOC (soon to be Part 119/121 certificates) held by an Australian airline.
The former takes a few weeks to obtain (depending on the workload in the international office) through a relatively basic application process and the latter takes around a year through one of the most bureaucratic processes in the world (I understand a recent application through the Sydney office of CASA took 2 years - disgraceful!)
Oversight of a Foreign AOC is restricted to 'ramp checks', whereas we all know the level of oversight for an Ozzie airline by CASA.
They have an AOC, issued by Australia (CASA), but as you (Chimbu) rightly point out, it is a Foreign Aircraft AOC. A very different animal to a high capacity international AOC (soon to be Part 119/121 certificates) held by an Australian airline.
The former takes a few weeks to obtain (depending on the workload in the international office) through a relatively basic application process and the latter takes around a year through one of the most bureaucratic processes in the world (I understand a recent application through the Sydney office of CASA took 2 years - disgraceful!)
Oversight of a Foreign AOC is restricted to 'ramp checks', whereas we all know the level of oversight for an Ozzie airline by CASA.
The former takes a few weeks to obtain (depending on the workload in the international office)
Not quite correct, indeed, not even a little bit correct.
If you are a carrier from a country that will and can take Australia/CASA on (US, Canada, most EASA countries and "some" western Pacific nations) if their carriers get buggered around, you will get a Part 129 AOC in several months.
If you are from a country that somebody in CASA doesn't like, you will never get a Part 129 AOC, no matter how ICAO compliant you are, and how many kosher IOSA audits you have passed.
On one recent Part 129 application case, the CASA FOI assigned knocked back the Jepp system as not providing CASA required data for en-route or terminal area operations. Doh???
I wonder what would happen if CASA tried to pull the same stunt on Qantas??
In another case, CASA demanded that long standing Operations Manuals be changed to "incorporate ICAO Annex 2 (Rules of the Air)" in the manual. For the applicants (and they came from a country that is more ICAO compliant (and not by filing thousands of differences) than Australia, the answer was that they carried a hard copy of Annex 2 in the flight library of every aircraft, as well as Jepp. World Wide Text. Not good enough fro CASA, had to be in the Flight Crew Operations Manuals, and having Annex 2 within the FCOM cover was not enough, a re-written text had to be physically "printed" with FCOM page numbers. Which the parent NAA would not permit, because they would not permit different procedures and a unique FCOM, just because an aircraft was in Australian airspace, as opposed to the rest of their operations, world wide (and I do mean world wide).
I know of Part 129 applications, that meet the "Australia ICAO compliance" requirements in every respect, that have been pending for years, and the CASA fees are fearsome, and they are no nearer to getting their Part 129 AOC than they were two/three plus years ago.
In short, FAAOCs are as big a nightmare as any other dealings with CASA.
If any of the Air Asia companies want to set up a domestic subsidiary in Australia, they will have no trouble, because they all come from SE Asian countries that will retaliate against Australia (blocking/limiting Australian carriers) the moment they come to the conclusion that they are being buggered around by Australia/CASA.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 7th Jan 2015 at 12:22.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: AUS
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 129???? Doesn't exist in the Oz system Leady. Looks like you're not even a little bit correct either. Although I have no reason to doubt the application 'horror stories' you refer to.
As Creamy suggests, it's all about the relevant sections of the Act, there is no regulatory Part to use for the issue of a FAAOC, at least not yet (and I wouldn't hold my breath as I believe Part 119 would need to be in place first, which is a long way off).
It's also not so much a case of a country that CASA 'doesn't like' that can stretch out the process (or kill it), it is more about the fact of whether CASA has an 'agreement' with the country of origin of the carrier.
As is usual, CASA has the ultimate say given they must be satisfied in relation to the carrier's safety performance. I would venture to suggest that this may be an issue for Air Asia as of today, however given this latest event is the only serious issue for them since launching, then CASA may be on thin ice. The Air Asia execs could well raise the issue of other FAAOC's awarded to carriers with far darker safety records.
As Creamy suggests, it's all about the relevant sections of the Act, there is no regulatory Part to use for the issue of a FAAOC, at least not yet (and I wouldn't hold my breath as I believe Part 119 would need to be in place first, which is a long way off).
It's also not so much a case of a country that CASA 'doesn't like' that can stretch out the process (or kill it), it is more about the fact of whether CASA has an 'agreement' with the country of origin of the carrier.
As is usual, CASA has the ultimate say given they must be satisfied in relation to the carrier's safety performance. I would venture to suggest that this may be an issue for Air Asia as of today, however given this latest event is the only serious issue for them since launching, then CASA may be on thin ice. The Air Asia execs could well raise the issue of other FAAOC's awarded to carriers with far darker safety records.
Hmmm... i dunno that the Air asia boss fellow is a fit person. Seems ready to blame the tooth fairy fer any problems... 
AirAsia chief executive Tony Fernandes said ... that climate change may have played a part in more dangerous conditions for air travel: "There's a lot of rain, so that is something we need to look at carefully because the weather is changing. The weather is changing..."
AirAsia flight QZ8501: 'Unique weather' may have caused plane crash, says CEO | Stuff.co.nz
Heh, Climate Depo has the CEO comments appropriately filed under: "astrology, floods, transportation, wacky"
AirAsia CEO: ?Climate change? may have played role in plane crash ? ?The weather is changing? | Climate Depot
.
AirAsia chief executive Tony Fernandes said ... that climate change may have played a part in more dangerous conditions for air travel: "There's a lot of rain, so that is something we need to look at carefully because the weather is changing. The weather is changing..."
AirAsia flight QZ8501: 'Unique weather' may have caused plane crash, says CEO | Stuff.co.nz
Heh
, Climate Depo has the CEO comments appropriately filed under: "astrology, floods, transportation, wacky" AirAsia CEO: ?Climate change? may have played role in plane crash ? ?The weather is changing? | Climate Depot
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: always ahead of my aircraft
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I may use the wrong word.
Asking again. " will Airasia operate domestically in Australia in the near future???" i.e. MEL-BNE route
Asking again. " will Airasia operate domestically in Australia in the near future???" i.e. MEL-BNE route
Asking again. " will Airasia operate domestically in Australia in the near future???"
Dunno... that Airasia boss fellow seems to have a weather phobia. When he hears of: "...her far horizons, Her pitiless blue sky, ...a sunburnt country, of droughts and flooding rains, flood and fire and famine, All tragic to the moon...".......Well, he might just keep away..
Apologies to - Official Dorothea Mackellar Website :: Poetry Archive :: My Country
.
He Said What,
OK, legally correct, but the fact remains that the current process for an application for an FAAOC results in frequent references to the draft Part 129 and associated explanatory material, when dealing face to face.
In other words, effectively "Part 129" is being used generically, although the actual legal provisions are elsewhere.
If CASA operatives in the International Office in Brisbane want to refer to an FAAOC as a "Part 129 AOC", that's fine with me, we are all speaking the same language.
Tootle pip!!
OK, legally correct, but the fact remains that the current process for an application for an FAAOC results in frequent references to the draft Part 129 and associated explanatory material, when dealing face to face.
In other words, effectively "Part 129" is being used generically, although the actual legal provisions are elsewhere.
If CASA operatives in the International Office in Brisbane want to refer to an FAAOC as a "Part 129 AOC", that's fine with me, we are all speaking the same language.
Tootle pip!!