[Kharon]

About time.

A feeble glimmer of hope against a dark horizon; or, the spark which ignites the bonfire?  The 'quote' below is cribbed from Pprune; - HERE - . It is worth some thought and the support of industry.

ATC vote to take Protected Industrial action against Airservices Australia.

Outcome is inevitable.

Always the same technique."

Offer nothing. Delay, delay, delay.

Then blame the few remaining workers on 'disruptions to the travelling public ', when that has been the $hitshow for the travelling public for the preceding years anyway.

Good luck to the dozen or so people who still actually "work" there

A "Protected Industrial Action" - HERE - is a clever idea; and possibly a good way to bring in the changes so desperately needed. It is not just the ATCO's who need to get things sorted and back to some semblance of sanity; business and the travelling public will reap the benefits if the shambles we know as Air Traffic Control is set to rights.

Consider this; just for a convenient number; lets use $6000 per operating hour as a yardstick for measuring 'operating costs' :: $100 per minute. A six minute delay costs $600. 20 minutes in a holding pattern :: $2000. That 20 minutes can and often does knock on to other fleet aircraft or connecting flights. In short it becomes a significant cost, across a fleet which must be met. The delay also impacts scheduled maintenance: an aircraft may only operate a certain number of hours before mandatory inspection and maintenance is required. Each additional 'un-scheduled' hour it operates affects the bottom line of the balance sheet. No prizes for guessing where the additional dollars must come from; bums on seats pay for the delays. Airfares increased; investors need to see a healthy bottom line as a return on their money. QED....

One important element of a robust aviation industry is the Air Traffic service. Crucial to that service are the 'boys and girls' in the back rooms and at the coal face. These are 'dedicated', trained professionals who manage complex tasks as a matter of routine; well, mostly they do. But only when there are enough of 'em to manage the workload and the 'system' they use is 'effective' and fit for purpose.

But, that's not the case is it? Top level 'management' are doing very nicely, thank you. Afforded all manner of protections and get out jail cards; all care but zero responsibility. Any cruise through the Senate Estimates sessions will clearly demonstrate the great divide between bullshit and the cold hard facts.

It is about time the balance was restored, the system rectified. The public 'at risk' levels have increased, the financial burdens to operators have increased and, if the ATCO's were not a 'dedicated' bunch the 'system' would have ground to a halt years ago. Let's all hope the 'strike' action gets the message delivered; there's a big story there for the media if they can get off their beam ends and give this 'action' a push. It does, after all affect the travelling, tax paying public. They pay for it all at the end of the shift.

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

ATCOs threaten 1st strike in 22 years?? -

Via YouTube:

Plus courtesy Senator McKenzie, via X:

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

Transport minister King must address poor senior management at AirServices Australia to prevent this Government agency being responsible for more flight cancellations and delays for Australian families
Air traffic staff threaten first strike in 22 years

Hmm...good luck with getting any sort of response from miniscule Dicky King, who is still MIA on matters of aviation safety, she does however seem to have plenty of time for self-serving, pointless, political point scoring with QWN and a WOFTAM Dorothy Dixer... :

2,151 views  Feb 29, 2024
Dicky King the worst Minister oversighting Transport EVER?? https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...6#pid14176 &  What comes next? Poindexter Parker - Dicky King and Betsy's anointed one (referral to the NACCAs)??  

@M_McFly
2 days ago (edited)
3:32 "..the right vehicle for them and their circumcisers..." Wrong kind of cuts.

God help the GA industry because this useless miniscule never will...

MTF...P2 

PS: BRB tote is open for the worst Minister, oversighting Aviation, of all time??...

[Peetwo]

TICK TOCK goes the Harfwit, Su_Spence & Betsy DOOMSDAY CLOCK?? - 

Courtesy of the RRAT Senate Committee Inquiry into the 'Impact and mitigation of aircraft noise', there was a public hearing held in Bris Vegas on Monday that 'Belled the Cat' on the incompetence, soft corruption and misfeasance of Harfwit, Su_Spence and Betsy on matters to do with the bureaucratic (under the bubble) management of airspace, airports, aviation safety and international ICAO compliance...

The Bris Vegas PH had a huge turnout - reference Senator McKenzie X Tweets:

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

Huge turn out to our senate aviation noise inquiry here in Brisbane thanks to everyone across the community who have been speaking out about this issue for years. Air Services Australia failure exposed #BFPCA

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

@BFPCA_ says that while AirServices Australia boss Jason Harfield may claim that flight path design is ASA's "bread and butter" they are highly incompetent and unable to do the work ASA is required to do.

@BFPCA_ says that ASA, in all their technical expertise, has created a scenario that is not reducing noise but is creating an amphitheatre.

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

BFPCA Chairman Prof Marcus Foth says of AirservicesAustralia "The fish rots from the head" and calls for the Minister to take action against the CEO

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

@BFPCA_ says Airservices Australia is a "noodle mix" of conflicts of interest when regulating noise while also responsible for flight paths and airspace operations. #RRAT #noiseinquiry

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

@YourAFAP tells inquiry that the Minister has had time to host roundtables with airports and unions but not the community.

Albanese Labor Government ignoring the Brisbane community. #RRAT

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

@BFPCA_ has repeatedly been refused meetings with Minister Catherine King and have even travelled to Canberra without success. Where is the Minister?

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

In response to a question from inquiry on whether @BrisbaneAirport believe they are receiving a bad wrap for the incompetence of ASA, BNE CEO responded ‘Yes’ #rrat

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

Both @Qantas and @VirginAustralia have told the Inquiry they are frustrated that ASA is not allowing airlines to use technology to reduce noise and reform airspace management that has been installed on planes for twenty years. #RRAT

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

@VirginAustralia says it has raised this issue and the failings of ASA with Minister King directly. What is the Minister’s response? Radio silence.

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

Labor needs to meet with the local community and hear directly their concerns.
AirServices Australia boss should not be reappointed by Labor.
Thanks to all who came out to the inquiry.
???

---

Linked Courier Mail article:

Ex-ombudsman floats ‘modest’ passenger levy to fund noise insulation for people under flight paths

Plane passengers would be slugged a special levy to fund noise insulation for people living under Brisbane’s controversial new flight paths, a Senate inquiry has heard.\

Brendan O'Malley


A ‘modest’ passenger levy to fund noise insulation has been suggested as one fix for Brisbane’s new flight path problems. Picture: Brendan O'Malley

Plane passengers could be slugged a special levy to fund noise insulation for people living under Brisbane’s controversial new flight paths, a Senate inquiry has heard.

Former Aircraft Noise Ombudsman Ron Brent, now the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board chair, told the inquiry in Brisbane on Monday, April 15, that compensation had not worked well overseas.

He instead suggested a “modest’’ passenger levy as one possible mechanism to help those worst affected by new flight paths introduced when the city’s second runway opened in 2020.

He also said community calls to divert more planes over Moreton Bay would not fix the noise problem because of a huge forecasted increase in flights in coming years.

Nor would SODPROPS, a flight mode where planes on the two runways simultaneously took off and landed.


Brisbane Airport new runway. Aerial images taken on 23.4.20

“To suggest they are the solution or would have a major impact is unrealistic,’’ he said.

“There have been gains at the margins... but marginal gains are an important part of the overall mix.’’

“Even with a curfew there will be impacts.’’

Mr Brent also told the inquiry he faced three years of “push back’’ because ASA was focused on safety and not noise reduction, but added that safety was a very important priority for it.

He also conceded ASA had improved its focus on noise abatement towards the end of his term.

Under questioning from Senator Bridget McKenzie, he admitted federal Transport Minister Catherine King had never met with him despite personally appointing Mr Brent.

Senator McKenzie’s Coalition Senate colleague Matt Canavan also questioned why there had been no progress in diverting more flights over Moreton Bay since the second runway was built, despite claims it was the solution to Brisbane’s noise woes.


Aircraft noise has become a hot topic since the second runway opened in Brisbane in 2020. Picture: Liam Kidston

Senator Canavan pointed out several times that the public had been led to believe the second runway would lead to more flights over the Bay, but the percentage was still stuck at about 50 per cent.

Federal regulator Air Services Australia, which did not give evidence, copped a whipping from senators Canavan and McKenzie and an admission from BAC head Gert-Jan De Graaff that ASA was not operating flight paths as was intended at the time the new runway opened.

Senator Canavan at one point asked BAC future airspace strategy program manager, Tim Boyle, if it was true overnight flights would jump five-fold from the current 50 per night, by 2042.

Mr Boyle responded that the number “sounded about right’’ before Mr De Graaff asked to take the question on notice.

The Courier-Mail understands the senator’s figure was dramatically overstated and the forecast was 87 flights per night by 2042.

An ASA spokesman said in a statement after the inquiry that a mode called Independent Parallel Runway Operations had not yet begun.

It was a high-capacity mode in which aircraft land and depart simultaneously on both runways in a staggered manner using one runway and then the other. It was not specifically designed for noise-sharing.

“Airservices intends to begin using this runway mode in 2025, which is when Brisbane Airport have advised they will have the capacity to cater for the increased arrival rate, following upgrades to their baggage handling facilities,’’ he said.

“Achieving greater use of over water operations is a key priority of the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane and we have prioritised efforts to increase the use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS), under which planes arrive and take off over the bay.
“This includes making SODPROPS the priority runway mode 24/7 subject to weather and operating conditions.’’

Senator Matt Canavan said many of those present wanted answers after being promised there would be no extra noise impacts from the second runway.

He repeatedly asked about a curfew, including its impacts on regional airports.

He questioned why a curfew was being presented as an “all or nothing’’ option, rather than introducing more restrictions at night.


Virgin Australia chief executive Jayne Hrdlicka. Virgin and Qantas say they have invested heavily in quieter planes. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/The Australian

The CEO of the Transport and Tourism Forum, Margy Osmond, said caps and curfews at Sydney Airport had had a major impact on the national network, not just Sydney.

“They are affecting our international reputation for reliability,” she said.

“The industry is amazingly focused on noise abatement. There are immediate solutions that could be made.”

That included taxiing with one engine, lowering reverse thrust on landing and reduced thrust on takeoff.”

Queensland Tourism and Industry Council general manager advocacy, Melanie Anderson, said any impact on Brisbane’s gateway status would harm the 206,000 jobs dependant on tourism.

She said there was no shortcut way to fix aircraft noise but it was vital air services were not disrupted ahead of the 2032 Games.


BFPCA spokespeople Sean Foley, Marcus Foth and Tess Bignell. Picture: Brendan O'Malley

Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) spokesman, Prof Marcus Foth, said it was clear to him that ASA had allowed airlines and BAC to maximise profits at the expense of residents.

He said the airport had attracted Australia Post, DHL and Amazon as part of its push to boost freight operations, which he said “largely operated at night’’ and was designed to offset declines in passenger services since lockdown.

“We are now dealing with an airport with a city attached to it, rather than a city with an airport attached to it,’’ he said.

Senator Canavan asked him about a trial to change flight paths to allow planes to approach the airport and take off more steeply, minimising noise impacts.


Senator Matt Canavan. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

But Prof Foth said that had not happened because airlines wanted to minimise taxiing and other changes that increased fuel burn and caused delays.

“We have now experienced (noise from the second runway) for four years, in some communities even longer, and we have not seen any compromise, any bone being thrown to the community whatsoever,” he said.

BFPCA committee member Sean Foley told the inquiry he had monitored flight heights of “hundreds” of plane movements using the Flight Radar 24 app and found planes in fact took a level approach for about 30km from Forest Lake to the CBD, with flaps lowered.

QUT air pollution expert Prof Lidia Morawska told the packed hearing that new studies showed ultra fine particles emitted by cars, planes and other sources affected every organ in the body, not just the lungs.

She said the particles were hard to detect and monitors currently in use could not pick them up.

However, they cost only about $20,000 and only a few were needed in key areas.

“There are no health guidelines or standards (on ultra fine particles),” she said.


Prof Lidia Morawska at the senate inquiry today. Picture: Brendan O'Malley

Prof Morawska, a co-chair on a 2021 WHO report into the particles and a Time Magazine person of the year recognised for her warnings at the beginning of Covid, said health impacts had been observed in studies at Los Angeles, Frankfurt, London and Amsterdam airports.

Qantas and Virgin pilots and technical experts wrapped up the day’s evidence.

Qantas said fleet renewal was the most effective way to reduce noise and “well meaning “ efforts to curb noise could cause reduced safety and increased fuel burn.

They said Qantas would take delivery of one new aircraft every three weeks, on average, for the next two years.

Virgin experts said aviation was essential for a large island nation but acknowledged the genuine impact of noise on some communities.

Virgin Australia actively took part in noise abatement measures including input to changes on tail wind speeds.

It had taken delivery of four new 737 jets, which were 40 per cent quieter than existing 737 models.

Haven't got the Hansard of the 'audio only' PH but here is the Submissions, Add Docs etc tabled so far:

Submissions

1 Brisbane Airport Corporation (PDF 1153 KB) 
2 Tess Bignell (PDF 1931 KB) 
2.1 Supplementary to submission 2 (PDF 22113 KB) 
3 Professor John Quiggin (PDF 257 KB) 
4 Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (PDF 6330 KB) 
5 Australian Federation of Air Pilots (PDF 423 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 548 KB) 
6 Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group (PDF 52 KB) 
7 Airservices Australia (PDF 1159 KB) 
8 Qantas Group  (PDF 517 KB) 
9 Name Withheld (PDF 5678 KB) 

---

Additional Documents
1  Appendices for Airservices Impact and Mitigation of Aircraft Noise Submission (received 12 April 2024)
2  Qantas, Chapter 7 Airport development planning processes and consultation mechanisms, 'Qantas Group to the Aviation Green Paper' (received 12 April 2024)
3  Slides – Aircraft emissions: focus on ultrafine particles, provided by Professor Linda Morawska, 9 April 2024
4  Slides – Brisbane Aircraft Noise Killing Us Slowly & Article - Brisbane - Aviation Noise Pollution, Public Health & Wellbeing, provided by Dr Sean Foley, 15 April 2024

---

Tabled Documents

1  Qantas Group, opening statement, tabled by Captain Alex Passerini at public hearing in Brisbane on 15 April 2024.

---

AQON

1 Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board, response to written questions from Senator Waters (received 18 April 2024)

Finally here are some of the 'audio only' segments from the public hearing (the evidence given from Prof Foth Chair of the 'Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance' is well worth taking the time to listen to, the guy is well briefed and all over the subject matter and doesn't hold back when condemning Harfwit & CO...  ):

BFPCA:

AFAP:

Qantas & Virgin:

MTF...P2 
 

[Peetwo]

Addendum: Hansard out -

Reference:

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

Huge turn out to our senate aviation noise inquiry here in Brisbane thanks to everyone across the community who have been speaking out about this issue for years. Air Services Australia failure exposed #BFPCA

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

@BFPCA_ says that while AirServices Australia boss Jason Harfield may claim that flight path design is ASA's "bread and butter" they are highly incompetent and unable to do the work ASA is required to do.

@BFPCA_ says that ASA, in all their technical expertise, has created a scenario that is not reducing noise but is creating an amphitheatre.

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

BFPCA Chairman Prof Marcus Foth says of AirservicesAustralia "The fish rots from the head" and calls for the Minister to take action against the CEO

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

@BFPCA_ says Airservices Australia is a "noodle mix" of conflicts of interest when regulating noise while also responsible for flight paths and airspace operations. #RRAT #noiseinquiry

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

@YourAFAP tells inquiry that the Minister has had time to host roundtables with airports and unions but not the community.

Albanese Labor Government ignoring the Brisbane community. #RRAT

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

@BFPCA_ has repeatedly been refused meetings with Minister Catherine King and have even travelled to Canberra without success. Where is the Minister?

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

In response to a question from inquiry on whether @BrisbaneAirport believe they are receiving a bad wrap for the incompetence of ASA, BNE CEO responded ‘Yes’ #rrat

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

Both @Qantas and @VirginAustralia have told the Inquiry they are frustrated that ASA is not allowing airlines to use technology to reduce noise and reform airspace management that has been installed on planes for twenty years. #RRAT

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

@VirginAustralia says it has raised this issue and the failings of ASA with Minister King directly. What is the Minister’s response? Radio silence.

---

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

Labor needs to meet with the local community and hear directly their concerns.
AirServices Australia boss should not be reappointed by Labor.
Thanks to all who came out to the inquiry.
???


Finally here are some of the 'audio only' segments from the public hearing (the evidence given from Prof Foth Chair of the 'Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance' is well worth taking the time to listen to, the guy is well briefed and all over the subject matter and doesn't hold back when condemning Harfwit & CO...  ):

BFPCA:

AFAP:

Qantas & Virgin:

Hansard: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 15/04/2024 - Impact and mitigation of aircraft noise or PDF version

BFPCA:

Prof Froth: BFPCA's hope is that this inquiry will shine a light on the state capture of Australia's regulatory framework by the aviation industry, including unethical practices and misconduct by Airservices Australia. Airservices have repeatedly breached public trust. They have abused their powers to remove overwater operations without consultation or reapproval and they have failed to meet ministerial conditions imposed upon them under the EPBC Act. In the definition of Australia's National Anti-Corruption Commission, this constitutes corrupt conduct..

---

CHAIR: Thank you. I might ask a threshold question and then throw to Senator McKenzie. You've made some very strong allegations in your submission—and you repeated them then—about the conflicts, and I think you've used the word 'corrupt'. Can I clarify, though? Is the evidence that members of Airservices Australia are receiving a personal benefit associated with the regulation of airport and aircraft noise, or is it just that they receive extra funding to fund their organisation et cetera in a way that's conflicted and potentially colours their advice?

Prof. Foth : We speak here as representatives of the community. We are not lawyers who can ascertain whether the allegations of corrupt conduct are correct. That's why we have a National Anti-Corruption Commission. We read the information on the Anti-Corruption Commission's website. Our layman's reading is that they meet the definition of corrupt conduct.

CHAIR: I'm not asking a legal question, though. I, too, don't exactly know. I'm not a lawyer myself. I'm asking: is the allegation that they are receiving a personal benefit—they getting extra money or kickbacks or some such—or is it just that the advice they're giving is coloured by the industry funding they receive?

Prof. Foth : We definitely have sufficient evidence to ascertain that Airservices have a conflict of interest because they've been corporatised. They operate as a company in service of the aviation industry. That's actually something that they have publicly admitted in previous Senate estimates hearings. We believe there is an unmanaged conflict of interest with section 9 of the Air Services Act 1995 that stipulates that their main priority should be safety in the air and protection of communities on the ground. They are prioritising profits.

---

Senator McKENZIE: Thank you, everyone, for attending. It's great to see you again. My question essentially goes to Airservices Australia. You mentioned in your submission and in your opening remarks that the ombudsman in 2021 reported that Airservices Australia did not accurately model new flight paths for Brisbane Airport, or their noise impacts, before a parallel runway opened in July 2020. That's the ombudsman's reported finding. Your commentary around Airservices Australia, I think, continues along a well-worn path that we've all been on for a long time. It's a bit like cutting corners on your own homework, isn't it, if they're in charge of both doing the consultation and other aspects of that? Could you unpack that for the committee, because, as I understand it, the reappointment of the CEO, Jason Harfield, is in front of Minister King right now. I would really like your community's response to that now. I know she has refused to meet, but this is your opportunity.

Prof. Foth : Thank you for the opportunity to address this question. I would first refer the committee to our submission and, specifically, the chronology. Airservices submitted a referral under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the airspace in Brisbane in 2007. Malcolm Turnbull, being environment minister at the time, attached ministerial conditions to that approval, and one of the conditions stipulated that Airservices was required to verify what was, at the time, draft forecast noise modelling in 2007 closer to the launch of the runway.

What we found through freedom of information requests and documents that are available to the committee via our submission is that Airservices did, as you say, cut corners and mark their own homework. Not only did they mark their own homework, but they asked their partner, Brisbane Airport Corporation, to do the assessment for them. So the scrutiny was outsourced to the project proponent. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, in his report in 2021, specifically mentions a noise comparison report that was fabricated by the airport. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, whilst it's beyond the charter of conducting a full investigation into administrative processes, did include a mention that suggests that this noise comparison report that the airport produced was very biased. It was obviously painting a picture of the project in their favour. Airservices then took that report, put it on their letterhead and sent it to the environment minister. Everything was approved without further consultation or scrutiny.

---

Senator WATERS: Mrs Bignell, I have some questions for you. I thought your observations about your involvement in the group that you've been appointed to represent the community on were really very disappointing, and I share your frustration. Can you give us a potted version of your experience of the so-called community consultation that you've been engaged in and the outcomes it's produced?

Mrs Bignell : As a brief note for an opening address, Minister King continues to neglect her responsibility as an elected politician by the people on this matter. Minister King has demonstrated that the AAB is the only mechanism that the Brisbane community have to bring their concerns forward. AAB's role, as per their terms of reference, is to implement the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane. Community representatives feel that we are there just to mark better engagement and to mark Airservices and BAC's homework.

The chair's role of independence is questionable to community reps. I was expecting more support from the AAB to bring about positive action for the community. I was not expecting to be requested to suppress information from my community. I was not expecting to feel like there was a bias—mainly the interactions with the chair and industry in favour of industry. My submissions include various examples.

AAB has resulted in zero outcomes for the community thus far. It has met basically four times in person and once online. To give you an example, we would have expected that the chair would investigate further the authenticity of the business case of Qantas and Jetstar to retrofit the A320 fuel vents, but we were given a letter from the chair that demonstrated this case. This case needed to be tested, and it wasn't. We also would have thought the chair would request the full-length runway departure trial to be done properly with a new SID and air service, because Airservices' modelling has proven over the last nearly four years to be incorrect.

The biggest impact on most communities is aviation noise. Noise impacts, such as the health issues, are a banned subject at AAB. BACACG is not the forum to be addressing such serious issues. Airservices' Noise Action Plan for Brisbane has no noise metric for the reduction in noise. Does their action plan mean one decibel less or 10 decibels less? Does it mean we can sleep at night?

So what is the end goal here? The airport is there for its efficiencies, and that equates to profits, which are ranked over our community. Industry has no consequences for not doing the right thing by community or incentives for doing the right thing by community. This is why the Senate inquiry committee must look at the London city noise action plan. This is a great example of the use of parliamentary regulatory framework in order to safeguard and protect the community for Brisbane as a whole and Australia. We need to strike a balance. We are thousands of families around Brisbane and Australia suffering at the hands of an unregulated industry. We are not their collateral damage. We are Australians, and we matter

---

Senator COLBECK: I just want to go back to the discussion around the restrictions at Sydney airport. You make your points in relation to the profitability of the airport and the issues of that matter, but I do have a concern that it's being presented as if there are no issues as a result of the restrictions at Sydney airport, and there are some issues that come from that. The pilots have put to us, for example, that they have some concerns that it raises some safety issues with requirements for them to operate outside international safety parameters. I just want to ask you how you see that being balanced. It goes back to the question that the chair asked at the outset of your evidence today. It is a really important matter, and I acknowledge that you have recognised it there in what you've said, but how do we effectively get a system that appropriately balances those matters? That also is important. You've acknowledged that there's a requirement for the airport to be there. The issue that you're looking to see is a fair balance in the operation of that and the consideration of your issue, as I see what you've said today. So how do we deal with those things, which are actually critical in the proper operation of the system?

Prof. Foth : Regarding the submission from the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, I've read it twice since it was uploaded. I believe that they do offer a fair critique, but the critique is aimed at the kinds of mechanisms and instruments that the airport is now clutching onto. For instance, one major part of the submission deals with the tailwind reductions. That is seen as only a minor change, if it were to come into effect, in terms of producing a noticeable impact on Brisbane communities, and we can see why they are arguing that there are safety implications around increasing the tailwind limitation back to 10 knots.

The submission is entirely comment free when it comes to flight caps and curfews. There's nothing of concern in not using the city ends of the runways, for instance, and only using overwater operations to avoid residential areas, as is done in Sydney. Sydney has pretty much operated incident free as a result of those measures that were introduced. But I think what we also need to acknowledge is the bigger picture of the state being captured here by the industry, as you outlined in the beginning. We're not just dealing with a regulatory framework that is not fit for purpose; we're actually dealing with a situation where there's a revolving door of board appointments—of public servants that go from the one side of the spectrum to the other. We're looking at board appointments at Airservices Australia and we see that the same person is also a director of the Western Sydney Airport and has come from an airline, and goes back to that airline.

So this entangled spaghetti mess of nepotism and corruption is something that we want to take further. The Senate inquiry is, obviously, a major achievement for this community, but we won't stop here. We will continue to put the blowtorch on the airport until all our demands are met, and those that have done wrong have been put to justice.

Senator COLBECK: I have no further questions, Chair.

---

CHAIR: I get a bit lost with some of the jargon here, but your contention is that this trial actually didn't change the flight path that was used for take-off and landing. Is that correct?

Prof. Foth : Correct.

CHAIR: Is my conclusion correct?

Prof. Foth : Yes, Senator, that is correct. In a nutshell, what happened was that in the lead-up to the 2022 federal election, the coalition government set up BAPAF, which was another entity, I suppose, similar to AAB. It had different membership on it.

CHAIR: Right.

Prof. Foth : That committee recommended that trials were supposed to be done in order to give the community much more immediate relief. Those members were not aviation experts. However, in the last round of Senate estimates, we heard from Peter Curran, who blamed the members for not giving Airservices proper instructions to increase the height markers in order to conduct a proper trial.

CHAIR: Right.

Prof. Foth : So they have disingenuously interpreted the task they were given by this committee. They have, in fact, prohibited intersection departures, but that is completely useless without increasing height markers because, as you would know, pilots would enter into the flight management system the length of the runway, the weight of the aircraft and where they have to head to. If they point into the sky in the same spot, they will always aim at that same spot and reach that same spot whether they use the full length of the runway or half of the runway. That is the actual reason why Airservices' trial produced no noise reduction whatsoever. We heard from Ron Brent, the chair of AAB, that this had the same result in Perth. We believe that is the reason why the trials in both Perth and Brisbane need to be redone with proper independent experts that are actually increasing these height markers. You don't have to be an expert to realise that if I fly at an altitude over people before and then I fly at the same altitude afterwards, there's no difference.

CHAIR: There's no difference. Yes, I'm just trying to make sure I'm fully across it. The contention is—or, I suppose, the theory of the trial is—that if you put the height marker higher and the plane reaches altitude quicker, that will reduce noise for some communities at least. But, presumably, the corresponding cost—does it cost more? Does it use more fuel to get the plane to that height? What's the resistance to doing that?

Prof. Foth : First of all: yes, it does reduce noise, and it does reduce noise anywhere in the world—except in Australia. We don't believe that the laws of physics are any different in this country from what they are elsewhere in the world. The reason for the resistance is, really, profit. Profit is the No. 1 criterion that the aviation industry operates by, and so the real point there is the taxi time. It takes longer for a plane to taxi all the way to the very beginning of the runway and to turn around, so it does create efficiencies. But this is just one of the examples where profits, commercial considerations and efficiencies are trumping the protection of communities on the ground.

CHAIR: So it's not so much the use of fuel that's the extra cost; it's the time taken. Is that the contention of the airlines, or is it both?

Prof. Foth : It is probably a bit of both. But, again, we have now experienced four years—and some communities even longer; since Kevin Rudd marched in Oxford Street in Bulimba in the lead-up to him entering parliament—and we have not seen any compromise, any sacrifice or any kind of bone being thrown to the community by the airport or Airservices whatsoever.

MTF...P2

[Sandy Reith]

Surely it must be obvious by now that the real problem is having some arms of government outside of direct Ministerial and Departmental control.

The creation of such bodies as ASA and CASA with the notion of them being ‘Government Business Enterprises (GBE)’ is laughable at one extreme and disastrous in practice. The term GBE has gone out of fashion but the concept is well embedded.

The very idea of a government monopoly ‘service’ provider being akin to a business, let alone an enterprising one, is totally fanciful and a blatant expression of the Can’tberra arrogance.

Monopolies elsewhere are highly undesirable, if not unlawful, but here we have a wrong system with government protection.