Commercial Aviation Update

But eight different Governments rule our airways in one way or another. Between them there are seven different sets of rules which tell you whether you can carry passengers or cargo on a commercial flight. The missing one? Well, South Australia and Victoria have the same rules – none.

Surely it is time they got together. All express concern at the quantity of regulations in place today but then they run back into Parliament House and make some more. Over 49,000 new acts and regulations were gazetted in Australia between 1960 and 1980 alone.

Let’s take one of the most controversial of all aviation rules.

Reg. 197 of the Air Navigation Regulations forbids charter flights over an airline route more than once in every 28 days. Nothing has raised more ire in this country as competing businesses tried to either ‘dob in’ the alleged offender or avoid being detected, depending on which side of the argument they took.

The Commonwealth has made it crystal clear in recent years that it does not want to be involved in economic regulation anywhere unless a specific reason exists – and certainly not within each State. Senator Evans’ announcement of progressive deregulation of the trunk routes is further evidence of that policy.

Attention should therefore be directed to the States themselves. North Queensland and the Northern Territory have provided some of the nastiest battlegrounds but it is generally accepted that the illegal practices went on everywhere. And no doubt still do.

Currently, Queensland is less concerned about genuine charters over airline routes, which are themselves deregulated, than about operators trying to run a quasi-scheduled service under the guise of a charter licence. This seems pragmatic and sensible.

Western Australia has no route restrictions but does require an annual charter licence. South Australia and Victoria leave it all to the Commonwealth ‘operational’ regulations and no more. The Northern Territory has a prima facie ban on all such charters. So, too, does NSW but there we have yet to find out (a) what the State’s new policy will be; and (b) how it will implement that policy. In any event, NSW law allows four charters every 28 days, much more than the single flight available under Commonwealth and Northern Territory rules. Tasmania’s regulation is tight but its market is tiny.

Of course, Reg. 197 does stop charters over trunk and other interstate routes more than once in every 28 days. Therefore, breaches can be expected to be brought to the Government’s notice by the affected airlines. Whether the airline deregulation process will address that issue is not yet clear. It certainly should.

Essentially, there are two parties interested in this debate: the public and the industry. What is best for each, or both?

Obviously, the long and tattered history of regulation in this area is evidence enough of the continuing and regular demand for charter services. The business, sporting and private-public clearly want to fly when and where they feel like it. They are not interested in the fortunes of individual operators, whether airline or charter.

It is extremely doubtful if the two markets – scheduled and charter – significantly overlap. Charter may be more expensive at first glance but it does the precise job the customer wants. Indeed, the burgeoning corporate aircraft market provides ample evidence of the value businessmen are placing on flexible transport facilities. No doubt many such customers moved away from the airline and then the charter field after finding it too hard to organise satisfactory and legal flights.

Some airlines may object to liberalising this regulation on the ground that business will be taken away from them. However, Australia already boasts excellent business-oriented scheduled air services and naturally they attract the vast bulk of the travel from that sector. The scheduled seat is normally much cheaper than the charter seat so little incentive is available to the businessman to select a charter flight just because he likes that style of travel. He does it because it is the product he needs on that occasion. The use of regulations to limit the products the public can buy is always fraught with danger. To say nothing of the enormous waste of Government and industry resources which have been put into fighting cases on this subject over the last two or three decades. Customers do not understand or want Reg. 197 or its State equivalents; operators and regulators incur administrative cost burdens; both scheduled and charter operators could be losing long-term business.

If it is not serving any productive purpose why not get rid of it altogether? This should be a prime item on the agenda for the meeting later this year of the Commonwealth and State transport ministers.

Of course. Reg. 191 (covering types of operations) needs to be cleaned up. It, too, has fallen behind the times. More of that later.