RPT companies and chater companies
Creamie. Considering CAR206 (1) (c) states:
"the purpose of transporting ....... cargo for persons generally...."
Would you not agree that scheduled bank and freight runs, over "specific routes" (as determined in the Coral Sea Air matter), operated by holders of air charter AOC's, chartered to freight companies which do not hold an AOC, available to "persons generally" albeit via an interposed entity which is also the charterer, may constitute illegal RPT operations?
Would you not agree that those same freight companies, advertising an express air freight service, may have contravened CAR210?
At last we agree on one thing - the matter of correctly defining and ability to regulate RPT operations as distinct from charter operations - has long since all become too hard for CASA.
"the purpose of transporting ....... cargo for persons generally...."
Would you not agree that scheduled bank and freight runs, over "specific routes" (as determined in the Coral Sea Air matter), operated by holders of air charter AOC's, chartered to freight companies which do not hold an AOC, available to "persons generally" albeit via an interposed entity which is also the charterer, may constitute illegal RPT operations?
Would you not agree that those same freight companies, advertising an express air freight service, may have contravened CAR210?
At last we agree on one thing - the matter of correctly defining and ability to regulate RPT operations as distinct from charter operations - has long since all become too hard for CASA.
I don't agree with your conclusion re the 'bank run' issue. If a person (individual or corporate) enters an arm's length agreement with the holder of a charter AOC, whereby the holder of the AOC carries that person's cargo to fixed schedules over fixed routes (i.e. the classic 'bank run' or 'mail run'), that is not transporting "persons generally" or transporting cargo for "persons generally". It's transporting cargo for one person: the charterer, who happens to deal with persons generally.
If I walk into an operator's office this morning and 'book' the entire aircraft for me and my family to travel tomorrow, that's a charter. If I 'book' them to do the same trip every Friday, that's still a charter, notwithstanding that is over fixed routes to a fixed schedule: the aircraft is not transporting "persons generally". What's the difference between me vis a vis my family (or the fishing club) and the bank vis a vis its customers?
If this analysis is wrong, there's not much 'legal' charter going on.
It gets very murky when the aircraft is 'chartered' not by one person, but by two. Two banks charter part of the aircraft each. Charter or RPT? If its charter, when does it become RPT? 3 banks or 100?
If the operator is 'chartered' to do a 'mail run' but there's space left on the aircraft for pax or the equivalent weight/volume of cargo, will the 'mail run' become RPT if the extra space is made available for transporting anyone who comes along or their cargo?
Where's the rule that says that each of the classifications of operations are necessarily mutually exclusive? Why can't the one flight be for charter purposes (the 'mail run') as well as RPT purposes (the offering of the spare seat to persons generally)?
It's all waaaaaay too complicated, and of course some of the distinctions have no nexus with safety. Apparently an aircraft is 'unsafe' at charter standards if the cheques on board were put there directly by members of the public generally, but will be 'safe' at charter standards if the same cheques were put there by one bank – bizarre.
The main problem is that the only way in which to make it simpler would result in someone getting upset – reduction in RPT standards (which is exactly what happened in the Torres Strait - 'Clayton's RPT') or an increase in charter standards (which would send many to the wall more quickly than they otherwise would).
Because rule 1 in political survival is "upset no one", the only practical option for CASA is to do nothing.
If I walk into an operator's office this morning and 'book' the entire aircraft for me and my family to travel tomorrow, that's a charter. If I 'book' them to do the same trip every Friday, that's still a charter, notwithstanding that is over fixed routes to a fixed schedule: the aircraft is not transporting "persons generally". What's the difference between me vis a vis my family (or the fishing club) and the bank vis a vis its customers?
If this analysis is wrong, there's not much 'legal' charter going on.
It gets very murky when the aircraft is 'chartered' not by one person, but by two. Two banks charter part of the aircraft each. Charter or RPT? If its charter, when does it become RPT? 3 banks or 100?
If the operator is 'chartered' to do a 'mail run' but there's space left on the aircraft for pax or the equivalent weight/volume of cargo, will the 'mail run' become RPT if the extra space is made available for transporting anyone who comes along or their cargo?
Where's the rule that says that each of the classifications of operations are necessarily mutually exclusive? Why can't the one flight be for charter purposes (the 'mail run') as well as RPT purposes (the offering of the spare seat to persons generally)?
It's all waaaaaay too complicated, and of course some of the distinctions have no nexus with safety. Apparently an aircraft is 'unsafe' at charter standards if the cheques on board were put there directly by members of the public generally, but will be 'safe' at charter standards if the same cheques were put there by one bank – bizarre.
The main problem is that the only way in which to make it simpler would result in someone getting upset – reduction in RPT standards (which is exactly what happened in the Torres Strait - 'Clayton's RPT') or an increase in charter standards (which would send many to the wall more quickly than they otherwise would).
Because rule 1 in political survival is "upset no one", the only practical option for CASA is to do nothing.
reduction in RPT standards (which is exactly what happened in the Torres Strait - 'Clayton's RPT') or an increase in charter standards (which would send many to the wall more quickly than they otherwise would).
Exactly.
Australia’s going through the painfully slow and expensive process of quadruplication of the classification of operations rules, with the intended and desired outcome apparently being the status quo.
Bizarre.
Yet so typical.
Australia’s going through the painfully slow and expensive process of quadruplication of the classification of operations rules, with the intended and desired outcome apparently being the status quo.
Bizarre.
Yet so typical.
