Rescue & fire-fighting service charges inequitable?

Airlines are required to fork out for the provision of aviation rescue and fire-fighting services at airports, but what about other users of the services?

The Board of Airline Representatives of Australia has been vocal about the the increasing frequency of ARFFS call outs to other airport facilities such as retail and commercial premises.

BARA says that, "There are presently no cost recovery arrangements for the provision of ARFFS for non-aviation incidents, so airlines and their passengers ultimately bear the costs of such extraneous services.

"BARA maintains that the delivery of these services to non-aviation sites within an airport precinct should be on a fee for service basis."

Seems like a fair point - but is anyone listening?

That aspect though is but a small part of BARA's overall concern about ARFFS charges.

BARA says that ARFFS charges "are presently set on a network basis, in effect taxing the operations of international airlines by tens of millions of dollars each year to subsidise airline operations to regional locations.

"This charging structure is unjust, damages competition in downstream markets and harms economic efficiency more generally.

"It seems that network-based charges for ARFFS were reintroduced due to the perceived level of ‘affordability’ of air passenger transport services to regional locations.

"Equity considerations have been a prominent issue associated with the pricing of ARFFS and terminal navigation services at regional locations.

"BARA considers it counter-productive to attempt to improve the perceived affordability of air passenger transport services to regional locations through cross subsidising the provision of ARFFS."