Fuel tax increase

While a few tens of millions might be small change to Government, in an industry with such low margins as aviation every proposal to forcibly remove cash must be challenged and tested to see if it represents value for money. In this case, the return is questionable as it is not accompanied by a coherent plan to finally fix the interminable delays, cost blow-outs and inexcusable bureaucracy that has long been a feature of dealing with CASA.

No industry association can lay claim to the same number of successes with CASA as AAAA when CASA management has been willing to work with industry to streamline identified bottlenecks and to iron out silly policies.

The AAAA Standard Operations Manual, the Aerial Application Pilots Manual, the agricultural unit – all great examples of initiatives that made a significant improvement in CASA’s performance and lifted CASA’s reputation.

Unfortunately, even those initiatives are being undone, with the Standard Operations Manual now taking over six months for approval, when it used to take less than six weeks. The ag unit was disbanded and not replaced.

The one thing AAAA asked for at the Senate hearing into the fuel tax hike was for Government to establish a framework for industry and CASA senior management to work together on improving CASA performance. A similar initiative by Airservices Australia helps explain why that organisation garners industry support, along with its better service culture and its openness to engaging with industry.

Many CASA functions are similar to a service industry in many respects as well as having regulatory aspects – such as issuing of AOCs . A fresh approach to treating people in the industry as clients would do much for CASA’s performance and reputation – after all, now more than ever, industry pays CASA’s bills.

Industry is in the perfect position to tell CASA what is working and what is broken in terms of service and cost-cutting.

For example, CASA’s alcohol and other drugs testing regime adds significant expense and complexity to non-passenger carrying operations, while the random test results indicate almost universal compliance with the rules already. By all means maintain the random CASA testing, but how about a discussion of dropping the DAMP requirements for non-passenger-carrying operators?

Similarly, how about some service agreements that identify that if you are using s pre-approved manual that CASA has already been through with a fine-tooth comb, that you should be assured you can receive an aerial work AOC within six weeks? This is not revolutionary – this is the way it used to be only a few years ago.

It seems we are going backward rather than forwards in terms of CASA service to industry.

Despite detailed CASA corporate plans that identify the importance of stakeholders, this is yet to manifest itself at the coal face. The Standards Consultative Committee has become unworkable because of its size and anyway, CASA has always been careful to ensure it has no role in putting forward efficiency suggestions or discussing overall potential savings.

Of course, CASA has a regulatory role and AAAA and others have gone to lengths to point out that we support a strong CASA that can enforce the current laws equally on all operators and pilots. But being a regulator is no excuse for being inefficient.

The bottom line is that without improving efficiency within CASA, the latest fuel increase to pay for CASA may not be the last. And as always, AAAA is ready to work with Government and CASA on improving CASA’s perforrmance.