FACTS vs BS (DS)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FACTS vs BS (DS)
A document doing the rounds at work today reveals some very interesting facts.
The accusations that ATC charges in Australia are too high, by numerous individuals, one Biscuit maker in particular are just plain wrong.
A short summary of a factual comparative document of AUS vs Euro vs FAA states:
The cost of ATM in:
Australia is $285 per IFR flight hour;
FAA is $538 per IFR flight hour;
European Area $933 per IFR flight hour. (Dollars converted to AUD)
So Dick and other anti ATC protagonists, statements that NAS will save anything are factually incorrect; the US model is almost twice as expensive and let's not even discuss Europe.
More stats:
Australian ATCs deal with 2397.9 IFR flights each per year;
US ATCs deal with 2288.7 IFR flight each per year;
Wow, we are the inefficient ones... NOT!
Bottle or Rum
The accusations that ATC charges in Australia are too high, by numerous individuals, one Biscuit maker in particular are just plain wrong.
A short summary of a factual comparative document of AUS vs Euro vs FAA states:
The cost of ATM in:
Australia is $285 per IFR flight hour;
FAA is $538 per IFR flight hour;
European Area $933 per IFR flight hour. (Dollars converted to AUD)
So Dick and other anti ATC protagonists, statements that NAS will save anything are factually incorrect; the US model is almost twice as expensive and let's not even discuss Europe.
More stats:
Australian ATCs deal with 2397.9 IFR flights each per year;
US ATCs deal with 2288.7 IFR flight each per year;
Wow, we are the inefficient ones... NOT!
Bottle or Rum
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Qld
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think I've seen anyone defend the high cost of aeronautical charges before. What is the suggestion...double the charges? Get Australia wide radar coverage and treble the number of ATCO's? Get real.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point of my original post was simply to state that Australian ATC is provided very efficiently; adopting a US airspace model isn't necessarily the answer to lowering charges.
The concept of the US airspace model is ATCs will be able to handle more traffic; but we already do.
The report tabled in parliament last week, calls for a reduction of 200 enroute ATCs; based on adopting the US model, which would mean a reduction in controller sectors. But on average we handle more already; so the report is increadibly flawed, that's my point.
On the currency issue, agreed, but the table in the report were all in Euro's; Australia is very cheap by world standards, nothing more nothing less. I am in no way defending or justifying airways charges, just stating that we are the cheapest as identified in the Eurocontrol report.
Bottle of Rum
The concept of the US airspace model is ATCs will be able to handle more traffic; but we already do.
The report tabled in parliament last week, calls for a reduction of 200 enroute ATCs; based on adopting the US model, which would mean a reduction in controller sectors. But on average we handle more already; so the report is increadibly flawed, that's my point.
On the currency issue, agreed, but the table in the report were all in Euro's; Australia is very cheap by world standards, nothing more nothing less. I am in no way defending or justifying airways charges, just stating that we are the cheapest as identified in the Eurocontrol report.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides misinformation this is a friggin sick JOKE. 
SM4, you got bout 10 years of evolution of not pulling your chain to contemplate what efficiency means.....
You can post all the stats you want, but if you want to compare to ATC in the USA, it don't even get close. You won't comprehend unless you experience. For those of you that have been landlocked on continent, I can ASSURE you, you Aussies are getting royally screwed. I mean, gawd, for the taxes you guys pay, and the ATC service you get, it should be friggin FREE!
SM4, you got bout 10 years of evolution of not pulling your chain to contemplate what efficiency means..... You can post all the stats you want, but if you want to compare to ATC in the USA, it don't even get close. You won't comprehend unless you experience. For those of you that have been landlocked on continent, I can ASSURE you, you Aussies are getting royally screwed. I mean, gawd, for the taxes you guys pay, and the ATC service you get, it should be friggin FREE!
Witsun,
You are the joke.
Hopefully the free-trade agreement will allow aussies ATCs to try their hand in the US. From what I saw of the US controllers who come out here after Regan act of bastardary, the best aussies controllers were "better" than the ones I saw and the worst aussies controllers were "worse". I for one who have loved the chance to work in the US but I fear time has beaten me...
You are the joke.
Hopefully the free-trade agreement will allow aussies ATCs to try their hand in the US. From what I saw of the US controllers who come out here after Regan act of bastardary, the best aussies controllers were "better" than the ones I saw and the worst aussies controllers were "worse". I for one who have loved the chance to work in the US but I fear time has beaten me...
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting figures, SM4 Pirate.
But I too suggest that they are not terribly meaningful.
As I think nike would agree, the data would be more meaningful if it were normalised in terms of (say) average earnings, or cost of living, or some mix of both. As presented the data is trying to compare apples with oranges.
Average earnings in Australia and the cost of living in Australia are way below the highly developed and much more mature economies of the USA and western Europe.
As it is, all the data tells me is that the Australian dollar is still very weak in the world economy.
I disagree that the data supports your contention “that Australian ATC is provided very efficiently”.
Even if we were to ignore the apples v oranges problems, comparing the efficiency of the Australian ATC service with ATC services in western Europe is hardly an example of bench-marking against world’s best practice.
The ATC environment in western Europe is a complete mess, a diabolical anachronism where dozens of complex FIR boundaries twist and turn their way along national borders which themselves resulted from wars and conquests fought (in some cases) hundreds of years and dozens of generations ago. There are dozens of national ATC enroute centres - several centres in some countries. It’s difficult to fly for more than about 45 minutes in western Europe without changing countries at least once. The most oft-used cockpit control in western Europe is the VHF frequency selector – changing frequencies every few minutes is the norm. Small sectors mean that ATC officers spend as much (if not more) of their time “co-ordinating” with adjacent sectors as they do speaking to traffic. And it’s almost impossible to fly a direct track to anywhere in western Europe, not because of traffic density, but because of convoluted ATC procedures developed in isolation on a stand-alone, national basis that in and of themselves create more work for ATC service providers.
Is that REALLY the kind of ATC service that the Australian ATC provider wants to bench-mark itself against?
The whole point of the Eurocontrol report to which you refer was to illustrate how inefficient ATC is in western Europe. As in “look – even the AUSTRALIANS are better than us (we must really be crap)” As I am sure you are aware, Eurocontrol is lobbying hard to achieve the “one sky for all of Europe” holy grail that would improve ATC efficiency by at least an order of magnitude, but which has proved so elusive due to petty nationalistic squabbling between the countries of western Europe.
In complete contrast, with only one large country to manage and a cost of living that is a mere fraction of that in more mature western economies I would be absolutely flabbergasted (with regards to Rex M
) if such a comparison did not, at first glace and when viewed out of context, appear to show Australian ATC in the most favourable possible light.
“The concept of the US airspace model is ATCs will be able to handle more traffic”
I’d actually prefer to see less traffic being compelled by regulation to require the services of the Australian ATC monopoly irrespective of whether the operators and crew actually require or desire the service.
And as Whitsun points out, in his own inimitable style, US ATC provide a service which I would characterise as “Sure, no problem, what would you like to do, sir?” Whereas I would characterise the Australian ATC service as, “Remain outside controlled airspace – delay not determined.” I do concede that these are broad generalisations and that there will be exceptions on both sides of the Pacific.
That said, I for one would be more than happy to pay a bit more to get US-style service in Australia. Unfortunately, I can’t see that happening any time soon.
But I too suggest that they are not terribly meaningful.
As I think nike would agree, the data would be more meaningful if it were normalised in terms of (say) average earnings, or cost of living, or some mix of both. As presented the data is trying to compare apples with oranges.
Average earnings in Australia and the cost of living in Australia are way below the highly developed and much more mature economies of the USA and western Europe.
As it is, all the data tells me is that the Australian dollar is still very weak in the world economy.
I disagree that the data supports your contention “that Australian ATC is provided very efficiently”.
Even if we were to ignore the apples v oranges problems, comparing the efficiency of the Australian ATC service with ATC services in western Europe is hardly an example of bench-marking against world’s best practice.
The ATC environment in western Europe is a complete mess, a diabolical anachronism where dozens of complex FIR boundaries twist and turn their way along national borders which themselves resulted from wars and conquests fought (in some cases) hundreds of years and dozens of generations ago. There are dozens of national ATC enroute centres - several centres in some countries. It’s difficult to fly for more than about 45 minutes in western Europe without changing countries at least once. The most oft-used cockpit control in western Europe is the VHF frequency selector – changing frequencies every few minutes is the norm. Small sectors mean that ATC officers spend as much (if not more) of their time “co-ordinating” with adjacent sectors as they do speaking to traffic. And it’s almost impossible to fly a direct track to anywhere in western Europe, not because of traffic density, but because of convoluted ATC procedures developed in isolation on a stand-alone, national basis that in and of themselves create more work for ATC service providers.
Is that REALLY the kind of ATC service that the Australian ATC provider wants to bench-mark itself against?
The whole point of the Eurocontrol report to which you refer was to illustrate how inefficient ATC is in western Europe. As in “look – even the AUSTRALIANS are better than us (we must really be crap)” As I am sure you are aware, Eurocontrol is lobbying hard to achieve the “one sky for all of Europe” holy grail that would improve ATC efficiency by at least an order of magnitude, but which has proved so elusive due to petty nationalistic squabbling between the countries of western Europe.
In complete contrast, with only one large country to manage and a cost of living that is a mere fraction of that in more mature western economies I would be absolutely flabbergasted (with regards to Rex M
) if such a comparison did not, at first glace and when viewed out of context, appear to show Australian ATC in the most favourable possible light.“The concept of the US airspace model is ATCs will be able to handle more traffic”
I’d actually prefer to see less traffic being compelled by regulation to require the services of the Australian ATC monopoly irrespective of whether the operators and crew actually require or desire the service.
And as Whitsun points out, in his own inimitable style, US ATC provide a service which I would characterise as “Sure, no problem, what would you like to do, sir?” Whereas I would characterise the Australian ATC service as, “Remain outside controlled airspace – delay not determined.” I do concede that these are broad generalisations and that there will be exceptions on both sides of the Pacific.
That said, I for one would be more than happy to pay a bit more to get US-style service in Australia. Unfortunately, I can’t see that happening any time soon.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Queensland
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post BIK. It is really refreshing to see someone present a reasoned, cohesive reply without resorting to flaming and denigrating the original author. I agree wholeheartedly with your argument. I have to say I find it hard to believe (anecdotal evidence only) that Australian ATC's handle more traffic then their American counterparts. Unless that is that there are that many more ATC's in the US, because there are a hell of a lot more aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK_116.80
Introduction of E corridors will see much greater intervention by ATS. This part of NAS is being pushed, it seems, by the people who will complain most when ATC will be doing only what they're chartered to do.
I bet Australian aviation doesn't benefit too much from the 10% dividend that ASA pay to the government each year.
CG
I’d actually prefer to see less traffic being compelled by regulation to require the services of the Australian ATC monopoly irrespective of whether the operators and crew actually require or desire the service.
I bet Australian aviation doesn't benefit too much from the 10% dividend that ASA pay to the government each year.
CG
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Introduction of E corridors will see much greater intervention by ATS.”
For aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules - yes, I agree it will.
And for that reason it will, in effect, increase the existing dis-incentive to fly under the Instrument Flight Rules. I predict that even more traffic will simply not bother with ATC at all and will elect to go VFR in order to avoid the delay and expense.
“I bet Australian aviation doesn't benefit too much from the 10% dividend that ASA pay to the government each year.”
I'm sure that on that particular point agreement would be universal. It's one of many good reasons to move away from the current government-run ATS monopoly situation.
For aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules - yes, I agree it will.
And for that reason it will, in effect, increase the existing dis-incentive to fly under the Instrument Flight Rules. I predict that even more traffic will simply not bother with ATC at all and will elect to go VFR in order to avoid the delay and expense.
“I bet Australian aviation doesn't benefit too much from the 10% dividend that ASA pay to the government each year.”
I'm sure that on that particular point agreement would be universal. It's one of many good reasons to move away from the current government-run ATS monopoly situation.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1/4 pounder with cheese
Spending much of my life overseas I must agree with the 'macca index' post. Those figures don't hold up.
But there is another angle on this. In Europe (I spend most of my time in Switzerland) the cost of flying is prohibitive. That is because way too much airspace is controlled and control charges are exhorbitant.
The Eropean model might be good for controllers in the immediate timeframe as wages went through the roof, but in the long term, as GA dies, we just won't need as many.
Now under the US (very NAS like) model, charges are minimised, GA thrives and controllers are wanted, needed, well respected and generally in my experience, very helpful.
So instead of snide BS comments about biscuit makers, how about you properly outline what your problem is (besides over the top wage claims) and try to help all concerned build a better system.
AK
But there is another angle on this. In Europe (I spend most of my time in Switzerland) the cost of flying is prohibitive. That is because way too much airspace is controlled and control charges are exhorbitant.
The Eropean model might be good for controllers in the immediate timeframe as wages went through the roof, but in the long term, as GA dies, we just won't need as many.
Now under the US (very NAS like) model, charges are minimised, GA thrives and controllers are wanted, needed, well respected and generally in my experience, very helpful.
So instead of snide BS comments about biscuit makers, how about you properly outline what your problem is (besides over the top wage claims) and try to help all concerned build a better system.
AK
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a few of you are labouring under a common misapprehension- one not widely understood. If the option exists for IFR flights to conduct themselves as IFR with all the associated service, then those services have to be there, ready to go. AsA understands this, and is one reason why they realise the expense that they will be lumbered with will be very hard to justify under a user pays. All those radio transmitters, controllers etc have to be installed/trained/maintained/paid whether they are utilised or not. The infrastructure required , whether used once a week, or every day, day in, day out, is the same.
In the U.S. they can achieve greater efficiency due to the volume of users. You cannot reproduce that in oz. You will never get that same utilisation, no matter how much you foster aviation (and I agree it could certainly be fostered better). We need a unique system in oz, and until a few more people come to that realisation, we will all continue to be at cross-purposes.
In the U.S. they can achieve greater efficiency due to the volume of users. You cannot reproduce that in oz. You will never get that same utilisation, no matter how much you foster aviation (and I agree it could certainly be fostered better). We need a unique system in oz, and until a few more people come to that realisation, we will all continue to be at cross-purposes.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the “Big Mac Index” and SM4 Pirate’s figures:
The cost of ATM in:
Australia is AUD$285 per IFR flight hour;
=89 Big Macs (at AUD$3.20 per Big Mac)
FAA is AUD $538 (USD$ 356.85 at 1.5076 AUD/USD) per IFR flight hour
=135 Big Macs (at USD$ 2.65 per Big Mac)
European Area AUD$933 (=USD$ 618.86 or Euro$ 720.27) per IFR flight hour.
= 261 Big Macs (at Euro 2.75 per Big Mac)
The Big Mac Index
"Ya want fries with your clearance?"
Of course, the comparison is complicated by the conversion rate between the McOz, the Big Mac and the infamous Royale with Cheese.
The cost of ATM in:
Australia is AUD$285 per IFR flight hour;
=89 Big Macs (at AUD$3.20 per Big Mac)
FAA is AUD $538 (USD$ 356.85 at 1.5076 AUD/USD) per IFR flight hour
=135 Big Macs (at USD$ 2.65 per Big Mac)
European Area AUD$933 (=USD$ 618.86 or Euro$ 720.27) per IFR flight hour.
= 261 Big Macs (at Euro 2.75 per Big Mac)
The Big Mac Index
"Ya want fries with your clearance?"
Of course, the comparison is complicated by the conversion rate between the McOz, the Big Mac and the infamous Royale with Cheese.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris, your argument relating to the "economy of scales" in the USA does not hold up. In fact it is quite the opposite. Australian poulation density is high, confined to small pockets on the continent. Half the population are in 2 cities. Air traffic of any significance is confined to the eastern seaboard, and jet operations to cities I can count on two hands. Please don't use that as an excuse as to why the Aussie taxpayer and airspace user are getting screwed. 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winstun
Thanks for pointing out your lack of understanding of oz airspace and it's use. The class E (NAS) proposal affects aircraft travelling to and from the densely populated areas. A great deal of aviation actually occurs outside the J (the large, empty distances actually create aviation opportunities). I am sure the people (pilots) that will be most affected by the changes will appreciate your dismissal of them.
How is the aussie taxpayer being screwed? I would have thought the aussie taxpayer would have been delighted at the profits generated for them by AsA. Maybe the airspace user should be upset at how the aussie taxpayer is profiting at their expense?
Come back when you have something intelligent to say.
How is the aussie taxpayer being screwed? I would have thought the aussie taxpayer would have been delighted at the profits generated for them by AsA. Maybe the airspace user should be upset at how the aussie taxpayer is profiting at their expense?
Come back when you have something intelligent to say.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
Unfortunately, attempts to even ask simple operational questions about VFR frequencies and QNH procedures result in obfuscation from NAS proponents. (See the previous thread, now closed). Mr Smith, obviously trying to justify the process that has led us thus far, promised to answer these questions, but has been very, very silent.
In these two areas alone, the NAS implementation has taken what should be the simplest of processes and made it contradictory and complicated.
The "IFR pick up" is even worse. Once again, it should have been simple. If you want to operate VFR, do so. No service, no cost, do as you like in G and E. So why the need for a complicated procedure like "IFR pick up"?
Mixture Rich
You have answered your own question. I believe the ratio is about 1:10 for both controllers and aircraft movements (but I don't have the source material to back that up right now). SM4's figures seem to agree with this, with (on average) each Aussie ATC handling marginally more IFR movements than their US counterparts.
So instead of snide BS comments about biscuit makers, how about you properly outline what your problem is (besides over the top wage claims) and try to help all concerned build a better system.
In these two areas alone, the NAS implementation has taken what should be the simplest of processes and made it contradictory and complicated.
The "IFR pick up" is even worse. Once again, it should have been simple. If you want to operate VFR, do so. No service, no cost, do as you like in G and E. So why the need for a complicated procedure like "IFR pick up"?
Mixture Rich
I have to say I find it hard to believe (anecdotal evidence only) that Australian ATC's handle more traffic then their American counterparts. Unless that is that there are that many more ATC's in the US, because there are a hell of a lot more aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So instead of snide BS comments about biscuit makers, how about you properly outline what your problem is (besides over the top wage claims) and try to help all concerned build a better system.
Is there a wonder that ATC service is anecdotally better in a place with 20 times the controllers, (half the rules) and 18 times the traffic?
The ratio of flights to controllers is better in the US (and more expensive), more controllers per plane. Yes we are talking averages, but across the board, given that they have radar (just about) everywhere, we must do a fantastic job by comparison; even if some perceive we do it with less service, maybe there is a reason for that, look at the sums...
I know that many will never see that and will just continue to throw sh!t at how bad ATC in Oz is and the need for all this reform, axing 200 controllers by adopting the US model; the sums don't add up.
They have more controllers per flights and better radar coverage and we want to further reduce our ratio of controllers per flight based on their model, get real. That Snarek is my point.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4
I think that, despite the fact he seems well able to p!ss you all off, Mr R Smith is trying to achieve just that, "half the rules" and via that more people in the sky, and then it follows, more controllers, safer skies and more jobs for you guys.
All I am trying to say (occasionally perhaps a little rudely) is give him a go and help make it work.
In 25 years of flying I have only ever had problems with 3 ATCs, and one was RAAF (so that doesn't count), the other wanted me to track Yarrabah - Honiara - Cairns to avoid traffic (and got told) the last tried to refuse me time to do a runup (and got told).
All in all a pretty good record!!!
AK
Is there a wonder that ATC service is anecdotally better in a place with 20 times the controllers, (half the rules) and 18 times the traffic?
All I am trying to say (occasionally perhaps a little rudely) is give him a go and help make it work.
In 25 years of flying I have only ever had problems with 3 ATCs, and one was RAAF (so that doesn't count), the other wanted me to track Yarrabah - Honiara - Cairns to avoid traffic (and got told) the last tried to refuse me time to do a runup (and got told).
All in all a pretty good record!!!
AK
