Who introduced and facilitated ‘user pays’?
 

It has been claimed a number of times on this site that I was the person who brought in ‘user pays.’ I have said many times that user pays came in after the Bosch Report and was nothing do to with me. In fact, I spent a lot of time campaigning and objecting to the introduction of user pays as was planned by Bosch because I knew that it would do extraordinary damage to the industry.

I have recently come across this cutting from 1986, two years before the CAA was set up. From The Australian Wednesday May 7 1986:

“Dick Smith campaign targets flight charges”

I’m sure it will make interesting reading for many people.

Yes, I, and others, failed – but it wasn’t without trying.

Dick

Regardless of any reports etc (which may have been used to justify political decisions) I am sure the decision to impose user pays across the aviation industry was made by the Hawke Labour Government in 1983 or 1984, concurrently with the decision to create the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC).

I seem to recall en-route and terminal navigation charges were introduced by the Hawke Government in 1987, the same year the FAC was established. At that time a small airline I worked for was paying 10% of the ticket revenue in navigation charges as the routes we operated were Queensland rural attracting charges for every mile flown, whilst intercity air services were not charged whilst within a certain radius of City airports.

The FAC prospered and I suspect Government rapidly recovered their airport capital cost before April 1994, when the Keating Labor Government decided to "double dip" and announced that all airports operated by FAC would be privatised in several phases.

Memory is a bit rusty but I think that was the sequence and time periods.

The big cash cow was created and exploited to the maximum!!

I think your terms in the Halls of Doom as Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Board was 1990–1992 & 1997–1999, thus you were not responsible for the official economic pillage of the aviation industry.

I am sure Dick will also remember when it became evident that objecting to "User Pays" was going to be futile, convincing government that if the user pays then the "user says" caused much finger drumming and head scratching amongst the proponents of Bosch.

Paying for only what was wanted/actually used as opposed to paying for everything certainly reduced the cost burden to many GA sections. Cross subsidising RFF for those capital city primaries by purely GA airfields was one such "no use the no pay" item.

It seems as thought today, 30 years after Bosch, government are still finding new ways to collect our hard earned so the pollies can live high on the 'public' purse.

CC

Wasn't it basically the airlines who put the pressure on?

After all, the levy was in the fuel, so the airlines were mostly subsidising the rest of the industry.

Anyway we are where we are. For better or worse.

the idea behind 'user pays' is that 'user says'.by that I mean that the user has some input into what constitutes value for money in the service provided.

clearly that hasn't happened or there would not be the bloated and unresponsive institutions we have today.

I actually thought that the thin edge of the wedge started with Frank Crean in the Whitlam government of the mid seventies.

Businessman and aviation stirrer...

Care to elaborate on that, missy?

Pinky, its a quote from the article in "The Australian"

Old Akro. I am with you on the mid 70's.

I remember being at a DCA ? presentation and the statement was made that a particular cost would never cost more than a bottle of scotch. Afraid I do not recall what it was but suspect a licence fee. For oldtimers Gordon Howe of DCA was in attendance.

That article in "The Australian" was by the late John Spiers. (RIP)

GT will never measure up anywhere close to him.

User pays is not the argument. It's affordable safety that is the issue. DICK do you think I can find some old article where you champion that idea? I know the answer....

Affordable safety is just like world's best practice. A term that has nothing to do with the literal meaning.

"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less..."

Bah Humbug..!!!
:ugh::{

And as far as I am aware, the fuel levy of 2C per litre to support FS, was on avgas only.......so in that respect, the airlines had very little to do with it.....
Standing by for incoming......

So what sort of safety does Griffo recommend ??? Unaffordable safety????

Perhaps I've misread your meaning . Do you mean that while ever government is involved the quote above is arse about hence the Bah Humbug comment?

Er....You don't remember the 'mantra'..??

Or, were you not 'around' then, perhaps? 'Then' being 12/12/91.....

Cheers.

Thanks Griffo,
It's perfectly clear what you mean now. I've been p#issing around in planes since 71 so by the end of 91 I'd probably switched off reading the latest scheme dreamed up to make us safer while saving us money. My lack of enthusiasm was no doubt brought on by the observed lack of success of schemes brought out over the previous 20 years.

Side note. I just spent $150 at Dan Murphy's. Those purchases will probably provide me and the Mrs 30 hours of pleasure each. I could have bought 69 litres of Av Gas and provides 1.25 hours of pleasure for the pair of us. Perhaps CASA should talk to Dan Murphy.:p:p:p:p:p

Thanks Mr 'RA',

Your 69 litres of avgas used would have supported 'good ole FS' to the stately sum of $1.38....enuf for an early morning 'brew' (?), whilst providing the service of the time.....

Cheers :ok:

I asserted, in another thread, that you had facilitated 'user pays', Dick.

I apologise, unreservedly, for the implication that you deliberately facilitated user pays.

In any event, I look forward to you now advocating strenuously for the removal of ANCs, TNCs, landing fees and aerodrome user fees for all aircraft operators. :D

The Bosch report was a decade before AOPA and You Know Who created the concept of Location Specific Charging...

User pays Macquarie. Apparently not just limited to airports.

AOPA had, for a while, a line "pay our own way and have our own say". This possibly confused many into thinking Dick may have instigated it in support of user pays. In fact it was another President who coined the phrase.

I understand Dick was president of AOPA 1995-1996, when Location Specific Charging was being pushed hard by AOPA.

SMH, June 17, 1995

Bosch was a decade before.

Boyd was after Dick.

Don't forget Prof Fred Hilmer. Henry Bosch was the architect of user pays but Hilmer, with the support of the Libs, Labor (the illustrious Laurie Brereton) and the Nats, was the real instigator of corporatization and privatization.
The Government did very well out of the sale of the FAC airports $5b+ from memory and now the whole industry is fractured with GA dying.
As an aside, a beautiful day in south west WA today and 10 years ago plenty of lighties would've turned up for a visit and lunch in this quiet pretty coastal town. No landing fees. Today, one arrival only - a gyrocopter! Says it all really, the heart of GA has been ripped out by an incompetent regulator, greedy airport owners operating under the protection of the Airports Act and politicians who are so out of touch it's disgraceful. Can't see a solution, regrettably.

P51D:

It should be noted that we don't have true "user pays" in Australian Aviation because the implicit checks and balances in such a system were never enacted. When government bears the full cost of regulation, the Treasury provides the checks and balances in the form of an annual budget, efficiency reviews, auditor general etc. In true user pays, the user either has an option of a choice of service providers and market forces provide the checks, or the checks are enacted via strict rules on costing and pricing by the regulator, mandatory cost benefit analysis, a requirement to foster industry, etc., etc.

We don't have any of that, just obscenely bloated abortions of institutions allowed to charge what they like without any let or hindrance.

The solution is RAA and SAAA aircraft using private grass field runways at present.

However once CASA, AsA and airport owners have finished sucking the last blood out of GA, they will come after those little aircraft as well.

My personal opinion:

Is it really CASA and ASA and bureaucracy etc that are causing the demise of GA in Oz?

In the US where the regulators (apparently) have a much less intrusive role, airport owners charge less, fuel is cheaper, rules less burdensome etc, GA seems to be similarly declining. :(

How much of this is simply how the economy (and its effects on people) are changing the way people behave and view aviation?

GA thrives on new blood in the way of pilots, owners and operators. It cannot self sustain on an aging pool of private owners, small GA operators having trouble getting customers and the dwindling general flying school industry unless there are customers wanting to spend their money on aviation.

Operators need to make a buck, students need to be able to pay for lessons and not risk their mortgage, CPL trainees need to believe the cost outlay will allow at least the potential for them to get some sort of career path in aviation that might justify the cost.

Today I suspect it is not that flying costs have grown out of proportion to the average new blood punter's wages but that with the cost of housing in much of Australia, the average new blood punter is spending most of their income on paying off a mortgage. The median house price in Sydney is near a million dollars! :eek: How can a 'median' family with a couple of kids in school service that kind of debt and have enough left over to get a PPL?

The previous new blood punters are too scared of what might happen if the interest rates go up or there is a recession to spend their left over money on getting a PPL or helping their kids go for a CPL or invest in an aviation business that is far from a sure bet given the current state of play of GA.

Flying costs need to appear to be within reach of the average punter. It used to be that way.

20 years ago I recall plenty of students from all walks of life from teachers, fitters and turners, builders, plumbers, salespeople etc who wanted to learn to fly (or were looking to have a shot at aviation as a new career and stumped up to work at a CPL).

They managed to find the costs at least within their reach (even if sometimes it was tight and they needed to spread their training out).

For all the talk of steady economic growth in Oz, that is not how many people I think feel personally about 'their personal economy' today.

I think that is why GA is dying not simply because of the regulators, bureaucrats or landing charges.

Not to say those costs/hurdles don't hurt things but I think the real issues run way deeper and are far more difficult to solve. Sadly :(

Look at how many schools and flying clubs there were back then compared to now.

Today? How many new students come in off the street? How many have an average job to fund it? I seriously wonder how kids (or older) can afford to get a PPL (or do a CPL) when most of your income is going into a mortgage or rent.

Consider the editorial in the January 2017 issue of AERO Australia for similar points to consider

Jonkster: what is the most saddest thing about what you've said is that the only thing that has not changed is the number of people out there who are interested in aviation. The downward spiral only serves to reduce entry further.

Jonkster,

I agree with most of your sentiments, there are many impediments that have contributed to the decline of general aviation.
It does not however alter the fact that the cost of compliance measured as a percentage of operating costs has dramatically increased over the past thirty years since the bureaucrats decided to subvert a direction to align with FAA rules and go their own way with regulatory reform, leading to the prescriptive, convoluted, rubbish masquerading as safety related regulation we enjoy today.
In truth, we are no safer here than the USA, the biggest aviation market on the planet. Technology has contributed for sure, to better safety outcomes. Over regulation on the other hand has contributed nothing except an ever increasing cost burden. Our regulator is supposed to be a profit centre for the government,and as such I believe our home grown regulations are more focused on make work and therefore provide more opportunities to derive income, rather than focusing on improving safety. As a safety regulator I believe CAsA is a complete and utter failure. They have squandered hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer's money on a folly and achieved nothing, in real terms I don't believe it is any safer today than it was fifty years ago, just a hell of a lot more complicated and expensive.
Compare the US "AIM" booklet against the plethora of Australian reg's, the AIM is an A5 booklet you can hold in your hand, you'd need a very large table to stack up Australia's regs.