Longer bushfire seasons will bump up the cost of fighting blazes substantially, according to leaders of the national agency which coordinates the effort across the country.
As the fires rage over wider areas over a longer season, the people who run the National Council for Fire and Emergency Services which coordinate resources across the states are reviewing the implications if and when this exceptional season becomes the new normal.
One concern of Stuart Ellis who heads the National Council for Fire and Emergency Services is that more aircraft will be needed for longer.
He also thinks that today's planners should learn from ancient practices in Aboriginal Australia to cut back bush which has abundant tinder-dry fuel.
At a micro level, rising temperatures and drought are likely to intensify conflicts over water. Some farmers are telling rural fire services that helicopters can pick up water from dams but only on condition that the the RFS replaces the water later.
Apart from tensions over water, there is also likely to be more competition for firefighting aircraft.
Normally, there are five big air tankers - one owned outright by New South Wales and another four hired - but last year, an extra one was rented and this year another extra one, making seven - five in NSW and two in Victoria but shared across the country. Each tanker costs millions to hire per season.
These fire-fighting tankers are switched between the northern and southern hemisphere but as fire seasons increasingly overlap, the concern is that fewer will be available in Australia.
Costs would rise if Australia was competing for them with California, Canada, Greece, Spain and the rest of southern Europe.
Australia has been lucky this year in that tankers are available because Canada has been relatively unaffected by wildfires. California has burned but other parts of North America haven't. The problems would come if swathes of North America and Australia burnt together.
"Where we are concerned is that the model of moving the aircraft has served us very well but we can certainly see that in the future this will be an issue," said Richard Alder, the general manager of Australia's National Aerial Firefighting Centre. "The model will have to be looked at again."
The other part of the system raising questions is how the different states pay for the larger aircraft. At the moment, New South Wales and Victoria rent them but they get deployed throughout Australia.
Is it fair that the financial burden falls on two states when the aircraft are used throughout Australia, is the question being asked by the managers of the system.
The chief executive of the national fire and emergency service council wants more controlled burning to cut the available fuel.
"The first Australians used burning and they did it to manage the bush," Stuart Ellis said. "It's the single most practical thing we could be doing."
We can't affect the weather in the short term. The weather we are experiencing for the next ten years is essentially in place. The only thing we can do is reduce the fuel load.- Stuart Ellis, Chief Executive, Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council
He concedes that it's controversial and difficult because so much dangerous bush is near property - think of the areas within Canberra like the tinder dry bush between the Australian War Memorial and Mount Majura.
But Mr Ellis said that "prescribed burning" had to be considered because "we can't affect the weather in the short term.
"The weather we are experiencing for the next ten years is essentially in place. The only thing we can do is reduce the fuel load."
At the moment, 145 aircraft are being used to fight fires in Australia, predominantly in New South Wales. Virtually all of them are hired for the season, though NSW owns a small number of aircraft , including one big tanker.
The states fund it, though the federal government reimburses some of the cost. It's just allocated an extra $11 million.
The whole aerial firefighting fleet ranges from helicopters to the biggest tankers, including a DC10 which can carry 36,000 litres of liquid and Boeing 737s and Lockheed Martin C-130s, capable of carrying 15,000 litres.
It doesn't follow that bigger is better. Helicopters can carry less liquid but travel shorter distances to get it - say, to a nearby lake or dam.
There has been a suggestion that Australia should use a huge purpose-built Russian aircraft, the Beriev, Be-200, which can fly over water and scoop it up.
But it doesn't have the licence to operate in Australia, according to the General Manager of the National Aerial Firefighting Centre, Richard Alder. On top of that, a few smaller aircraft can be more economical than one big one.