Re CASA Part 1.
With regard to Aviation Fire Fighting and Rescue Services.
Is't it interesting, that Murky (Mike Mrdak, Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) felt the need to "jump in" at 7 minutes 57 seconds.
Listening to him, it is difficult to get past the suspicious thought, that perhaps the real reason, (it has to be money) for proposing to raise the threshold from 350,000 to 500,00 per year, is nothing more than a tactic, a ploy, to "avoid" the need to provide services at existing aerodromes, that are approaching 350,000 per year now.
Consider a "number" of airports X, Y and Z.
Assume that their yearly passenger numbers are currently "growing" at 10,000 per year = 200 per week = say 2 to 4 flights per week.
Assume that they are currently at 300,000 per year.
Then projected growth would see them hitting the 350,000 threshold in 5 years.
Raising the threshold to 500,000, on current projections, quite simply, and quite effecively, "makes the problem, and the cost, go away", way away, way out to 20 years.
I wonder how many "potentially costly" (in terms of Aviation Fire Fighting and Rescue Services ) X, Y, and Z airports their are.
Perhaps someone could dig up the passenger figures for every airport for the last ten years, and plot "the trend lines", to see what "looming impact" ASA / MrDak, is hiding, from our dear Senators.
With regard to Aviation Fire Fighting and Rescue Services.
Is't it interesting, that Murky (Mike Mrdak, Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) felt the need to "jump in" at 7 minutes 57 seconds.
Listening to him, it is difficult to get past the suspicious thought, that perhaps the real reason, (it has to be money) for proposing to raise the threshold from 350,000 to 500,00 per year, is nothing more than a tactic, a ploy, to "avoid" the need to provide services at existing aerodromes, that are approaching 350,000 per year now.
Consider a "number" of airports X, Y and Z.
Assume that their yearly passenger numbers are currently "growing" at 10,000 per year = 200 per week = say 2 to 4 flights per week.
Assume that they are currently at 300,000 per year.
Then projected growth would see them hitting the 350,000 threshold in 5 years.
Raising the threshold to 500,000, on current projections, quite simply, and quite effecively, "makes the problem, and the cost, go away", way away, way out to 20 years.
I wonder how many "potentially costly" (in terms of Aviation Fire Fighting and Rescue Services ) X, Y, and Z airports their are.
Perhaps someone could dig up the passenger figures for every airport for the last ten years, and plot "the trend lines", to see what "looming impact" ASA / MrDak, is hiding, from our dear Senators.