[Sandy Reith]

Earl Lank, your suggestion for vehicle passenger restraints sounds like an idea worth a serious investigation. Having many ramifications we will need have a Government Green paper followed eventually by a White paper after establishing a Commission to consult with stakeholders and a subsequent public inquiry. Slated timeline will be two years to the fruition of a government policy position on the concept, to be followed by an action plan.

Going back to the Qatar issue, Minister King does seem to have some difficulty explaining her decision to disallow more Qatar flights. Because ‘Yes’ has been all too prominent these days so she thought give ‘No’ a run?

As for Qantas, it has shamelessly turned to direct partisan politics in order beat the competition. Personally I will fly any other airline or drive.

[Peetwo]

Errr...what's wrong with this picture?? - (cont/-) 

Noticed this Tweet, courtesy of the Duck-UP Fairies (AusGov Infrastructure
@AusGovInfra)

I'm going to apply for a grant to implement a great idea I have to improve road safety.   My idea - and please keep this confidential - is called "seat belts".   The concept is that these "seat belts" will constrain and reduce the scope for injuries to people in cars if the cars are involved in sudden impacts.

Studies have shown that the ubiquitous neck lanyards worn by public officials are ineffective to reduce injuries in car accidents, but are very effective in blinding the wearer to the 'big picture'.

Earl Lank, your suggestion for vehicle passenger restraints sounds like an idea worth a serious investigation. Having many ramifications we will need have a Government Green paper followed eventually by a White paper after establishing a Commission to consult with stakeholders and a subsequent public inquiry. Slated timeline will be two years to the fruition of a government policy position on the concept, to be followed by an action plan.

Going back to the Qatar issue, Minister King does seem to have some difficulty explaining her decision to disallow more Qatar flights. Because ‘Yes’ has been all too prominent these days so she thought give ‘No’ a run?

As for Qantas, it has shamelessly turned to direct partisan politics in order beat the competition. Personally I will fly any other airline or drive.

Earl & Sandy apply HERE:

This grant opportunity has five focus areas. Please note the opening dates for each area below:

• Community Education and Awareness
  
• Vulnerable Road Users
  
• First Nations Road Safety
  
• Technology and Innovation
  
• Research and Data
  

Plus via FaceBook/LinkedIn: 

AusGov Infrastructure (Ref: https://www.linkedin.com/company/infrast...edView=all )

⏳ Applications for the current round of the National Road Safety Action Grants Program close this Friday 25 August.

If you have a project or activity planned within the next three years that will improve community education and/or the safety of vulnerable road users, we encourage you to apply for this funding.
Check your eligibility & apply: 

#RoadSafety
#VisionZero
#DriveSafe

Hmm...at least the Duck-up Fairies are consistent across all social media platforms!! -  

MTF...P2  

[Earl Lank]

Errr...what's wrong with this picture?? - (cont/-) 

Noticed this Tweet, courtesy of the Duck-UP Fairies (AusGov Infrastructure
@AusGovInfra)

I'm going to apply for a grant to implement a great idea I have to improve road safety.   My idea - and please keep this confidential - is called "seat belts".   The concept is that these "seat belts" will constrain and reduce the scope for injuries to people in cars if the cars are involved in sudden impacts.

Studies have shown that the ubiquitous neck lanyards worn by public officials are ineffective to reduce injuries in car accidents, but are very effective in blinding the wearer to the 'big picture'.

Earl Lank, your suggestion for vehicle passenger restraints sounds like an idea worth a serious investigation. Having many ramifications we will need have a Government Green paper followed eventually by a White paper after establishing a Commission to consult with stakeholders and a subsequent public inquiry. Slated timeline will be two years to the fruition of a government policy position on the concept, to be followed by an action plan.

Going back to the Qatar issue, Minister King does seem to have some difficulty explaining her decision to disallow more Qatar flights. Because ‘Yes’ has been all too prominent these days so she thought give ‘No’ a run?

As for Qantas, it has shamelessly turned to direct partisan politics in order beat the competition. Personally I will fly any other airline or drive.

Earl & Sandy apply HERE:

This grant opportunity has five focus areas. Please note the opening dates for each area below:

• Community Education and Awareness
  
• Vulnerable Road Users
  
• First Nations Road Safety
  
• Technology and Innovation
  
• Research and Data
  

Plus via FaceBook/LinkedIn: 

AusGov Infrastructure (Ref: https://www.linkedin.com/company/infrast...edView=all )

⏳ Applications for the current round of the National Road Safety Action Grants Program close this Friday 25 August.

If you have a project or activity planned within the next three years that will improve community education and/or the safety of vulnerable road users, we encourage you to apply for this funding.
Check your eligibility & apply: 

#RoadSafety
#VisionZero
#DriveSafe

Hmm...at least the Duck-up Fairies are consistent across all social media platforms!! -  

MTF...P2  

I'm guessing that the advertising gurus will claim they deliberately chose an image showing an obvious safety risk so as to draw attention to the scheme.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

I note with interest the TWITter post has been pulled..

[Peetwo]

Hmm...must of hit a raw nerve, JB's crew have pulled all social media promos for the NRSA grants program with that picture featuring -   

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Archerfield MDP rejected! - Dickie King does something on airports?? 

Via DK's MR pages:

Ensuring a strong future for Archerfield Airport

The Australian Government is working to ensure the next Archerfield Airport Master Plan delivers the best outcomes for the airport’s future, the local aviation industry and the surrounding community. 

Archerfield Airport is Brisbane’s metropolitan airport and a critical centre for general aviation in Queensland, supporting corporate and charter flights, flying training and various aviation maintenance services.

The Government has concerns that the draft Master Plan submitted by Archerfield Airport Corporation (AAC) does not provide an adequate level of detail in several areas surrounding the airport’s land use, future developments and environmental impact management.

I have therefore used my authority under the Airports Act 1996 to ask AAC to provide a fresh draft Master Plan for consideration within 180 days.

My main concerns include that the draft Master Plan does not clearly establish the strategic direction for economic and efficient development of the airport over a 20-year planning period, or appropriately indicate the intended uses of the various precincts on the airport site to airport users, the community and the aviation industry.

The draft also does not fully demonstrate how the proposed approach to land use will meet the present and future requirements of civil aviation and other airport users.

Finally, I have concerns about the draft Master Plan’s approach to community consultation on potential aircraft noise impacts relating to general aviation operations in the immediate vicinity of the airport.

I am confident the matters raised can be worked through with AAC to ensure the plan is revised appropriately and the airport community is provided the certainty it needs to plan and invest for the long term.

The Government has also asked AAC to take every opportunity to share its plans with all relevant stakeholders as it prepares a fresh draft Master Plan.

The current 2017 Master Plan will remain in force until a new draft Master Plan is approved. My department will continue to work with AAC through this process.[/size]

Also via Oz Flying:

Minister calls for New Archerfield Master Plan

22 August 2023



Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Catherine King said today that she has called for a fresh draft master plan (FDMP) for Archerfield Airport among concerns that the submitted plan did not establish a strategic direction.

Archerfield Airport Corporation's 2022-24 Preliminary Draft Master Plan (PDMP) was first exposed to the public in December last year, and covers the development plan for the airport from 2022 to 2042.

"The Government has concerns that the draft Master Plan submitted by Archerfield Airport Corporation (AAC) does not provide an adequate level of detail in several areas surrounding the airport’s land use, future developments and environmental impact management," Minister King said.

"I have therefore used my authority under the Airports Act 1996 to ask AAC to provide a fresh draft Master Plan for consideration within 180 days.

"My main concerns include that the draft Master Plan does not clearly establish the strategic direction for economic and efficient development of the airport over a 20-year planning period, or appropriately indicate the intended uses of the various precincts on the airport site to airport users, the community and the aviation industry.

"The draft also does not fully demonstrate how the proposed approach to land use will meet the present and future requirements of civil aviation and other airport users."

Highlights of the submitted PDMP are:

• realignment of the secondary grass runway complex 
  
• identifies the primary areas for future aviation developments in the Wirraway precinct, between the Eastern Apron and Beatty Road, the area between taxiways Hotel and Juliet and in multi-purpose industrial and aviation precinct at the northern end of Beatty Road
  
• provides an updated assessment of heritage values, and sets out how these will be managed
  
• a recently endorsed 2042 ANEF, as required under the Airports Act 1996
  
• updated OLS/PANS-OPS plans, consistent with the upgrading of runway 10L/28R
  
• updated information on the management of lighting and wildlife in the vicinity of the airport
  
• additional and updated information on ground transport
  
• revised planning information, consistent with current planning strategies policies and controls 
  
• additional information about how AAC will manage developments and other initiatives anticipated within the first eight years of the Master Plan.
  

Minister King also addressed a concern over the level of community consultation, but expressed confidence that all issues could be worked through.

"I have concerns about the draft Master Plan’s approach to community consultation on potential aircraft noise impacts relating to general aviation operations in the immediate vicinity of the airport," she said.

"I am confident the matters raised can be worked through with AAC to ensure the plan is revised appropriately and the airport community is provided the certainty it needs to plan and invest for the long term.

"The Government has also asked AAC to take every opportunity to share its plans with all relevant stakeholders as it prepares a fresh draft Master Plan."

The current 2017 master plan will remain in force until a new FDMP is approved.

The submitted 2022-42 PDMP is on the Archerfield Airport website.

Hmm...have to consult with the BRB but maybe a choc frog nomination for the Minister?? -

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Albo & Dickie King captured by the Red Rat??

Courtesy Paul Murray, via SkyNews Oz Youtube channel... :

2,209 views  Aug 28, 2023

Sky News host Paul Murray says the Labor government made the decision to block flights from Qatar to keep Qantas “profitable”.

“The government doesn’t get to pick which airline is going to make more money than the other airlines,” Mr Murray said.

“If it’s a truly open, competitive market then stand on your own two feet.”

Plus via the other Aunty:

&.. via SBS (PS Sshh...AJ actually mentions the White Paper -   ):

Also, can be listened to here (from 15:30 minutes): https://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/W...eo/1657940 

MTF? - YOU BET!!...P2 

[Kharon]

Oh, I don't know what all the fuss is about. What could be possibly be wrong with a Billion dollar gift of tax payer money to a protected airline, a 25 million dollar bonus and a free pass for #1 son to the chairman's lounge in exchange for a few soppy signs slapped onto a couple of aircraft, along with a tape recorded message to 'assist' with a national divide; and, competition either removed or restricted from an open market?

Why on earth would the travelling public complain about that; they just love the exorbitant fares, the delays, the lost baggage and really, really do enjoy having 'the welcome' rammed down their necks at the start of every flight. Mind you, they don't need to know there is levy on the fuel used, that there is a tax on their ticket, or that their chances of a mid-air event have increased, or, that the slave labour rates paid to those outside in the rain getting them on their way are all looking for better jobs. Nope, nothing to complain of in Big Q's  world 'best' air service. I just wonder, who is servicing whom, who paid and what it cost....Aye, welcome to country - indeed....

Toot –Sky News - toot.

---

[Wombat]

.......and her next act will be to cancel any changes in medical certifications, permit CASA to crush what's left of GA and suppress recreational aviation unless it's battery powered.

[Peetwo]

Albo throws DK under the bus; industry calls out White Paper bollocks?? - 

Via the Oz:

Qatar turbulence worsens as Anthony Albanese washes his hands of flights decision



The decision to deny Qatar Airways more flights into Australia was not taken by cabinet and key ministers were not consulted on the decision, with ANZ boss Shayne Elliott saying he was ­“disturbed” by the government’s protection of Qantas profits.

The Australian has been told that senior members of the government were not informed of the decision taken by Transport Minister Catherine King, with ­Anthony Albanese saying on Tues­day he was not responsible for knocking back the Qatari bid.

“Well, it’s not up to me. It’s up to the Transport Minister, who’s made the decision,” the Prime Minister said.

“But there are decisions like this all the time. I can state there is nothing unusual about this.

“There is nothing unusual about a nation state not having ­access to unlimited flights where- ever they like to go.

“Australian airlines are restricted from where they fly into. And the former government made a very similar decision under minister (Michael) McCormack exactly as Minister King has.”

Decisions on air traffic rights between Australia and other ­nations do not usually go to cabinet. But Treasurer Jim Chalmers, Trade Minister Don Farrell, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil and Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong were all unable to confirm by deadline on Tuesday that they were consulted over the decision taken by Ms King.

Ms King’s office instead said that she “consults with relevant colleagues on all matters, as ­appropriate”, but did not identify which colleagues she kept informed about the Qatar decision.

Internal frustration within Labor is growing over the political fallout from the rejection of the Qatar Airways bid and a failure to provide a clear explanation for it, given it was not a commercial decision. Ms King said on Monday it was “a decision that I have made as Minister for Transport in the ­national interest”.

Assistant Minister for Competition Andrew Leigh said that ­“national interest” was “one of those terms which is typically not defined in legislation that allows the decision maker to take a broad view right across the economy and right across society”.

The aviation sector will not be a key focus of a new competition taskforce established within Treasury, with Dr Leigh saying the “issue of airline competition is one that we explored in the forthcoming aviation green paper” to be released soon. Speaking at the QUT Business Leaders Forum in Brisbane on Tuesday, Mr Elliott said he was “disturbed” by reports the government knocked back Qatar’s request for additional flights in order to protect Qantas profits. His remarks follow comments by Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones, who said the government did not want to drive airfares down to a level where it was unsustainable for the existing Australia-based carrier.

“I think that’s really disturbing and I don’t understand why one company is given that support,” Mr Elliott said. “This is a privately held, private enterprise company.”

While regulation was necessary, Qatar was a “safe, well-run airline” and Mr Elliott found it “a bit troubling to understand why they were blocked”.

Virgin chief executive Jayne Hrdlicka said airfares could come down by up to 40 per cent if Qatar Airways was allowed to schedule more flights into Australia and more capacity was returned.

“Airfares are about 50 per cent higher today than they were pre-Covid,” she told ABC radio.

“Airfares are abnormally high today … The statistics say that two thirds of the seats that we are flying in and out of Australia are back and one third of seats are not yet back.

“If we get those seats back, airfares will be as low as they possibly could be. You know, I guess that would be a reduction of at least a third, maybe a 40 per cent reduction in airfares.”

Ms Hrdlicka said it was a “nonsense” for Qantas to have argued the Qatar bid represented a distortion of the market when there was “such little capacity that’s ­recovered”.

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce told parliament’s cost-of-living committee on Monday that allowing Qatar Airways extra flights into the country could have discouraged other carriers from increasing their capacity.

Qantas general secretary Andrew Finch repeated the claim on Tuesday before the House of Representatives standing committee on economics, saying that the significant capacity increases announced by Singapore Airlines and China Southern may not have happened if Qatar had been granted more flights.

“It’s quite possible those other airlines may not have been able to get their growth and capacity,” Mr Finch said, adding there was no guarantee more Qatar Airways flights would have cut airfares, adding that extra capacity by other airlines “more than compensated for those services”.

Nationals MP and former deputy prime minister Michael McCormack agreed with Mr Albanese that he did put “on hold” a bid by Qatar to “get more flights into Australia” when he became transport minister in 2018. But it was not because he concluded the proposal went against the national interest – it was because he was new to the job. “I was new to the role and I thought I needed to consult widely,” he said. “I’d gone from the outer ministry to deputy prime minister. I wanted to make the right decision. Eventually I made the decision to allow Qatar into Australia. They didn’t get everything they wanted. But we opened up more flights.”

Mr McCormack also said he would have expected Ms King to have discussed the Qatar Airways bid with the Prime Minister before making her decision, revealing that he often consulted with Mr Albanese when he was the minister. “I consulted the now Prime Minister a few times about aviation matters because he had a deep knowledge,” he said. “I respected his judgment.”

Opposition transport spokeswoman Bridget McKenzie took aim at Mr Albanese’s claim that he did not make the Qatar decision, arguing leaders should “take responsibility for their actions”.

During Mr Joyce’s appearance before a parliamentary hearing into the cost of living on Monday, it also emerged that the value of money held by Qantas in unclaimed travel credits for flights cancelled during the pandemic was not the $370m reported in the airline’s results.

Jetstar chief executive Steph Tully said it didn’t include $100m in travel credits yet to be claimed by passengers of the low-fares airline or overseas customers.

Courtesy Robert Mason on X...  : https://twitter.com/Seagullrm/status/169...7191940564

Robert Mason
@Seagullrm

Dear Diawy

Wots of people are talking about our decision to bwock Qatar Airwines fwom incweasing fwights to Austwawia. I am totawwy denying any knowwedge of this &, wike my fwiend Dan in Victowia, I've chosen to thwow the Minister under the bus. It's a good feewing.

Airbus Albo

Next, courtesy of the AFR 8 Aug 2023, the White Paper bollocks unravels for Dickie King and Albo...  :

 

Boss of long-awaited aviation white paper quits
Ayesha de Kretser
Senior reporter
Aug 8, 2023 – 6.29pm

The head of the federal government’s eagerly anticipated aviation white paper has resigned, raising more doubts about the government’s willingness to act on growing competition concerns in the airlines sector.

The Australian Financial Review confirmed the assistant secretary in charge of the long-awaited white paper, Jason Dymowski, quit his post and the green paper that was supposed to precede it has been pushed back.


Transport Minister Catherine King refuses to answer questions on why the government isn’t doing more for consumers. Akex Ellinghausen

The government had been expected to release a green paper by mid-year, but industry has been guided to now expect its release in September.

A spokeswoman for Transport Minister Catherine King said the department would not comment on individual personnel movements, but maintained the paper was on schedule. It is understood Mr Dymowski has moved to a new role in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The resignation comes as the government continues to dodge questions its refusal to act on recommendations already before it that would help to reduce the cost of flying for ordinary Australian travellers and boost international competition.

“The competitiveness of the airline sector is important to the Albanese government. That is why it is one of the four critical areas to be examined by the Aviation White Paper,” a spokeswoman said.

“Although the aviation sector has rebounded strongly post-pandemic, conditions are uneven the government has heard from a range of stakeholders about challenges in terms of competition, cost pressure and skills shortages.”

The Australian Airports Association backed calls to reinstate the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s surveillance of the airlines, which was put in place during COVID-19 to ward against concerns around competition while Virgin was in administration.

The government de-funded the ACCC, despite its request to maintain the surveillance given the two incumbent airlines hold more than 95 per cent of the domestic market and concerns about airline complaints processes.

ACCC chairwoman Gina Cass-Gottlieb said there was no need to wait for the white paper to act on the commission’s recommendation to set up an airline ombudsman to deal with growing complaints.

The Financial Review reported that complaints have continued to surge since COVID-19, but data is not being released by the government’s department. Ms King’s spokeswoman said the government would reinstate monitoring “if the situation requires it”, but she would not say how much the current circumstances would need to deteriorate to prompt government intervention.

Appearing before the parliamentary inquiry into economic dynamism and competition, former productivity commission chairman Peter Harris also repeated his calls for the government to urgently establish proper auditing of the reasons that airlines cancel or delay flights.

The latest Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics data showed that 30 per cent of flights were delayed taking off or arriving in June, with the number expected to be worse in July because of ongoing issues with the government’s AirServices division.

Virgin Australia boss Jayne Hrdlicka last week blamed a lack of air traffic controllers for recent delays.

The spokeswoman said the minister “looks forward to AirServices Australia improving the efficiency and consistency of our aviation networks”.

“She is seeking to ensure that AirServices Australia gets back up to its appropriate staffing level and is sufficiently resourced to deliver its vital airspace management work, which is critical to preserving Australia’s world-leading reputation,” she added.

One airline industry veteran said the white paper was expected to yield very little results for the flying public, questioning the minister’s resolve to act.

“A white paper is what you do when you don’t want to do anything,” said the source. “They’ll release it some time late next year and it will just drag into the next election.”

Hmm...that airline industry vet totally nails it...


MTF...P2 

PS: Remember that Airbus Albo has got prior form for being captured by airlines...

Cost of Albo's silence??

[Peetwo]

DK the worst Minister to oversight Aviation industry EVER?? - 

Up against some pretty stiff competition, the QON above is slated to be debated in the next BRB indaba. 

Therefore for the record note these additions to the DK timeline of incompetence in recent days:

Airports thread:  Puppet Head Dickie King rubberstamps Moorabbin Master Plan??

And finally after much procrastination...  :

Aviation Green Paper open for feedback

The Albanese Government has taken the next step towards reforming Australia’s aviation sector, releasing the Aviation Green Paper and calling for feedback from the community and the sector.

The Green Paper marks an important stage in developing the Aviation White Paper which will set the policy direction for the aviation sector out to 2050.

The Government is seeking outcomes that deliver a more competitive aviation sector, while at the same time securing Australian jobs.

We are also looking at stronger consumer protections, improvements to complaint handling processes and improve accessibility for consumers living with disability.

Through this process, we are also seeking to understand whether options pursued in other jurisdictions – such as a Customer Rights Charter or a stronger ombudsman model – would deliver benefits to Australia’s aviation sector.

The Green Paper also considers how to transition Australia’s aviation industry to net zero. We committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and have already implemented new reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism requiring annual emissions reductions for Australia’s largest emitters – including our largest airlines.

Access to affordable air services is a key contributor to the liveability of regional Australia and it is essential that regional services remain viable. The Albanese Government recognises that now and over coming years, it will be critical to leverage the economic shifts underway across the world for the benefit of Australia’s regions.

We want an aviation sector that maintains Australia’s world leading safety and security standards and provides secure jobs now and into the future, a sector needs to be reliable, competitive and affordable, supported by a robust consumer rights framework.

We encourage those who are interested to carefully consider the Green Paper and provide feedback to inform next year’s Aviation White Paper.

The White Paper will enable long-term investment, underpin the maintenance and improvement of our internationally-enviable safety record, and articulate clear commitments to consumers and communities that rely on aviation.

The Government is considering the recommendations from the Review of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Scheme, an independent review prepared by Mr. Peter Harris AO. We have recently concluded targeted consultation regarding potential changes to the Scheme, with a particular eye to modernising the slot allocation framework and strengthening compliance measures to ensure that slots are not being misused by airlines. I will have more announcements to make about these reforms in due course.

To read the Aviation Green Paper visit www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicles/aviation/aviation-green-paper.

To have your say, visit www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say or email aviationgreenpaper@infrastructure.gov.au.

Minister’s foreword

A safe, efficient, sustainable, productive and competitive aviation sector is critical to the economy and the standard of living of all Australians. This Aviation Green Paper is an important step in developing an Aviation White Paper that sets the policy direction for the aviation sector out to 2050.

The Australian Government wants an aviation sector that maintains Australia’s world leading safety standards. That provides secure jobs now and into the future, especially as we lead the transition into net-zero aviation operations. A sector that supports our nation’s way of life, particularly in our regions, connects families, friends and communities with each other and the world, links businesses to markets, and underpins industries that are vital to our economy. These aviation services need to be reliable, competitive and affordable, supported by a robust consumer rights framework.

The last few years have been a challenging time for the aviation sector. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the largest shock the aviation industry has ever experienced, grounding passenger flights around the world and causing mass disruptions for aviation freight networks. I am pleased to see the positive signs suggesting the sector is on the way to recovery, with passenger numbers bouncing back to near pre-COVID levels domestically and internationally. However, disruptions to airline operations have showed potential weaknesses in our regulation of aviation and the aviation workforce.

The next challenge is decarbonisation. Emissions reduction is a key priority for both the Australian Government and the Australian aviation sector. We have committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and have implemented new reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism requiring annual emissions reductions for Australia’s largest emitters, including our largest airlines. The Australian Government is committed to supporting the new skills and innovation that will deliver these targets and underpin a sector that is strong and sustainable.

Now is the time to develop the policy settings that guide the continued recovery of the sector, strengthen consumer rights, support the transition to net zero and support our vital aviation workforce.

It has been over 10 years since the last Aviation White Paper was produced and the Australian Government recognises the need to bring an end to the uncertainty facing the aviation sector. An Aviation White Paper will enable long-term investment, and the maintenance and improvement of our internationally enviable safety record, and articulate clear commitments to consumers and communities affected by aviation activity.

I encourage interested stakeholders to carefully consider the Green Paper and provide feedback to the Australian Government as we develop the Aviation White Paper.

Catherine King
September 2023

 
And so it begins?? - 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Miniscule Dicky King under siege?? - 

Shadow Minister Senator McKenzie, via X:

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

An aviation ✈️Green paper two months late (that contradicts the PM in his claim that ‘Australia is the most competitive aviation sector in the world’ - not) No reasons for her decision on Qatar Airways or on Ministers consulted. No wonder Labor want to shut senate committee down

And from Bolt on SkyNews:

&..Sharri:

Hmm...the BRB TOTE board is firming...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AFR calls out Albo/DK on the WOFTAM/bollocks Green Paper - 

Via the AFR:

Labor’s Utopia moment on Qantas isn’t fooling anyone

The aviation green paper isn’t the circuit breaker the Albanese government needs on the national carrier. It simply kicks the reform can down the road again.

Sep 7, 2023 – 10.47am

It’s ironic that Transport Minister Catherine King described aviation as “an industry that has been allowed to drift for too long” on Thursday morning as she launched the federal government’s new aviation green paper.

Because goodness knows there’s nothing in this vacuous document that will halt this drift any time soon. This is a moment drawn straight from Utopia, the television series that satirises the inner workings of bureaucracy.


The aviation green paper won’t put any air between the government and Qantas.  David Rowe

With Labor’s broad support for Qantas looking sillier by the day, and King under fire from all sides for her decision to restrict aviation competition by blocking Qatar Airways from expanding flights to Australia, the Albanese government desperately needs something that will help put a bit of air between it and Qantas, and show it can act tough on the so-called national carrier when it needs to.

But King’s green paper is a classic kick-the-can-down-the-road exercise – which remarkably forms part of an even larger kick-the-can-down-the-road exercise.

The government wants to be seen to be doing something in the aviation sector, but the evidence of the past month suggests political pressure (hello, Qantas and your wondrous Chairman’s Lounge, which every parliamentarian is invited to join) means it is not in any great hurry.

And so, we get the aviation white paper, which King proudly says is the first in a decade. But the process is long: the terms of reference were announced in February this year and won’t be released until a yet-to-be-determined time mid-next year. The solution is the aviation green paper, a device that lets the government look like it is doing twice as much – while still not doing much of anything. Dive into the document and that feeling only grows.

It’s long (224 pages), it has lots of graphs, it’s full of detailed diagnosis of the issues at hand, and asks a series of questions that it wants stakeholders (a very Utopia word) to comment on.

But on the key issues of the day – competition in aviation and consumer protections – that green paper has remarkably little to say.

Only one big idea

On competition, for example, the green paper expresses the government’s interest in improving competition and its desire for people to tell it how to do that.

The only big idea under this heading is the prospect of greater “cabotage” rights for foreign airlines to carry domestic passengers – but the green paper then immediately says the government has no plans to change its current ad-hoc approach to cabotage rights, which only really permits cabotage in exceptional circumstances.

The green paper also acknowledges that competition could be boosted by changes to the way slots are allocated at airports, and references the now infamous review into the management of Sydney Airport by former Productivity Commission boss Peter Harris, which successive governments have sat on since it was delivered in February 2021.

The green paper at least notes the concerns around hoarding of landing slots by incumbent airlines, including Qantas, which the Harris review outlined, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has expressed concern about, and Qantas’ rivals have been complaining about for years.

But as for actually implementing the as-yet-unpublished Harris recommendations? The government will “have more announcements to make about these reforms in due course”.

Surely the time to act on this review, even in some small way, has arrived.

King said at a press conference on Thursday that she would have more to say “shortly” – at least before the white paper is released some time next year.

This is bad miscalculation. Even if we accept the green paper was well in train before the Qantas mess blew up in the past week, the Harris recommendations have been on King’s desk since Labor took power. Surely the time to act on this review, even in some small way, has arrived.

On the issue of consumer protections, the green paper is similarly vague.

It wants stakeholders to comment on a stronger ombudsman model, a charter of customer rights, fixed payout insurance-type products for compensation, and different governance arrangements for the Airline Customer Advocate, who appears to have been about as useful as a screen door on a submarine in the past few years.

The calls for stakeholder submissions are all part of the process, of course. Never mind the fact the government has already published more than 100 submissions to the aviation white paper’s terms of reference; the green paper consultation process takes time, and that feeds into the white paper, then the white paper is published, then there is consultation on that – and pretty soon it’s time for the next white paper process to start!

Chanticleer is being extra cynical here. No doubt there are lots of important conversation starters in this green paper, and it does cover a lot of ground across everything from training and decarbonisation to freight and general aviation.

But in a week where the early retirement of Alan Joyce was a way for Qantas to show it had heard the public’s anger, the green paper could have – should have – provided the government with circuit breaker, a chance to show it too has listened.

But the public can tell the difference between action and more talk. We’ve seen this episode before.

In response to that article the GAAAI made this comment in reply:

GAAAI - General Aviation & Airports Association
1 d

A horrible excursion into incompetency with the introduction of the new the Aviation ‘Green Paper’.
Minister King fails to comprehend the scarred and iniquitous battlefield the aviation sector finds itself in - through no fault of its own. The Minister, and Government at large, fail to comprehend the landscape in any meaningful way.

Labor disappoints the aviation sector on a grand scale.

The industry remains hamstrung by greed of privatised functions. Ironically the players have been given the power they abuse by successive governments, and actively supported in the Market Power abuse by the light hands/no hands governance.

Airports, privatised on long leases, plot against aviation operators and customers alike, and the whole of the General Aviation sector are being done over by the long lease holders or airports like Essendon and Moorabbin.

And Joyce types flourish with unjust enrichment, while the industry dies a quite death and the Minister what does she do? Slays a Green Paper Response ?. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Well said!! -   

MTF...P2 

[P7_TOM]

Ahem; perhaps there is some anorexic sliver of hope remaining in this land – but; then again............

- HERE - from the 'Beeb'

[P7_TOM]

Boycott for change..?

The 'public' can't take strike action, they can however vote with their hard earned holiday money. Now Qantas is a 'business' and understandably need to keep operating costs down; and it was back in the day an expensive operation to run. The different responses between reducing over the top 'costs' and the blatant attempt to reduce union influence, pay rates and conditions to third world standards are remarkable.

I doubt anyone would object if a Qantas ticket was $20, 30 or even $50 dollars more than another carrier; it - was -  after all 'our airline' and an Australian thing to do - dug out of the pits by government with public money (or outcry) on more than one occasion (see history). But when the top covers are ripped off corporate greed and the deliberate degradation of folks who are just trying to make a living; doing a rotten job until they can find other employment; or return to a chosen career path; well, it is time for the travelling public to vote with their cheque books.

It is bad situation; in fact (IMO) knowing the things and people I do, that only the top layer of this story has been exposed to daylight. When you get to individual cases and events it becomes worse; but very few will actually speak out.  However, I can recommend a thread on Pprune for insight and a couple of published articles which shine a light down a very dark, dank, murky tunnel. - HERE – and - HERE........... Worth the time.

[Peetwo]

Dicky King Miniscule for Obfuscation?? - 

Via the MSN: 

Minister blocks release of Qatar flight decision papers

Story by Paul Osborne • 17h


A Senate committee is seeking more information about the decision on Qatar Airways flights.
© Richard Wainwright/AAP PHOTOS

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles says the government has "nothing to hide", as a cabinet colleague knocks back a Senate request to provide documents about its decision on Qatar Airways' flights.

A Senate select committee on commonwealth bilateral air service agreements is due to hold hearings next week, asking senior Qantas executives, as well as former CEO Alan Joyce, to appear.

The Senate has also requested the government to release documents relating to its decision to knock back Qatar Airways' application for a doubling of flights.

"There's nothing to hide," Mr Marles told Nine's Today show on Friday.

"A decision was made by the transport minister in the ordinary course of her work, as transport ministers have made over an extensive period of time, around how to apply the national interest in respect of this.

"And that's all that she's done."

Transport Minister Catherine King has claimed public interest immunity over documents relating to the Senate order.

She said in a letter that air services agreements were "treaty-level agreements between countries".

"There is a public interest in not disclosing such discussions so the government's negotiations over air services agreements with a range of countries can continue unimpeded."

Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie, who is chairing the committee, said the government was continuing its cover-up.

"It is shocking that Transport Minister Catherine King waited until parliament rose to tell us that she will now not be disclosing advice from her department on why she blocked more Qatar Airways flights based on 'public interest immunity'," Senator McKenzie said.

"After giving nine different excuses for her decision, it will be up to the Senate inquiry to try to get to the bottom of this fiasco."

Greens leader Adam Bandt called the minister's move disappointing.

"The public deserves to know what advice the government got about the decision that was made," he said.

The Senate inquiry will also look at federal government decisions on additional air services going back to 2016.

Mr Bandt said if the government was serious about taking action, it would consider bringing Qantas back into public ownership and treating it as an essential service.

Senator McKenzie has flagged Qantas's unlawful outsourcing decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic could also be examined.

She has accused the Albanese government of having a "cozy, personal and political relationship" with Qantas.

Senator McKenzie admitted the former coalition government had partially knocked back Qatar Airways in the past but said the committee would look at previous decisions to help open up the aviation market.

Asked whether former transport minister Michael McCormack should front the inquiry, she said: "The department that worked for the former minister will be called and we'll be asked those questions."

Past transport ministers she had spoken with said Qantas had been "very muscular" in its advocacy to government.

"They all agreed that the culture of Qantas was very aggressive about protecting their market share," Senator McKenzie said.

The inquiry will examine whether a lack of competition in the aviation sector is pushing up airfare prices and impacting the tourism and hospitality sectors.

It is due to report by October 9.

Oh but she did mention the Aviation Green/White paper...

While on the Aviation Green Paper and in relation to non-aviation development around airports, I note that the section that deals with the NASAG and the NASF appears to have an overwhelming focus on NASF Guideline A (refer below). This is troubling when you consider the recent issues highlighted by Moorabbin (approved), Archerfield and Canberra (pending) MDPs, plus the significant safety issues highlighted in the ATSB's topcover safety review of the Essendon DFO approval process...  

Refer: 

1. YMEN original test case for Australian obfuscation of international airport safety standards??
   
2. AusALPA explains the importance of maintaining OLS safety standards?? 
   
3. Airport public self-serving safety risk mitigation obfuscation - Oz style?  
   
4. Puppet Head Dickie King rubberstamps Moorabbin Master Plan?? 
   

 

...To supplement the Airports Act 1996 (Airports Act) framework, the Australian Government is implementing in partnership with states and territories the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF). NASF provides guidance on mitigating aircraft noise off-airport as well as a number of other safety issues, including wind shear, wildlife strike risk and intrusions into protected airspace. It is appropriate to consider NASF when planning developments around civil and military airports. Implementation of NASF in each state and territory, and in local government planning, is ongoing but is inconsistent across jurisdictions.

NASF was developed by the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG), comprised of Australian Government, state and territory government planning and transport officials, Department of Defence (Defence), CASA, Airservices Australia, and the Australian Local Government Association. It provides a mechanism for all levels of government to consult on how to balance the objectives of reducing aircraft noise impacts on the community against the need to continue to provide land for development through strategic land-use planning.

NASF Guideline A, Measures for Managing Impacts of Aircraft Noise, provides guidance to decision-makers of all three levels of government to ‘manage the impacts of noise around airports, including assessing suitability of developments’.109 Guideline A further states ‘governments recognise the merits of utilising a range of noise measures and tools in conjunction with the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast system to better inform strategic planning and to provide more comprehensive and understandable information on aircraft noise for communities’.110

A 2019 NASF implementation review identified the incomplete introduction of planning mechanisms to address NASF-related issues by local governments. It also found a lack of awareness of NASF by town planners is hindering best practice consideration of development applications near airports. Continuing implementation of NASF towards existing goals by 2027 should be maintained to improve planning outcomes on and near airports and under flight paths for both the aviation industry and for nearby communities. As the majority of airports are not subject to the Airports Act, state and territory governments need to take a leading role in formally adopting the Framework and providing capacity building for state and local planners to be aware of and implement NASF in their planning decisions.

PG 102: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/..._paper.pdf

        
Hmm...I can see where this is heading - 

Essendon DFO accident: No MSM speculation here Christine?

MTF? - Yes MUCH! - P2 

[Kharon]

From Skynews (with thanks)...

Transport Minister Catherine King has reported to have gone on leave for two weeks as a Senate inquiry begins hearings on Tuesday into the government's refusal to allow Qatar Airways more flights into Australia.

Before Ms King went off on leave, she managed to write a letter to the Senate declining to give out any information that was the subject of a Senate order for documents.

This includes blocking the release of departmental advice, rumoured to have recommended Qatar's request should be granted.
Ms King wrote - "The production of documents falling within the scope of these orders would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose the nature of bilateral relations with Australia's foreign partners that we have given undertakings to protect.”

"There is a public interest in not disclosing such discussions so the Government's negotiations over air services agreements with a range of countries can continue unimpeded.

"As such, I claim public interest immunity over documents subject to the Orders."

Two weeks off – just on a whim; with benefits, pay, travel expenses and perks:- must be for doing such a great job on behalf of air transport.

[Earl Lank]

According to a briefing paper published by the Independent Centre for Public Integrity in April this year:

"One of the most powerful tools for accessing government information is the Senate’s ability to order the production of documents. This mechanism has, however, buckled in recent years under abuse of successive governments. Senate production compliance rates have fallen from 92 per cent in 1993-96, to 20 per cent for the current Parliament. The use of potentially bogus unilateral ‘public interest immunity’ claims to protect government documents from production in the Senate has rapidly increased under the current Albanese Government – averaging almost one claim per week compared to one every three weeks under the Morrison Government."

These days, the major parties are only interested in transparency when they're in opposition.

[Earl Lank]

Senate Select Committee hearings on bilateral air services agreements commence in Sydney this morning at 0830 local.   Broadcast here.

[Kharon]

At fantastic cost:-

"As such, I claim public interest immunity over documents subject to the Orders."

APH - “In the judgment of the High Court of Australia in Sankey v. Whitlam it was held that the public interest in the administration of justice outweighed any public interest in withholding documents which belonged to a class of documents which may be protected from disclosure irrespective of their contents. The court held that such documents should be inspected by the court which should then itself determine whether the public interest rendered their non-disclosure necessary. The court held that a claim of Crown privilege has no automatic operation; it always remains the function of the court to determine upon that claim. Accordingly a class claim supported by reference to the need to encourage candour on the part of public servants in their advice to Ministers was not a tenable claim of Crown privilege.” etc..

Considering that 'the nation' meets all costs related to 'government' and governance; it seems quite reasonable that a fair percentage of 'documents' – (92% ish) should be made available to those with an 'interest' in government thinking. State secrets and such fair enough (defence etc.) but for such a mundane subject as 'aviation' which affects so many elements of everyday life, one has to wonder what must be kept away from public scrutiny.

Probably being naïve, but the one and only way to make any form of return on an airline investment is 'bums – on – seats' and frequency of service; a service which must be 'affordable'. The cost of operating a service from 'advertising' to luggage retrieval at the other end forms a good size chunk of ticket price; fees to operationally needed terminal infrastructure another. These accounts must be paid before an engine gets started. Then the 'fees' government add to the cost of service must be built into the ticket price – what ever is left over goes to the airline operator to meet the cost of running the operation and squeeze out a profit line on the balance sheet. It is a tough, expensive, risky game, not one for the feint of heart.

So much for the airline side; but what of the huge impost 'government services' to industry demands. The various 'departments' ASA, ATSB and CASA all, in one way or the other are funded by the public and their budgets are truly staggering. These costs – one way or another – all come from the public purse. That these agencies are 'autonomous' and beyond ministerial control is bad enough, but add in that they are essentially a 'for profit'  business, fully protected, without competition, sanctioned under the catch-all cry of 'safety' – and pay executive bonus to boot – well: you have to ask who's shagging whom, who paid and what is the total cost?

There are no 'national secrets' contained within any documentation related to the fantastic, government imposed costs of operating the few aircraft Australia manages to put in the air every day. I say it is very much in the public interest to open up this Pandora's box of additional cost and let the public see, exactly the extent of cost piled onto their ticket home to visit the family. Miniscule King could actually compare the Direct Operating Cost per seat to the airline; subtract that from the final ticket price , then show Joe Public the imposed mark up for providing a self serving autocracy which has no interest in anything else but bonus and being a great cut-out between incompetent ministers and the mug punters paying for it all – and then some. 

"As such, I claim public interest immunity over documents subject to the Orders."

BOLLOCKS, shameless, unmitigated BOLLOCKS...........Release the documents and shame the Devil...(Had to get that off my chest!).

Toot - toot.