Thread: ANTI TERRORIST AND SECURITY RULES ARE BECOMING COMPLETELY REDICULOUS.......

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Did you see that some rural airports may have to close down because the federal government is insisting on scanners and other gear, but refusing to pay for them and making broke local councils foot the bill?

It's a hard call, i would have thought a quick rummage through the carry on would suffice , but ... Mike i see your often critical of subsidies, should not it be on the basis of user pays, rather than yet another Federal subsidy.

But seriously if you were that way inclined, there are so many options in a modern mechanised society, like, first hire a gravel truck .......................

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Did you see that some rural airports may have to close down because the federal government is insisting on scanners and other gear, but refusing to pay for them and making broke local councils foot the bill?

That's not entirely correct.

The federal government is going to provide a grant to supply and install the required equipment. What they are *not* going to do is pay the ongoing staffing required to operate said equipment, nor pay for the ongoing maintenance (which with both X-ray and ETD is non-trivial).

So the airport will have to stump up the ongoing operating costs. This *will* drive some airports under as the only way to finance it on a stand-alone basis will be to increase landing fees which will make it less viable for the airlines as the knock-on will drive tickets up and passenger counts down. End result airline declares route unsustainable and pulls out.

We've already lost a few useful regional routes in WA due to them being unsustainable for the airline. There really are two options. A : We subsidise the routes or B : they get shut down.

(A) is going to require some good negotiation with the airline and serious independent oversight as we've seen time and time again any subsidy has serious potential for rort.

Perhaps needs to be pointed out that the security requirement is primarily to protect travellers from the capital city airports, not the regional airports. There has been no credible data to suggest that there is a risk to regional flights.

Lets see now. 20,000 AULRO members @ $1,000 ea. = $20 million.
We could purchase a couple of old Dash 8s and revive the old ANA emblem but, to overcome the security costs, it would be signifying

"AUSTRALIAN NUDE AIRLINES"


Incisor could then possibly be known as "Branson of the Outback".

Originally Posted by Saitch

Lets see now. 20,000 AULRO members @ $1,000 ea. = $20 million.
We could purchase a couple of old Dash 8s and revive the old ANA emblem but, to overcome the security costs, it would be signifying

"AUSTRALIAN NUDE AIRLINES"


Incisor could then possibly be known as "Branson of the Outback".

Add a bit for driptrays. 20,001 AULROians?

Originally Posted by cjc_td5

I don't think the water filled barricades are compliant as traffic barriers anymore. Someone did a risk assessment that they could leak and therefore become ineffective, so their use was banned. If used empty they become lethal projectiles if hit with any speed. That is why the compliant barriers have steel cables running along them to tie them all together. Concrete barricades remove this risk.

Water filled plastic barriers of the appropriate type can be used in zones rated up to 70KPH for TL2 rated units and 100KPH for TL3 rated units, or as end treatments for steel or concrete barriers. We have literally thousands of them out at the moment doing their thing. They are pinned together so one leak in a chain makes no difference. Deflection distance is greater than pinned steel or concrete but they are still quite legal. They are also approved and suitable as terrorist mitigation if installed to standards (filled with water and pinned together with supplied collars).

You may be thinking of the older style TL1 water filled units, these are no longer suitable for traffic use.

We have found for small installations that need to be in and out quickly that concrete is a easier, but as you can get much less on a truck, about the same price as deploying water filled units and filling/draining them. Our installation team do terrorist mitigation on an almost weekly basis.

Originally Posted by BradC

That's not entirely correct.

The federal government is going to provide a grant to supply and install the required equipment. What they are *not* going to do is pay the ongoing staffing required to operate said equipment, nor pay for the ongoing maintenance (which with both X-ray and ETD is non-trivial).

So the airport will have to stump up the ongoing operating costs. This *will* drive some airports under as the only way to finance it on a stand-alone basis will be to increase landing fees which will make it less viable for the airlines as the knock-on will drive tickets up and passenger counts down. End result airline declares route unsustainable and pulls out.

We've already lost a few useful regional routes in WA due to them being unsustainable for the airline. There really are two options. A : We subsidise the routes or B : they get shut down.

(A) is going to require some good negotiation with the airline and serious independent oversight as we've seen time and time again any subsidy has serious potential for rort.

Yes, I guess regional airports can't make much income from other sources, such as parking. Coffs airport has a fully automated building which provides secure parking, but that probably wouldn't work at smaller airports.

Yes. There are currently air services to a lot of places that only drop off/pick up a few passengers each flight. These sorts of requirements effectively mean the airlines will simply not be able to service these towns.