Smaller airports may bear brunt of service cuts

Press, 23 October 1984, Page 1

Smaller airports may bear brunt of service cuts

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

Big savings in the provision of air traffic and rescuefire services at domestic airports are contemplated in a Ministrv of Transport report.

The report, commissioned in April, 1983, and completed in September, 1983, has just been released by the Minister of Transport, Mr Prebble, along with an associated report by a consultant on airport accident rescue.

Copies of both reports are now available from Government bookshops. The cost of airways facilities, including air traffic services and rescue fire services, was $36.39 million for the year 1981-82. The operating income was $28.54 million, so there was an operating loss of nearly SBM, which grew to nearly SISM if other expenditure, such as administration and depreciation on buildings and plant, was taken into account. A number of options are proposed in the report to square expenditure and revenue more closely: • Retention of the status quo. This had a lot of appeal when viewed airport by airport, but was not acceptable for the whole system of

domestic services. It would involve the taxpayer making up the difference rather than airport users. • The withdrawal of flight service staff from three airports, with consequent savings: Kaitaia ($90,000), Oamaru ($98,000), and Westport ($57,000); and the reduction of services at others would save $939,000 a year. • The withdrawl of services from Kaitaia, Oamaru, and Wesport, plus Whangarei ($195,000) and Whakatane ($158,000) and air traffic control from Wanganui ($61,000), and the reduction of other services would save $1,323,000 a year. • The withdrawl of services from Kaitaia, Oamaru, Westport, Whangarei, Whakatane, and Wanganui, plus Taupo ($271,000), Timaru ($252,000), Milford Sound ($72,000) and Paraparaumu ($150,000) would save $2,014,000 a year. • The complete restructure of the way air traffic services were organised. This option could not. be costed.

Mr Prebble has said that he favoured the option that would save $2,014,000 a year. He has invited submissions from the public on the different options, to close by November 12. The savings were estimated on the salaries, including overtime and penal time, and other related costs, for staff withdrawn; plus an estimate of operational costs saved at those airports which would become unattended. Mr Prebble’s preferred option would see the deletion of 14 flight service positions, but offset by the creation of four new ones. Not all the savings could be made in bne year, the report said, both because of the need to provide new equipment and to ensure that staff who had to be transferred were- consulted and had ample time to consider and prepare for it. Mr Prebble’s choice of options would see an overall net reduction of 66 staff positions and the withdrawl of services from nine air-

ports that would then become unattended. ' The report said that it was hoped that because , of the reduced level of work at the point of service, comparable savings in headquarters and regional staffing, and associated management costs would also be made. It was not able to estimate what those savings might amount to. The report also considered that further consideration needed to be given to staffing levels and roster systems at airports to ensure resources were used more cost-efficiently. However, it said that even the most radical option would not close the gap between expenditure and income on airways facilities. To seek to close this gap merely through a look at services provided at a few secondary airports would be wrong, it said. To do so would be likely to lead to a distortion in the provision of services and an imbalance in the structure that provided them. Further report, page 2