Charter and Air-work options.
Compared to a country like the USA or even Europe; on a per capita basis, Australia is way behind the game in terms of corporate and 'Charter/ Air-work hours operated. The 'remote' capital cities, like Perth and Darwin do a great job of keeping the ratio high; this had led to some great outfits growing up and expanding. When there is a market demand and a 'need' the business flourishes (more or less). This encourages Councils to maintain and even up-grade facilities, there are tangible benefits to this sensible approach and it helps pay for the 'trimmings'. It is much like last centuries great boom in rail travel; every Lord Mayor wanted a station and a railway line into town; self evident reasons (and cash flow) amongst the demands. However, there was 'industry' of some sort or another; or, a reason for people and business to travel there. America continued to develop industry and grow markets. A 'big' country with some 'awkward' terrain, busy people and some truly dreadful weather; all contributed the the growth of the aviation industry (don't mention the war). But, not every company could afford a company aircraft etc.; so the notion of 'charter' and private aircraft came into being; that too developed into a large industry.
So what happened in the “Lucky Country” ?
To answer that we need to look no further than the places where 'GA' is going well; Perth and WA leading the way; NT not too shabby; Qld holding it's own – there is a 'need' in those areas because there is 'industry' lots of it. FIFO and Charter in demand because there is a demand for quick, cost effective travel. They are 'big' (in area) States, with many remote locations at the end of long roads; QED, the 'cost of a management team from the city office driving to these location is enough incentive to easily justify the use of an aircraft. There is an excellent post on the UP – HERE – which makes a lot of 'sense'.
But, what of the other areas – NSW and Vic – the 'main hubs' are serviced adequately by the Regionals; should anyone wish to travel to 'remote' or not served port the drive times are not prohibitive although the local charter outfits do score the occasional charter and 'contracted' often specialised work. So the remaining operators at the city secondary aerodromes are caught betwixt and between, for charter operations. It it at these hubs where the costs and the regulations hit hardest. To support the impost is 'difficult' without the odd job filtering in.
These costs are a significant chunk of income generated on a thin, uncertain work flow. This is neatly articulated – HERE– in another first class post on the UP. Make of it all what you will; but the government imposed costs must be reduced and airport fundamental reasons for existing reestablished; we may need 'em one day. See Moorabbin or Bankstown; or, Archerfield .
Toot - toot
Compared to a country like the USA or even Europe; on a per capita basis, Australia is way behind the game in terms of corporate and 'Charter/ Air-work hours operated. The 'remote' capital cities, like Perth and Darwin do a great job of keeping the ratio high; this had led to some great outfits growing up and expanding. When there is a market demand and a 'need' the business flourishes (more or less). This encourages Councils to maintain and even up-grade facilities, there are tangible benefits to this sensible approach and it helps pay for the 'trimmings'. It is much like last centuries great boom in rail travel; every Lord Mayor wanted a station and a railway line into town; self evident reasons (and cash flow) amongst the demands. However, there was 'industry' of some sort or another; or, a reason for people and business to travel there. America continued to develop industry and grow markets. A 'big' country with some 'awkward' terrain, busy people and some truly dreadful weather; all contributed the the growth of the aviation industry (don't mention the war). But, not every company could afford a company aircraft etc.; so the notion of 'charter' and private aircraft came into being; that too developed into a large industry.
So what happened in the “Lucky Country” ?
To answer that we need to look no further than the places where 'GA' is going well; Perth and WA leading the way; NT not too shabby; Qld holding it's own – there is a 'need' in those areas because there is 'industry' lots of it. FIFO and Charter in demand because there is a demand for quick, cost effective travel. They are 'big' (in area) States, with many remote locations at the end of long roads; QED, the 'cost of a management team from the city office driving to these location is enough incentive to easily justify the use of an aircraft. There is an excellent post on the UP – HERE – which makes a lot of 'sense'.
But, what of the other areas – NSW and Vic – the 'main hubs' are serviced adequately by the Regionals; should anyone wish to travel to 'remote' or not served port the drive times are not prohibitive although the local charter outfits do score the occasional charter and 'contracted' often specialised work. So the remaining operators at the city secondary aerodromes are caught betwixt and between, for charter operations. It it at these hubs where the costs and the regulations hit hardest. To support the impost is 'difficult' without the odd job filtering in.
These costs are a significant chunk of income generated on a thin, uncertain work flow. This is neatly articulated – HERE– in another first class post on the UP. Make of it all what you will; but the government imposed costs must be reduced and airport fundamental reasons for existing reestablished; we may need 'em one day. See Moorabbin or Bankstown; or, Archerfield .
Toot - toot