The Micawber Principle.
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
Pretty solid advice ain't it. Depends on who you listen to, believe in or watch for the reporting of 'national debt', but either way you cut it up - it seems 'we' - the nation - owe truly staggering numbers. Figures beyond my comprehension - but lets just call it shed loads. i.e. A lot. Twiddle follows:-
Seems to me the best way to repay a national debt is to get the country 'productive'. Any business which is productive and profitable generates income for government - aviation is no exception. As it stands today aviation is dragging itself toward oblivion, aircraft sitting on the ground cannot generate income. There are hidden penalties associated with aircraft left sitting about, maintenance and return to service costs are a serious drain - aircraft need to be kept 'fit' - at work.
A government throwing money at the aviation industry and walking away is not a solution; although they'd take it - but, IMO it would prove to be counterproductive. The old adage of 'if it floats, flies or fornicates - hire it' is a tenet of many investors. Wear out a pair of boots in town walking around to see potential investors in a 'whizz-bang' scheme and watch the lights go out as soon as 'aircraft' are mentioned. Many a bank manager has had sleepless nights worrying about 'the loan'.
There are two core reasons for this worry; one fellah I know (who actually knows investment) says that as it stands, an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) is not an asset but a liability; and, that the regulatory frame work, the way it is 'used' and the uncertainty this creates is seriously detrimental. I, for one believe him.
The impost on industry and the country supporting the existing CASA and the regulations is of epic proportions. For example, the CASA 'team' presented at the last episode of the McDolittle pantomime represents somewhere North of 2.6 millions every year, before benefits and etc. is tacked on. Was that expenditure in any way justified by an equal return in revenue to the government coffers from aviation earnings? The short answer is No. (Long unprintable). The cost of producing and maintaining the current regulations is borderline astronomical - how much taxable revenue has the suite of regulation generated? Or, to put that another way - how much revenue has been lost because of the regulations? Ask any of the parts manufacturers who have moved 'off-shore' why they pay tax in foreign climes and not based at home providing jobs.
Consider the savings and increased revenue a robust aviation industry could provide if CASA was 'trimmed' (pruned) and industry was released from the death grip regulations which benefit no one bar CASA. Change just that one element and watch how well industry recovers.
Lots of words beginning with Un spring to mind - Un patriotic, Un democratic, Un constitutional, Un productive, Aye well, time to stop methinks.
Toot - toot.
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
Pretty solid advice ain't it. Depends on who you listen to, believe in or watch for the reporting of 'national debt', but either way you cut it up - it seems 'we' - the nation - owe truly staggering numbers. Figures beyond my comprehension - but lets just call it shed loads. i.e. A lot. Twiddle follows:-
Seems to me the best way to repay a national debt is to get the country 'productive'. Any business which is productive and profitable generates income for government - aviation is no exception. As it stands today aviation is dragging itself toward oblivion, aircraft sitting on the ground cannot generate income. There are hidden penalties associated with aircraft left sitting about, maintenance and return to service costs are a serious drain - aircraft need to be kept 'fit' - at work.
A government throwing money at the aviation industry and walking away is not a solution; although they'd take it - but, IMO it would prove to be counterproductive. The old adage of 'if it floats, flies or fornicates - hire it' is a tenet of many investors. Wear out a pair of boots in town walking around to see potential investors in a 'whizz-bang' scheme and watch the lights go out as soon as 'aircraft' are mentioned. Many a bank manager has had sleepless nights worrying about 'the loan'.
There are two core reasons for this worry; one fellah I know (who actually knows investment) says that as it stands, an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) is not an asset but a liability; and, that the regulatory frame work, the way it is 'used' and the uncertainty this creates is seriously detrimental. I, for one believe him.
The impost on industry and the country supporting the existing CASA and the regulations is of epic proportions. For example, the CASA 'team' presented at the last episode of the McDolittle pantomime represents somewhere North of 2.6 millions every year, before benefits and etc. is tacked on. Was that expenditure in any way justified by an equal return in revenue to the government coffers from aviation earnings? The short answer is No. (Long unprintable). The cost of producing and maintaining the current regulations is borderline astronomical - how much taxable revenue has the suite of regulation generated? Or, to put that another way - how much revenue has been lost because of the regulations? Ask any of the parts manufacturers who have moved 'off-shore' why they pay tax in foreign climes and not based at home providing jobs.
Consider the savings and increased revenue a robust aviation industry could provide if CASA was 'trimmed' (pruned) and industry was released from the death grip regulations which benefit no one bar CASA. Change just that one element and watch how well industry recovers.
Lots of words beginning with Un spring to mind - Un patriotic, Un democratic, Un constitutional, Un productive, Aye well, time to stop methinks.
Toot - toot.