Jon H Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Ok guys lets keep it civil. While John is defending his position a little too robustly for my taste it cannot be denied that many of his comments are indeed true. The dawlish show was cancelled long before this proposal came through so that one is not a concern. I would also suggest that the primary reason for no shoreham show (other than a PR disaster) is that noone would insure them until the accident report was finalised and satisfactory changes made to mitigate any issues in the future. My issue with this whole proposal is related to the potential for the massively increased costs to put airshows out of reach and make then uneconomical to attend and run. I also do not see that immediate changes are necessary as this was an almost once in a life time accident. That does not mean we dont need to investigate thoroughly and work out what happened, but equally we dont want to put in place a bunch of rules without actually knowing what went wrong. As yet i do not have any concrete information about how these changes will change gate prices. Indeed Shuttleworth have not raised theirs, but is that because the proposals are not final yet? Ditching the evening shows is a new change as they were listed earlier in the year. I wonder if these open days fall outside what is governed by airshow regulations (white waltham's family day and similar events do, or at least did) and so do not qualify for these charges? It would explain the low ticket price. More research is required... Edited By Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 10/02/2016 13:55:29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slopetrashuk Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 For completeness. I have applied to be part of the public consultation and I have written to my MP. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 10/02/2016 13:53:06: Ok guys lets keep it civil. While John is defending his position a little too robustly for my taste it cannot be denied that many of his comments are indeed true. Sorry, it does appear robustly defending, and I was. I think it is important to get the facts out there before rumour became a fact that everyone quoted as genuine when, in reality, it was always just a bit of idle gossip. My issue with this whole proposal is related to the potential for the massively increased costs to put airshows out of reach and make then uneconomical to attend and run. The increased costs could easily be accommodated by a small increase in admission or an increase in costs for corporate entertainment or trade stands at the larger shows. Yes, when you are dealing with attendances of just 2000 it is felt a bit more keenly but larger airshows can plan ahead and keep price rises small. it depends entirely upon what the CAA decide are the final figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabbage Man Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Its quite possible the increase in charges is more to do with cost recovery. All government departments are struggling to keep going at the moment and have to look for any revenue stream they can. The public have to come to terms with the fact that sooner or later this policy will be standard for many departmental services. Whether the Shoreham Disaster was in any way a factor in the cost increase seems unlikely to me. Don't forget the other crashes this year as well. What i do see as under serious threat are shows featuring old restored aircraft flown by equally old (but unrestored ) pilots. As one person put it, Old aircraft and old farts = death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The Public has been coming to terms income streams and poorer services for somewhile and a lot of them more crucial/important than Airshows. Airshows are a very cheap day out when compared to lots of other entertainments. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 10/02/2016 13:53:06: My issue with this whole proposal is related to the potential for the massively increased costs to put airshows out of reach and make then uneconomical to attend and run. I also do not see that immediate changes are necessary as this was an almost once in a life time accident. That does not mean we dont need to investigate thoroughly and work out what happened, but equally we dont want to put in place a bunch of rules without actually knowing what went wrong. Jon, I am by no means certain how to word this, but could I make a few observations. Massively is quoted, this is journalese, aimed to deceive or alarm. It is an increase. You see no reason for change, an almost once in a lifetime accident. Not an accident, it is a crash, and you have said previously let us wait for the result of the enquired. Please obey your request, but a look at current risk assessments after this is not unreasonable, after all the risk assessment at Farnham is either unlucky or deficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Reynaud Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Two selected quotes from cap1373 "CAA statutory charges 2016/17 consultation document: Proposed air display and low flying permission charges". They seem a fair statement to me. I haven't looked at any of the numbers in detail as John F has, but I do think that the inital reaction (unjustified hike in charges) is a bit OTT. Detailed work on the time and effort dedicated to the regulation of Flying Displays, Display Authorisations for pilots and Low Flying Permissions for the year ending March 2015, shows that we are continuing to significantly under recover our costs in this area. The CAA is funded by charges levied on the industry and we need to ensure that those charges reflect the amount of work that is actually carried out, which has not been the case for the last few years. For future pricing reviews, the CAA is committed to conduct a full review of air display regulatory activities and associated costs. Our aim is to have this completed in time for the 2017/18 charges consultation. We believe the charging proposals included within this document represent a fair and balanced approach to charging whilst ensuring that the cost recovery requirement is achievable. We look forward to receiving feedback on these proposals from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 'We believe the charging proposals included within this document represent a fair and balanced approach to charging whilst ensuring that the cost recovery requirement is achievable." Well, they would say that wouldn't they (to mis-quote Mandy Rice-Davies... showing my age now!) Actually Donald a 100% increase (double) is a massive increase in my book and what happened at Shoreham was an Accident (Aircraft destroyed/ fatalities, which is the definition). The word Crash is journalese and can mean anything from a flat tyre to continued flight into terrain (CFIT) - as far as the Mail is concerned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Thanks Piers Anyway, as I said before, if all of this extra stuff improves safety and only impacts ticket prices a small amount then cracking, lets go for it. If however costs rise by 100% then logically so will ticket prices, trade stand prices etc as everything will rise in price by 100% to maintain the financial balance. This will inflate the already outrageous hotdog prices as caterers try to recoup their money. Just think, £12 for a hotdog?! What I would like to see is one of the shows to put together a simulated ticket price. Say for example Duxford used last years flying legends airshow (as they know how many planes flew, people attended etc) and use that to predict this years ticket price under the new rules that would be very handy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Not quite how my maths work out, Jon - the CAA costs are a fraction of the event costs so a 100% increase of, say 5% (probably much less) of the total for the CAA charges would only add around 5% to ticket prices... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Fair point, a full cost breakdown is what we need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 10/02/2016 22:02:48: Thanks Piers Anyway, as I said before, if all of this extra stuff improves safety and only impacts ticket prices a small amount then cracking, lets go for it. If however costs rise by 100% then logically so will ticket prices, trade stand prices etc as everything will rise in price by 100% to maintain the financial balance. This will inflate the already outrageous hotdog prices as caterers try to recoup their money. Just think, £12 for a hotdog?! What I would like to see is one of the shows to put together a simulated ticket price. Say for example Duxford used last years flying legends airshow (as they know how many planes flew, people attended etc) and use that to predict this years ticket price under the new rules that would be very handy I already did give an example of costs, Jon, based on the proposed charges in an earlier post. Take RIAT, for example. Charges could increase, based on the proposed tables, by a maximum of £17695. 2014 saw 150,000 paying visitors. That is an increase of 12 pence per ticket to cover the increased costs. Just a 12 pence increase based on paying visitors only. Don't forget as well that companies sponsor the events, private hospitality for the larger shows pay for the privilege and product showcases and stalls all bring in a fair portion of income too, so the increase in costs would be easily absorbed. Edited By John F on 11/02/2016 16:03:10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Large corporate shows are sponsored to some degree, but small ones are not. And name anyone who will willingly 'absorb' more costs. Also remember that (from my understanding anyway) a 2 day show counts as 2 individual shows so would pay twice (perhaps 3 times if they have events on friday as they sometimes do) and your 150k visitor figure will be for all 3 days of RIAT. Im not saying its wrong, just not so simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Jon, a two day show does not appear to count as two shows and are not billed twice or three times because the airshow is 2 or 3 days long. The current system is this method and there is no reason to suggest otherwise with the proposed tariffs. All the info is there in the links I posted. There is a substantial reduction to be had if you do host several air shows within a specified timeframe rather than face a massive invoice at the end. Yes, if you know where to look and how to look at the issue, it can be fairly simple. Edited By John F on 11/02/2016 20:22:37 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 More importantly, if you have time. Alas I am quite busy. instead of being smug why not post the relevant pieces of the text. In any event, I would be surprised if 2 day shows are covered as one because you are doubling everything up and why would they miss that opportunity for all that extra money. And from a safety point of view you are also doubling up on potential for an accident. It would be like having the same insurance quote for a car being driven 5000 and 10000 miles a year. The risk is double so the cost will rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 11/02/2016 20:21:18: More importantly, if you have time. Alas I am quite busy. instead of being smug why not post the relevant pieces of the text. Two day shows are treated as one show with the old system, there is nothing to suggest that it should differ with the revised structure. Smug? Here's me pointing you in the proper direction, giving you all the correct info you could possibly require and I am being smug? How on earth does that work out? Thank you. Do you generally abuse all the folk who try to help? We're done here, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slopetrashuk Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Phew! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 +1 Your 'help' has been quite condescending John. Is not the content its the tone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 You've been provided with all the documentation that you could possibly want in order to know the full facts instead of subscribing to the knee jerk comments that has been posted here. You stated one thing, I replied. Nothing more. What you read is entirely down to your own interpretation, all I have done is give you the info that you need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Meade Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I had a perverse thought in the shower this morning (mostly normal for me) - how about letting the CAA put these levies on airshows for administration as much as they want.....lest they look elsewhere to raise these monies. Yes I mean registering each model we build with unique identifiers and paying for the privilege. A bit tongue in cheek, but made me wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 It is interesting reading the fine print of the proposal - despite the fact the CAA have stated that they have been running at a loss WRT the work they do for airshows in recent years, the numbers suggest the main reason is because they expect the increased regulations as a result of Shoreham to push up the work needed and associated costs. The 100% increase in low flying permissions is only expected to generate £50k - from chapter 3 on the fee structure... "With the introduction of increased regulatory activity for the 2016 air display season, there will be a requirement for additional regulatory resources, resulting in further operating costs estimated to be £250k. However, with the proposed 100% increase in charges associated with Low Flying Permissions, the extra income generated of £50k will reduce the amount to be recovered from flying display events to £200k. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Dare I suggest that the rules that have worked pretty well for the past 50 years wouldn't necessarily require 'increased regulatory activity' and 'additional regulatory resources' if those very rules were being strictly complied with by participants...... This smacks of change for the sake of change - and being seen to be doing 'something' - rather than any fundamental improvement to the system. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted February 14, 2016 Author Share Posted February 14, 2016 I am not sure if anyone has looked at the Duxford airshow pages but all of their shows this year are now advance tickets only. You cannot buy any tickets on the gate. While I cannot confirm this, the most likely reason is to guarantee a level of income to prevent loosing money. Many people wont go to a show if the weather is marginal, but if they fear tickets will sell out then they will pay in advance and take the risk. Personally I would rather miss it than risk best part of 80 quid on good weather. There is also a £5 car parking charge being added on top of the ticket price although the tickets are currently the same prices as previous years. I cannot say for sure that this links in with these new proposed rules, but if so then it means I wont be attending many Duxford shows as I wont buy tickets for any UK show until I know what the weather is doing, and if the tickets are sold out by then so be it. I will go to Old Warden instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Jackson 1 Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Just signed the government petition. Only shows a figure of under 15000 so far.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Not happy people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.