[thorn bird]

NZ mission statement: 

Part 72AA  in the New Zealand Civil Aviation Act  1990 and states:

“The objective of the Authority is to undertake its safety, security, and other functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system”.

Dick Smith

"Note the complete disparity(between NZ and Australia).  It mentions nothing about safety being the most important consideration, which is a staggering difference in comparison to our Act.  Perhaps you should move to the New Zealand terminology; they have a British based legislative system just as we have, and I can’t see why that wouldn’t be better for us."

Thorn Bird:

Some questions for Barnaby:

Is it government "Policy" to completely wipe out aviation in Australia as an industry?

If not, why has the government allowed the regulator an unfetted licence to do just that?

It has been more than 25 years since CAsA's so called regulatory "reform" started. So far it has expended more than $300 million of the industries and taxpayers money and it is far from complete.

Is it government policy to expend another $300 million dollars of industry and taxpayers money and another 25 years to complete CAsA's "reform"?

Will there be any industry left in another 25 years of CAsA's "reforms" to apply to?

If not, what is the point of squandering another 25 years and $300 million dollars?

Is it the intention of the "Act" as it stands, to return Australia to the old two airline days where CAsA's predecessor set airfares in favour of TAA, probably the most inefficient airline in the world and the pilots union who's members were the most highly paid and unproductive in the world?

In case you hadn't noticed, there is only two airlines left in Australia, the two so called "budget" airlines are owned by the two high end airlines. Over the recent school holidays, fares across all the so called independent airlines were pretty much line ball, even for the so called "Budget" airfares. Airfares approached the old days where a one way fare SYD-BN was about a months salary for the average Joe, who would weigh up what it cost for him and the missus to fly to attend a wedding and chose the Kingswood and the risks of the Pacific highway.
Last weekend I could have travelled return to the Philippines for the same price as a one way ticket BN to SYD. I chose the Pacific highway and saved $1200 bucks.

How many tourists to this country come to the same conclusion? Just too bloody expensive!!

Why is this so? and how much does the regulatory burden affect airline costs?

From the GA perspective, operating costs for a specific aircraft is double that of the USA.

Are we safer than the US? not even close!!

SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF CAsA AND THEIR GOBBLEDEGOOK???

"We acknowledge that there were difficulties for industry, as well as for us, in coming to terms with the requirements of the new regulations. We know it has been frustrating for industry and applicants and we do appreciate your understanding and patience".


Then from the April Missive.......

"Tell us how to cut regulatory red tape
People across the aviation community are being asked to contribute to efforts to reduce regulatory red tape. CASA is committed to the Federal Government’s deregulation agenda which aims to reduce unnecessary red tape costs on individuals, businesses and community organisations. The agenda applies to any mandatory obligations imposed by legislation, regulations or quasi-regulations. This includes statutory instruments, standards, codes of practice, or any other aspect of regulator behaviour that has a measurable cost burden on business or individuals. Costs imposed by new regulations must be offset, although not necessarily in the same area. It has been a long standing CASA policy to ensure safety regulations are necessary, risk based and cost effective, with no unnecessary cost burdens imposed on the aviation community. The Government’s deregulation agenda puts additional emphasis on CASA’s policy. Everyone in aviation is invited to make constructive suggestions on cutting red tape by sending ideas and comments to a dedicated email address. Suggestions can be made about removing unnecessary regulations, modifying inefficient regulations or simplifying CASA’s processes and procedures.
Send your red tape reduction ideas to: deregulation@casa.gov.au."

Sorry CAsA, ran out of patience a LONG LONG time ago.....just sent your Email to deregulation@casa.gov.au.

Red tape Reduction Idea:

"ADOPT NEW ZEALAND REGULATIONS" 

Anyone got anything to add to that? Feel free to include it!

Hear bloody hear!!!!