[Peetwo]

P2 - "Aside from the inefficiencies/ineptitude on display in Senate Estimates, there is much evidence in the various aviation agencies under M&Ms purview, of non-compliance with Government policies, inefficiencies with fiscal discipline/red tape reduction, lack of probity/transparency and accountability to the public/taxpayers."

..Under the DoIT ASA, ATSB and CASA have become a law unto themselves.  Look at CASA, massive funding, huge cast and crew, an independent self perpetuating monster which is devouring industry with scant regard for consequence.  But it’s the breath-taking arrogance which beggars the imagination; reports, instructions, directives all ignored or diluted; court and tribunal rule flouted, even parliamentary privilege beaten by artful dodging.  Even the purblind Minister must see the writing on the wall.

The impenetrable top cover provided by the Murky Machiavellian department is only the first line of defence; each department has a board with systems in place to protect the top trough; each department has a head with systems in place to protect that species; then there are the various sub-department heads with their own special brand of wriggle room, obfuscation and weasel word writers.  A bloody merry-go-round, a smorgasbord of untrammelled power and unlimited funds; all to protect and enhance the mystique of air safety.

Proof, screams the audience: look to the AQoN game and Estimates; all there, empirical, substantive and plain as day.  No matter parts 61 and 91 will ensure absolute air safety, we’ll all be detained at her Majesties pleasure for turning up to work with our boot laces tied the wrong way.

FCOL Minister WAKE UP and turn Boyd and Forsyth loose; give them the tools, they’ll get it sorted.  Lead, follow or get out the bloody way...

BARA - Please explain!

Update: Is M&Ms Dept the most inefficient, non-compliant to Govt policy, Federal Govt Department?

Well not much to tell in the fairyland world of fat cat Aviation Mandarins & their minions. Still no AQONs (see here) but there has been a mad flurry of activity with the release of several corporate plans (the ATSB one was particularly puerile- see my Off with the fairies post- bucket  please Aunty Pru ).

This CP bollocks is  presumably in the lead up to October's glossy annual wascily, wabbit, weasel weports; which as we know is simply another smokescreen for the inept, obfuscating, miscreant behaviour of the individual agencies and M&Ms overseeing dept for the last year...

However maybe..just maybe all this annual bureaucratic Bullocks might possibly start to unravel when it comes to the severely under siege ASA (see here & here). Why?- Well because it would seem the heavy weight Airlines are now weighing into the fray and asking a few pertinent questions of their own...

Courtesy the Oz:

Justify price levels, airlines tell Airservices Australia  

• by: Steve Creedy
  
• From: The Australian
  
• September 04, 2015 12:00AM
  

Aviation Editor
Sydney





Airlines want amendments to the Airservices proposal. Source: News Corp Australia

Major airlines have called for greater accountability by Air­services Australia as part of changes to the air navigation provider’s long-term pricing plan, ahead of the plan’s submission to the competition watchdog.  

The Board of Airlines Representatives of Australia is seeking amendments to make the Airservices proposal, which sets pricing for air navigation and other services for five years from July, “more amenable” to support from its member airlines.

The changes include scrutiny by an independent third party to assess Airservices’ operating and spending efficiency.

In a submission lodged this week and obtained by The Australian, BARA calls for greater ­accountability over the delivery of services for the prices paid by international airlines as well as better justification of efficient ­operating and capital costs.

It also wants a solution to its longstanding objection to the cross-subsidisation of regional airports by carriers who use only major metropolitan airports.

“This is the first time BARA has laid out its full scope of ­concerns, and more importantly, described how the arrangements need to evolve and improve to ­develop an acceptable service ­delivery and pricing agreement for the international airlines,’’ BARA executive director Barry Abrams said.

“It’s now really up to Air­services.

“They can seek to negotiate with the airlines to improve ­matters or lodge directly with the ACCC, knowing the current ­proposal is not acceptable to us.’’

The group believes Airservices’ 2106 pricing proposal effectively rolls forward the existing pricing agreement negotiated in 2011.

The latest plan increases prices by an average of 3.3 per cent per year to fund air navigation and fire fighting services, with a 5.3 per cent increase in the first year that includes unexpected expenditure over the past three years.

The company says it has provided real price reductions of 20 per cent since its first long-term pricing agreement in 2005.

While conceding the new proposal contains forecast costs, ­activity volumes and “some high-level descriptions of outcomes”, BARA’s submission was critical that it contained no binding commitments on anticipated service commitments to airlines.

It said this was particularly problematic given the proposed expenditures associated with the OneSKY project to merge the civilian and military air traffic control systems. OneSKY is expected to cost $600 million to set up and $1.5 billion over its lifetime.

It questioned a lack of information on supplier costs, the controversy over executive pay at the organisation, the growth in employee numbers and union wage increases of 4 per cent, compared to a 1.5 per cent average for the commonwealth public service.
“BARA notes how since this time external bodies — including the Commission of Audit, the Productivity Commission, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, and the Harper review — have raised concerns over the efficiency of Airservices’ capital investment program, operating efficiency and pricing structures,’’ the submission says. “

These issues are not new and formed part of the ACCC’s assessment of Airservices in 2011.

“As such, BARA had expected the 2016 pricing proposal would have contained a framework that directly responded to issues raised by external bodies.’’

The submission argued a link between price increases and the delivery of services to airlines should include an agreed checklist of tangible and measurable “deliverables’’, particularly when it came to the OneSKY project.

“Annual price increases for en route and terminal navigation services (with an option for ‘smoothed’ price paths) should depend on meeting agreed deliverables,’’ it says.

The airlines also want recent OneSKY procurement issues raised during a senate committee hearing this month to be clarified. Senators claimed the project had been compromised by “incestuous” and “dodgy” family and corporate alleged conflicts of interest, although Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss’s office has said the Minister was satisfied the project was being managed appropriately.

 
Hmm...next week's Senate Inquiry hearing could be very interesting indeed??


MTF...P2