UK CAA - No Backbone
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK CAA - No Backbone
In a report published today the UK CAA have been accused of not working in the public interest.
The report is by the competition commission and has indicated that the Government agency has not regulated the various airports around the UK in the manner it should of. It said that the CAA has no backbone.
In my opinion the UK CAA has allowed Airlines and Airports to get away with just about everything during the last 6 years or so.
I say 6 years because before this date the Airline industry worked in a safe and proper manner that was fitting for the profession.
I hope this is the beginning of a more modern and accountable Civil Aviation Authority.
The report is by the competition commission and has indicated that the Government agency has not regulated the various airports around the UK in the manner it should of. It said that the CAA has no backbone.
In my opinion the UK CAA has allowed Airlines and Airports to get away with just about everything during the last 6 years or so.
I say 6 years because before this date the Airline industry worked in a safe and proper manner that was fitting for the profession.
I hope this is the beginning of a more modern and accountable Civil Aviation Authority.
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly HB I think it will make no difference whatsoever. In 20 years in this industry I have watched the CAA do little except push paper while waiting for their index linked pensions and then get shafted by Europe leading to a loss of standards in training, flight ops, airports etc. Shortly the Belgrano and it's denizens will be irrelevant and the final nail will be hammered in the coffin of aviation standards in this country.
VH
VH
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A25R
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA = Charge vast amounts of money for licences, tests, ratings and approvals.
Chase hapless ppl's into the courts and persue vast fines for supposedly flying at 499'.
Ignore outrageous practices and safety related events peddled by several airlines in this country, one notable.
Chase hapless ppl's into the courts and persue vast fines for supposedly flying at 499'.
Ignore outrageous practices and safety related events peddled by several airlines in this country, one notable.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try listing the number of UK airlines/AOC's withdrawn by the CAA (as the ultimate sanction to protect the travelling public), in the last 25 years?
I can only think of one...
Is that good regulation before the ultimate sanction is applied, or is that an organisation that fears using its teeth on anyone but plankton?
I can only think of one...
Is that good regulation before the ultimate sanction is applied, or is that an organisation that fears using its teeth on anyone but plankton?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: _
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's proper lack of spine you're looking for, how about letting an EI- registered 737 operator become effectively the largest short-haul airline based in the UK...what a bunch of 
's
's
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if you actually read the report it finds that BAA not the CAA did not act in the public interest in the area of security queing delays. I also think if you read it you would find that the CC is proposing that BAA be allowed to levy higher charges than the CAA proposed.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do BAA have to act in the public's interest? They are a privately owned business (and are not actually an authority at all). It's up to the CAA to impose rules and regulations upon BAA isn't it? 
Guest
Posts: n/a
Also on the Beeb and not very complementary
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7025419.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7025419.stm
The Air Transport Users Council run by the CAA is also failing the consumer.
Due to the large number of complaints being received from consumers about airlines, the AUC takes in excess of 3 months to even look at a complaint, let alone do anything about it.
That's pretty shoddy & you do wonder what the point of the AUC is ?
Due to the large number of complaints being received from consumers about airlines, the AUC takes in excess of 3 months to even look at a complaint, let alone do anything about it.
That's pretty shoddy & you do wonder what the point of the AUC is ?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
The CAA are in a word or two... sh*t scared of being sued...
Another detrimental fact is they no longer really employ qualified licenced Engineers as their staff etc so the standards have dropped through the floor, you get some spotty oik out of UNI who has never worked on Aircraft or has any idea about them............. trying to guide you..
They issued an Engineers Guide to EASA Licencing (1st issue) and in that they gave examples of Aircraft types you would need to get Aircraft Groups.......
Under
Cessna Multi Engine Metal Pressurised Piston Aircraft Group
The 2 EXAMPLES LISTED were
Cessna 501
and
Cessna 441
Thats a citation JET
and a Conquest 2 TURBOPROP to you and me
Sighhh......what hope do we have when they do not even know the difference........
I would say on their defence however, half of the dire state of European Aviation control under EASA... (Europe Actively Screwing Aviation)
is down to pollititions screwing it up.......
Another detrimental fact is they no longer really employ qualified licenced Engineers as their staff etc so the standards have dropped through the floor, you get some spotty oik out of UNI who has never worked on Aircraft or has any idea about them............. trying to guide you..
They issued an Engineers Guide to EASA Licencing (1st issue) and in that they gave examples of Aircraft types you would need to get Aircraft Groups.......
Under
Cessna Multi Engine Metal Pressurised Piston Aircraft Group
The 2 EXAMPLES LISTED were
Cessna 501
and
Cessna 441
Thats a citation JET
and a Conquest 2 TURBOPROP to you and me
Sighhh......what hope do we have when they do not even know the difference........
I would say on their defence however, half of the dire state of European Aviation control under EASA... (Europe Actively Screwing Aviation)
is down to pollititions screwing it up.......
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
BAA and pricing formulae
When the British Airports Authority was privatised 20 or so years ago, the MMC (now the CC) and the CAA imposed a pricing formula on the South-East airports which had the effect at Heathrow of over-stimulating demand at an airport that couldn't grow sensibly at a rate to meet that demand. Thus, Heathrow (and to a lesser extent Gatwick) have a demand far in excess of capacity but no cash with which to properly expand the infrastructure to cope with it. Gatwick is the busiest single-runway airport in the world by a factor of at least 30% and Heathrow is one of the cheapest in Europe with eye-watering overcrowding, both in the Terminals and out on the Apron. An immediate doubling in charges at Heathrow would restore some sense but of course you couldn't do it overnight. Years of RPI -8% and then RPI-5% have done a lot of damage. People who fly in and out of Heathrow are getting the use of the airport at an outragously cheap rate and of course they're now paying the price with chronic overcrowding. T5 will hardly make enough difference here, unless charges go up significantly above inflation to get demand down to sensible levels. I see that it's to be RPI+7.5% at LHR, I'd advocate more but I suppose it's a start. Of COURSE BA would want charges to go down, who would vote for a rent increase? Don't forget, they're getting the massive benefit of BAA's major investment in T5, just as they did 25 years ago with T4. But of course, then both BA & BAA were part of the national infrastructure, owned by the public for the public good, so were helping each other out. (Actually, there was as much animosity between the two then, as now).
At Gatwick, it's not so much a case of seriously overheated demand as being stifled of cash to make proper investment in the infrastructure to make the South Terminal as pleasant a travel experience as the North is. Mind, you, NT is in my view only pleasant because BA have been steadily running down their presence at LGW. not to say anything against BA at LGW per se, just that absence leaves a bit of a gap at times during the day.
Will we still see a BA plane at LGW after T5 opens? Should EZY been moved over there to balance things out a bit? No and yes, I think...
Would an equity buy-out have been possible if BAAplc had been in a sufficiently robust position to resist, with a healthy pre-tax profit for shareholders of 10%, instead of the paltry 5 or 6% imposed by the CAA/CC??
just my view,
TheOddOne
At Gatwick, it's not so much a case of seriously overheated demand as being stifled of cash to make proper investment in the infrastructure to make the South Terminal as pleasant a travel experience as the North is. Mind, you, NT is in my view only pleasant because BA have been steadily running down their presence at LGW. not to say anything against BA at LGW per se, just that absence leaves a bit of a gap at times during the day.
Will we still see a BA plane at LGW after T5 opens? Should EZY been moved over there to balance things out a bit? No and yes, I think...
Would an equity buy-out have been possible if BAAplc had been in a sufficiently robust position to resist, with a healthy pre-tax profit for shareholders of 10%, instead of the paltry 5 or 6% imposed by the CAA/CC??
just my view,
TheOddOne
Last edited by TheOddOne; 5th Oct 2007 at 13:27.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The odd one your views are spot on.The public are flying far too cheaply .Its only because the airports have been forced to... and the airlines have chosen to make ar travel so cheap that the government has been able to fill the void with taxation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
TheOddOne provides some good historical background but - I think I'm correct in saying - that the economic regulation to which BAA is subject relates to aeronautical charges. Perhaps someone will put me right if necessary but I recall that was one reason that BAA got into retail in such a big way - i.e. BAA thinks 'income from landing charges etc is limited by regulation so let's make up for it by maximising other income streams from retail, car parking, leasing facilities, access to IT infrastructure etc'. BAA were very good at this and by no means can be called poor in terms of cash flow (a layman's view, I'm not an accountant). It is rather galling to see the company blaming the current shoddy state of their airports on the fact that they are subject to economic regulation. All the more so when the BAA shareholders that I know - admittedly not a large or scientifically selected sample - seem to have considered then a well performing investment over the long-term.
But on the subject of the thread, I'm going to buck the trend a bit and stand up for the CAA - in parts at least. I want to make clear that I don't work for them but I have been involved in CAA working groups and the like in the past.
The part of the CAA that deals with economic regulation is completely separate from that which deals with safety regulation. To try to relate the way that economic and safety regulation are done by the CAA is probably unfair because it is fairly obvious that the two groups work almost independently. During a recent wide ranging review it was almost amusing to see people from the two different bits of the CAA introducing themselves to each other at the beginning of meetings! On a more serious note, the objectives of the two regulatory functions are rather different also - which might justify, to an extent anyway, the rather different ways of working.
But my experiences of working with the safety people lead me to conclude that there are two types at the CAA. There are some who are very knowledgeable, experienced and professional who will go out of their way – sometimes way beyond what might be reasonably expected – to help the ‘customers’. And there are the neddies. Sadly, those who want to do a good and efficient job often leave in frustration in just a short time...and no doubt are of great value to their next employers by having an inside view of the CAA mindset. I work with one such at the moment and there is no question that he knows the buttons to push and the buzzwords to put into documents required by the CAA. Which leaves the neddies. Who, as is often the case, promote those in their likeness into management positions etc., thereby perpetuating the problem.
Just to put the final nail in my own coffin, I value having a regulator watching over what my employer does. It prevents some of the less scrupulous in the organisation from acting, in some cases, wholly irresponsibly. Unfortunately having a regulator costs money but having seen the situation that pertains in some places where there is poor safety regulation, I would much prefer the UK situation. Now, if only we could reduce the good ‘un to neddy ratio......
But on the subject of the thread, I'm going to buck the trend a bit and stand up for the CAA - in parts at least. I want to make clear that I don't work for them but I have been involved in CAA working groups and the like in the past.
The part of the CAA that deals with economic regulation is completely separate from that which deals with safety regulation. To try to relate the way that economic and safety regulation are done by the CAA is probably unfair because it is fairly obvious that the two groups work almost independently. During a recent wide ranging review it was almost amusing to see people from the two different bits of the CAA introducing themselves to each other at the beginning of meetings! On a more serious note, the objectives of the two regulatory functions are rather different also - which might justify, to an extent anyway, the rather different ways of working.
But my experiences of working with the safety people lead me to conclude that there are two types at the CAA. There are some who are very knowledgeable, experienced and professional who will go out of their way – sometimes way beyond what might be reasonably expected – to help the ‘customers’. And there are the neddies. Sadly, those who want to do a good and efficient job often leave in frustration in just a short time...and no doubt are of great value to their next employers by having an inside view of the CAA mindset. I work with one such at the moment and there is no question that he knows the buttons to push and the buzzwords to put into documents required by the CAA. Which leaves the neddies. Who, as is often the case, promote those in their likeness into management positions etc., thereby perpetuating the problem.
Just to put the final nail in my own coffin, I value having a regulator watching over what my employer does. It prevents some of the less scrupulous in the organisation from acting, in some cases, wholly irresponsibly. Unfortunately having a regulator costs money but having seen the situation that pertains in some places where there is poor safety regulation, I would much prefer the UK situation. Now, if only we could reduce the good ‘un to neddy ratio......
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only a few days ago I was discussing with a member of flight crew, how the CAA has changed over the years, also how people I have known for years, with decades of experience in specialised fields have become totally pd off with them.
d off with them.
Last edited by RVR27/09; 6th Sep 2008 at 14:53.