[thorn bird]

Quote:
"but not too much digging going on; (except for building strip malls on existing infrastructure). Sorry TB – I did promise not to mention ‘the war’."

Yup K, lots and lots of DFO's. Surveyors tramping about everywhere around BK lately no doubt planning on carving up much of the open land around the airport to the development sharks. And here we were told our airports were to be reserved for aviation development and its infrastructure kept in its original condition, yet they closed a runway against safety advice, dumped thousands of cubic meters of asbestos contaminated fill on it, declared it unused airport land, and up goes a DFO complex likely to see an Essendon tragedy some time in the future. Head leases ignored, airport Act ignored, environmental impact ignored and when that ultimate smoking hole occurs you can bet the decision will be aircraft are far too dangerous to have around these buildings, close down the airport.

Interestingly, Perth needed a third runway. There used to be land available for that but unfortunately they allowed the airport to build industrial parks all over it. If a third runway becomes vital no doubt the fed's will have to stump up for the cost of resuming land on which to build it.

[Peetwo]

Aussie airports, DFOs, infrastructure developments and Beijing disconnections??    

"K" -  "..But there’s a moral in there somewhere. Perhaps the new ILS at Mildura provides a hint; if you want something doing.."

Hmm...interesting statement "K", it is interesting to note, in the lead up to the Victorian State election, the following 13 November 2018 media announcement link from the Victorian version of the Liberal/National party coalition:    

Liberal Nationals Encourage Pilot Training

...An ILS is a highly-accurate piece of navigation equipment which guides pilots during landing, meaning poor visibility won’t disrupt air services from Mildura. It is also a vital part of pilot training.

“There are negotiations underway to secure an academy for our community and with the right foundation we’ll be in prime position to seize this new opportunity for Mildura,” Mr Crisp said.
“This investment will ensure Mildura has the right equipment and training facilities for an Academy, which will create new jobs and opportunities to invest in an entirely new sector for Mildura.

“Only The Nationals in government will give Mildura the best chance of securing a Pilot Training Academy for our region, while also making sure more local flights arrive and leave on time.”

As well as the boost to local training opportunities, a Pilot Training Academy will create an estimated 375 ongoing jobs.

Mr Walsh, also the Shadow Minister for Regional Victoria and Decentralisation, said the new ILS delivered on a priority project for the Mildura community.

“Mildura’s a growing regional airport, driving economic development and tourism,” Mr Walsh said.

“Crispy has been lobbying strongly on behalf of the community to secure this investment and The Nationals in government will deliver.”

Also announced today in Mildura was a returned $24 million Regional Aviation Infrastructure Fund to upgrade airports across Regional Victoria, if the Liberal Nationals are elected to government on November 24.

Mr Rich-Phillips said regional airports were a critical connection for country communities.

“A kilometre of road will take you a kilometre. A kilometre of runway can take you anywhere,” Mr Rich-Phillips said.

“Only the Liberal Nationals understand the value of our regional airports. Unlike Labor which abandoned our regional airports, we will work with local communities to help them upgrade these facilities.”

Of course the promise of funding for an ILS at Mildura and for Victorian regional airports was never upheld because Labor remained in power. However this did not mean the Nationals gave up on the proposal and less than five months later, just prior to the Federal election, miniscule McDonaught rocked up to Mildura on a pork barreling crusade to make an announcement that the Federal Govt would be helping fund the construction of an ILS at Mildura?? 

 
Ref: TRANSCRIPT: DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER MICHAEL MCCORMACK, THE NATIONALS’ CANDIDATE FOR MALLEE ANNE WEBSTER, CHAIRMAN OF MILDURA AIRPORT PETER O’DONNELL, MAYOR OF MILDURA RURAL CITY COUNCIL SIMON CLEMENCE

Certain parts of the historical transcript have IMO some 'passing strange' disconnections when you consider recent media coverage on Chinese perceived influence, political donations etc. with the current Morrison Govt and Labor party in opposition...  

SIMON CLEMENCE:

Thank you. There's a lot of people have put a lot of work into this over the last couple of years. And I'd like to thank them for their efforts. In particular, Bill Burke, from Mildura Airport. The CEO has done some wonderful work to try and secure this particular facility.

Again, of course, Mr Zheng and his executive team and I've come to know them very well. And some of them are actually resettling here, in Mildura, which is wonderful to see.

If you just have a look at the 30 students here. I just invite you to use your imagination a bit and just double that number of students. And that's 60 and then multiply that, double by 10 and that's 600. And you imagine what that would look like. And that's how many students we're hoping to be able to train here each year, which is remarkable.

And when you look at the financial impacts of that, it's estimated that each of these student pilots will bring between $75,000 and $90,000 into the economy. If you look at that figure of 600. Multiply that out and you've got between 45 and $90 million dollars coming into this economy. And when you add to that the $40 million that's already been spent by Mr Zheng in setting this up, just in the first year alone, that's a $100 million dollars.

Now we fight and bite and scratch over a stadium for 26, 28 million dollars of funding, and we've already got an investment here now, today, secured today by this ILS system worth a $100 million. And that will continue at the rate of 45 to 60 million dollars every year ongoing.

And my understanding is the Chinese currently need something like 6,000 pilots and of course, as those positions are filled, there will be more pilots required as others retire or go elsewhere.

And so, this is obviously is going to be a long term investment in this town. It's going to go for decades. And so, I congratulate the government for this $2 million investment. And of course, I thank them. This investment actually secured this school. Without it, it could well have folded. But the deal's done now.

Obviously the Council still have to stump up a million dollars and there's nine Councillors have to vote on that, but I'm fairly confident that we'll manage to get that through.

And also, of course, thank you to the airport for putting in a million of their own. So once again, thank you all. You need to look at this as probably the biggest investment in Mildura's future that has been ever. And I'm sure it's going to make a big difference to this town. Thank you very much, cheers

That's some serious injection of Beijing backed money into the local Mildura district economy...

Also note who was in attendance:

...Yep. That's wonderful to have Mr Zheng here. We haven't had you here for any of the announcements and we're very pleased to have you here today and for your commitment to our region. William Cheng, representing the company as well. Guy Pearson, who's the CEO of International Aviation Alliance. We're also very pleased to have Mr Liu here from China Eastern today especially.

I’d like to welcome Anne Webster, The Nationals’ Candidate for Mallee, also Serge Petrovitch, the Liberal Candidate for Mallee. A particular warm welcome to Tony Matthews, who's the chair of CASA here. We're very pleased to have a wonderful person like Tony, not only a Mildura person, but represents such an important association in Australian aviation...

While on airports I note the following short blog piece, courtesy of infrastructuremagazine.com.au, which seems to indicate that the latest amended CASR Part 139 MOS will enhance our compliance with ICAO Annex 14 - WTD? 

New standards for Australian aerodromes

Kim Ho, September 10, 2019, Airport, Asset Management, News, Policy, Regional, Safety, Standards,0 

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has released new safety requirements for aerodromes of all sizes across Australia.

The updates reflect changes in technology and best practice, and ensures Australia enhances its level of compliance with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards.

The new measures are detailed in CASA’s updated Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139.

The updates have drawn praise from the Australian Airports Association (AAA).

AAA Chief Executive Officer, Caroline Wilkie, said the review of MOS Part 139 was important to ensure airports are able to reasonably and practically meet required safety standards.

“Since 2014, the AAA has been closely involved in the Post Implementation Review of the MOS Part 139 for aerodromes and I would like to take this opportunity to thank CASA for their ongoing commitment to consultation and collaboration with industry throughout this process,” Ms Wilkie said.

Both CASA and the AAA are supporting industry through the transition to the new rules and a range of guidance material and templates are currently under development.

Once available, this material will provide support for aerodrome operators to develop or update any required documentation.

“The AAA will continue to work collaboratively with CASA to ensure our members remain informed of the key changes associated with the new standards and regulations, as well as the development of essential guidance material,” Ms Wilkie said.

Ms Wilkie also thanked the many industry members who were key to making the MOS 139 project a success, in particular Sydney Airport’s Ken Allcott, Cairns Airport’s Steve Willis, Northern Territory Airports’ Bob Calaby, Adelaide Airport’s Brett Eaton, ABD Safegate’s Jimmy Maitland, Airports Plus’ Tom Griffiths, University of the Sunshine Coast’s Greg White, Airport Lighting Services’ Mike Fisher and Australian Airport Pilots’ Association’s Brian Greeves.

A transition period for the revised rules will be provided from August 2020-2022.

To find out more about the rules and read the Part 139 change summary visit www.casa.gov.au.

Yet there the Essendon DFO (still) sits...  

 

Ref: Airports - Buy two, get one free.


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

The Great Aussie Airports v Airlines War??

In the wake of the PC report on Airports - see HERE - the following Oz article reflects how deep the rift has become between Airports and Airlines  :  

Buckle up — those who fly in for a long, rough ride from airports
ADAM CREIGHTON
Follow @Adam_Creighton



Qantas CEO Alan Joyce’s high public profile hasn’t helped the airlines in their bid to regulate airports. Photo: AAP


Have you ever wondered about the mark-up on the $4.50 toll on taxi services from Sydney Airport? It must be 1000 per cent. But the airport can get away with it.

Perhaps it is mere coincidence that last month Melbourne Airport lifted its taxi toll to — you guessed it — $4.50.

If you want to catch the train to Sydney — a government train — you’ll pay almost $20, more than double the fare from Sydney to Newcastle.

Even when Badgerys Creek opens, Sydney Airport will retain extraordinary market power over passengers and airlines, given its unique position, obtained through no effort or innovation of its own.

For the time being, it’s as close to a pure monopoly as you can find. If you live in Sydney, landing in Melbourne is not a good substitute.

No one is saying privatised airports shouldn’t be profitable but they shouldn’t be allowed to gouge. It seems they are. Four of the six most profitable airports in the world are in Australia, Sydney being No 1.

“Sydney Airport has an unregulated revenue stream in a monopoly environment. This is a key reason why it trades at a premium multiple to global peers,” UBS stated in a recent note.

According to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, average revenue per passenger has increased 26 per cent in real terms across the four major airports — Sydney, Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane — during the past decade.

Airlines have borne the brunt of the higher charges. Collectively, they have paid an additional $1.6bn to airports in landing fees without much change in quality. A decision by Perth Airport, whose profit has grown 133 per cent in the decade to last year according to the ACCC, to jack up its landing fees by almost 40 per cent over several years was the last straw.

Qantas, the other airlines, retailers and rental car companies have combined to advocate for some form of compulsory arbitration to sort out landing charges, at least.

In its final report the Productivity Commission recommends against compulsory arbitration, arguing the airlines and airports are big enough to sort pricing out among themselves.

“Qantas does not pay charges it does not agree to,” the commission says in its report, pointing out the airports must let planes land as a condition of their leases. “It may be airlines, rather than airports, that have an incentive to hold out on reaching agreement,” it adds.

Reasonable minds can disagree. Airlines do ultimately have to pay, otherwise why would airlines ever pay airports a cent? Graeme Samuel, advocating for the airlines in this debate, says airports can in fact refuse airlines the right to land if they have failed to pay a legitimate invoice for 21 days.

Scope to appoint an arbitrator with instructions to resolve disputes in consumers’ interest, as the ACCC suggests, would be quicker and cheaper than the prevailing arrangement, which can leave decisions held up for years in the ordinary courts.

Even when the Western Australia Supreme Court attempts to resolve the case between Perth Airport and Qantas, it will only determine the retrospective charges. A new dispute will arise immediately over charges in future, and perhaps, if the airport wins, at other airports throughout the country. These could last years.

The commission rightly points out that Qantas has significant market power. It enjoys 60 per cent of domestic passenger movements. With Rex and Virgin, the three top airlines have 95 per cent.

But market share alone doesn’t mean airports can’t overcharge airlines, which pass on the costs to passengers. And, by the way, their profitability pales in comparison to the airports, whose margins are about five times that of Qantas.

Speaking of Qantas, it’s a pity for airport users that the “national carrier” and its woke chief executive, Alan Joyce, have featured so prominently in the debate. Joyce’s pay — $24m in one year (about $90m since taking over as chief executive) — is as egregious as it is ludicrous, and signals ready capacity to offer lower airfares without any change to arbitration arrangements.

Moreover, while the Treasurer urges corporate Australia to invest and shun share buybacks, Qantas appears to have done the opposite. Graeme Ferguson, an analyst at S&P who has tracked Qantas fin­ancial policies for years, says it has consistently underinvested to pump up its share price as much as possible.

“Management are incentivised to return money to shareholders rather than making long-term investments,” he told The Australian, highlighting that the company has bought back a third of its stock since 2015. “They used to talk about the virtues of a young fleet, around seven years; now it’s approaching 12 on average.”

That said, the issue is bigger than Qantas, whose management will eventually change. And it’s not only airlines that are affected. Nine of the 10 most expensive airports for rental cars in the world are in Australia.

It will be a difficult political decision for the government. The politically powerful industry super funds own big chunks of all the major airports. UniSuper owns 16 per cent of Sydney Airport. The government’s own Future Fund owns a fifth of Melbourne Airport and almost a third of Perth Airport. On the other hand, no one wants to get kicked out of the Chairman’s Lounge, Qantas’s exclusive pre-flight club for the nation’s A-listers.

The airlines’ proposals are no silver bullet, relating only to landing charges, not parking fees or other airport services, which are more salient to travellers. There’s no guarantee lower landing fees would be passed on to customers, especially if it affects Joyce’s bonus. Indeed, lower landing charges for airlines could see airports jack up their fees for other services.

On balance, though, the government should send a message that the era of gouging by monopolies is coming to an end, be it in banking, energy or air travel.

The RAAA (via Shannon Wells) counters that with much more pragmatic approach to the problem...

---

Shannon Wells
Managing Director, Airlines of Tasmania (Par Avion Tours & Par Avion Flight Training)
21h · Edited

..sometimes I think Australian Airports Association (AAA) actually means Airlines Are Arseholes ? we need to cooperate - it’s aviation, not airlines vs airports

Regional Aviation Association of Australia
22h
Middle Ground
Much has been published over recent times about the Productivity Commission review into the Economic Regulation of Airports. What we don’t see published is the evidence that some airports are using their monopoly position in overcharging airlines. Indeed we see some cases of airlines being charged for services and infrastructure that is unnecessary for safe operations.
Having said that, there are many airports that have excellent working relationships with regional airlines. More importantly these airports are distinguished from other airports in that they care to understand the costs involved in providing an air service to their communities, particularly on thin routes and over long distances.
Examples of these airports include:
• Wellcamp (Brisbane West) Airport
• Archerfield Airport
• Devonport Airport
• Essendon Airport
• Rockhampton Airport
• Sydney Airport and
• Bankstown and Camden Airports
There are plenty of other airports doing the right thing, however the airports listed have elected to join the RAAA as members as a tangible expression of mutual support for the benefit of both parties. There is much good work continuing to be done by many regional and rural airports. Don’t tar all airports with the same brush, there is a vibrant middle ground.

---

Hmmm...no comment required me thinks...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

What? - An airport good news story...

Via Sen Susan McDonald's FB page:

---

Senator Susan McDonald added 3 new photos from November 20 — in Mareeba, Queensland.
Yesterday ·  ·






*MAREEBA FLYING HIGH*

Aviation is the backbone of regional Australia, and the difference between life and death for people in remote areas. I helped open Mareeba Airport‘s Stage 2 upgrade on Wednesday and I couldn’t be prouder of the efforts of Mareeba Shire Council Mayor Tom Gilmore and many other passionate people in hounding the State and Federal Governments for the funding.

The Australian Government contributed $10 million for an extra 350m of runway, tarmac strengthening and more taxi lanes which means Mareeba can now land larger aircraft.

This has huge implications for tourism, disaster response, medical care and good-paying, stable jobs. Mareeba will also now be able to meet the growing domestic and international demand for Australian-trained pilots.

---

Hmm...certainly makes a pleasant change form all those other local council run airports that local aviation operators and tenants are needing the advocacy of AOPA Oz just to get a fair go - see HERE .   

Also good to see that Sen McDonald is still talking the good talk on General and Regional aviation however talk is cheap and the honeymoon will very soon be over (sitting week next week), actions speak much louder than words...  

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Back to ToRs - 

After that short but pleasant interlude, unfortunately it is back to Airport SOP...  

From McDermott Aviation Group, via FB:

McDermott Aviation Group
November 20 at 11:41 AM

Our future at the #sunshinecoast #sunshinecoastairport is being jeopardised as operational flexibility and future growth opportunities disappear by what seems to be a commercial development deal.

McDermott Aviation Group is the largest employer of aviation apprentices in Australia ??

PHOTO (A) Is what was shown to our business as the finished product originally when we decided to purchase two long term leases at the airport.

- Allowed for diversification and future growth by having two fully integrated runways.
- Allows our aeromedical aircraft access to the Sunshine Coast hospital facilities for returning Sunshine Coast patients even when one runway could be closed due to maintenance or an incident.
- Allows our new fire fighting helicopters to train unrestricted procedures without interruption to the Airlines.
- The Red squares are possible High rise buildings said to be on the cards now they have allowed the closure of our existing runway.

PHOTO (B) Seems to be what we have ended up with.

- Lost a full operational runway, the existing 18/36 community funded valued at $200million
- Airlines could face daily delays IF any incident or accident occurs on the ONLY runway, with two runway operations would remain on schedule by switching to the back up runway.

- No upgrade to any of the taxi lanes (plane roads) to any existing tenant sites allowing for their own growth to use the new $400 million dollar community funded runway.

- Code C parking bays ( For large VIP jets ) is disappearing and no replacement is incorporated into the not so “Master Plan”

So at the end of the day why are our very important year round services like the Aerial Fire fighting helicopters and Aeromedical services being forced away from our rapidly growing region???

The community has been misled in a major way.

Very disturbing indeed...

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Oh, what a tangled web:

From the SMH – an Essendon eye opener. The DFO exposed amongst other things of ‘interest’.
Toot - toot

[Peetwo]

Airports and Aviation Division: Supp Estimates AQON.

The following answers, from the Dept's A&A division, IMO once again provide clear examples of how our completely spineless and useless miniscule Mick Mack totally duck shoves all responsibility and leadership in oversighting matters aeronautical - FFS!

QON 314

QON 315

QON 316

QON 317

QON 318

Example AQON 317 (Note the delaying tactics and the shirking responsibility in the following - ):

Answer:

1. There are 322 aerodromes in Australia that have been Certified or Registered under Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

2-3. The Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs) is responsible for aviation security matters, including passenger and freight screening. Home Affairs is responsible for implementation of the Australian Government’s $50.1 million commitment to assist regional airports with upgrade costs.

4. Yes however, questions related to details on implementation arrangements should be directed to Home Affairs.

5-9. These questions relating to details on implementation and funding arrangements and feedback from operators should be directed to Home Affairs.

10. The Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 October 2019, regarding mandatory screening of domestic air freight. The Deputy Prime Minister responded on 4 November 2019 recognising the importance of domestic air freight and encouraging the RAAA to continue its engagement with Home Affairs.

11. These questions relating to details on implementation and regulatory arrangements should be directed to Home Affairs.

12. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development is preparing case studies on the impacts of changes to passenger screening requirements at six regional airports. As part of this process, the Department is consulting with each airport and relevant airlines. The Department will provide details of the advice provided by stakeholders when the case studies are finalised. The case studies will be provided to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Believe it or not.

Rumour has it that three (3) major lease holders at Bankstown aerodrome will not stump up the exorbitant rental demanded; so they’ve been told to bugger off. Exit three major businesses.

Rumour (hearsay without supporting data) has it that an independent survey shows the new Police building on Bankstown seriously impacts on the runway boundary zones.

Always tales and gossip about airports: but – HERE – are some straight facts. It’s enough to make a stone idol clutch his nuts and shout hallelujah: sanity at last.

Just noticed Clinton has bagged the bird and trumped my Ace with a jolly good post on the UP. I've just cribbed it - enjoy.

[Named mystery airport] is a general aviation airport. The [mystery national regulator] defines general aviation (GA) as operations of aircraft not covered by rules that govern air carriers or charter aircraft. Our national system of airports, heliports, and seaplane bases was developed to provide communities with access to a safe and adequate public system of general aviation airports.

The nation’s general aviation airports focus mainly on more specialized services that airlines cannot provide. In 2009, nonairline operators at these general aviation airports spent over $12 billion, flying an estimated 27 million flights for emergency medical services, aerial firefighting, law enforcement, and border control, agricultural functions, flight training, time-sensitive air cargo services, business travel, and scheduled services.

Federal, state, and local governments have invested in a system of general aviation airports since the beginning of the 20th century. This airport system is interconnected and interdependent and was included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems because these locations were deemed important to the federal system and are open to the public.

Having such a well-developed system of general aviation airports throughout the country supports commerce while also providing a safety net of airports to support emergency aircraft diversions when necessary due to mechanical issues, medical emergencies, deteriorating weather conditions or other unforeseen circumstances. [Mystery airport] is one such example, and serves as one of only eleven reliever airports in the state.

Not only is general aviation important to the national infrastructure, but it serves a critical role as the cradle of aviation. The security and economic vitality of the [mystery country] depends on this laboratory of flight where future civilian and military pilots are born. Airports such as [the mystery airport] blossomed in an era when local young men turned their dreams of barnstorming into air dominance in World War II and led this country into its golden age. These dreams still live in our youth, and general aviation endures as the proving ground for future pilots from all walks of life.

Finally, there is a certain freedom that defines general aviation. Men and women throughout history gazed longingly at the soaring effortless freedom of birds, pondering release from the symbolic bondage of gravity. Only here can a man or woman walk onto some old farmer’s field and turn dreams into reality. As Charles Lindbergh once said: “What freedom lies in flying, what Godlike power it gives to men . . . I lose all consciousness in this strong unmortal space crowded with beauty, pierced with danger.”

Thus, general aviation airports serve a myriad of public purposes. The record substantiates the importance of general aviation and [the mystery airport's] role in particular. The Defendant offered documentary and testimonial evidence, which this Court found persuasive in its determination of public purpose. The objective evidence demonstrated that general aviation generates over a billion dollars in revenue and creates thousands of jobs across the state. It has a substantial economic impact on communities and contributes directly to local business transportation capability. The evidence also demonstrated that [a mystery state's] general aviation infrastructure provides many health, welfare, and social benefits: emergency medical services, schools, fire and emergency services, law enforcement, tour operators, and traffic surveillance directly benefit from general aviation airports.

Toot - toot...........

[thorn bird]

It would seem the end game for Bankstown Airport has begun, the true Master plan is slowly revealing itself as apposed to the Fake master plan that those that be have been playing lip service to.

Bankstown is to become an industrial park and a heliport supporting police and emergency services only. The unfortunate result of leasing airport land to development sharks with no oversight. Mc Bank were smart enough to understand that the value was not in the airports, the value was in the land itself as illustrated by them engineering the demise of Hoxton Park, returning all the capital they expended to buy the leases to all three airports.

They then played the long game, price aviation off the airports over time, eventually the land would be free to develop.

Maybe that was always the intention, who knows? Maybe the Murky Mandarin and beaker, who set the whole process up understood that? Maybe not?

Murky was pretty astute, Beaker was as dumb as bat sh**t, but were they together as astute as McBank?

Somewhat doubtful.

Certainly combined the minister of the day stood no chance of seeing the wood from the tree's.

Stage one has started, the big earth movers have moved onto the Southern precinct stirring up asbestos contaminated dust and PFAS to waft over the surrounding suburbs. The next 100 year flood could prove interesting.

Nefarious characters lurking around the Northern side doing fire inspections but in reality assessing demolition costs of the hangers there in preparation for stage two.

What I find hard to understand is how a minister of the crown can ignore the law or the conditions of leases the government signed.

How could an airport developer destroy a flood plain by producing their own environmental impact statement?

How could they destroy airport infrastructure in breach of their lease conditions?

How could they neglect the maintenance of heritage listed structures to the extent that they are now beyond restoration?

Why does a Trust own the lease to the airport Prohibited by the Airport Act?

Why does a development shark run the airport also prohibited by the Airport Act?

I would love someone to ask the current minister to answer these questions but of course nobody will ever ask them.

The Law in Australia is supposed act for everyone. Justice is only available to them that can afford it.

Secondary Airports in Australia's capital cities are living proof that you cannot beat the big end of town.

[P7_TOM]

Playing the Grim Reaper.

I reckon Bankstown was buggered when 'they' took away the pilot's weather rock.


Back in the day's of yore, it was a bustling, busy hub of aviation. Private aircraft in hangers, wheeled out and used on weekends; Aero Club busy before and after the bar opened; all manner of aviation being committed. Pilots everywhere annoying the engineers with fool questions, talking to the ever helpful Met-man; briefing officers and even visiting the control tower; or even the fire station. A vibrant community, with a bright future.

Slowly, but with a creeping certainty, over the decades, I've watched as the place became the graveyard we see today. This didn't happen overnight and the stalwarts put up a good fight – alas. To put a finger of blame on one element is impossible, death by a thousand cuts is more likely. But with BK under the earth movers wheels, I can't see a return to the glory days. Back when I first began as a hanger rat, a developer would have been run off the place in double quick time; now, there's not enough of a posse to propose a share of Richmond for use; and those still with interest have moved South to Wedderburn and Woolongong.

Things have changed dear Thorny, for weal or for woe. But, last time I visited BK (not too long ago) I wondered if it was not a kindness to put the poor thing out of it's misery. 0630 o'clock, mid week - and I could have shot a gun at holding points all day and hit nothing but fresh air. I believe that the selling off of our national infrastructure was a blunder of the first magnitude; for short term gain. The cost to this nation as yet undetermined, but it will be a huge bill when it is finally presented. But 'tis done now and the results are clear enough – compare Australia's pitiful 'aviation industry' to the USA and the effects of a questionable money grab are clearly apparent.

The lost tax revenue from Sydney KSA alone would pay for every council to upgrade the existing facilities. It is a big number which disappears off shore every year. A 'lucky country? Not any more; just a tired old harlot flogging her remaining assets off at a discount to pay the panderers gin bill. I think we lived through the best of it. Seems to me all the 'fun' has been ground out of the game.

The loss of the weather rock was IMO the beginning of the end.

[Peetwo]

Speaking of the killing off of airports? - This kind of fits... 

Via AOPA Oz:

---

OPINION: CANBERRA AIRPORT CROSS RUNWAY 12/30 CLOSURE

April 3, 2020 By Benjamin Morgan

---

AOPA Australia CEO BENJAMIN MORGAN provides an opinion.


During an unprecedented week in which our aviation industry has been locked in a desperate battle for it’s survival, Canberra Airport have chosen to announce the closure of the cross runway 12/30, using the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic and ‘a downturn in aircraft movements’ to justify it – I am calling bullshit.

Canberra Airport’s Head of Aviation, Mr Michael Thomson; “The decision to close Runway 12/30 was not made lightly but reflect the significant fall in aircraft movements at Canberra Airport and these challenging times”.

The closure came into effect 5am, 3rd April 2020.

Given the current situation, onlookers could almost be excused for thinking the closure makes sense, except that it doesn’t.  It’s not about coronavirus, nor is it about aircraft movements, that’s just a convenient decoy.

Take a look at the graphic in the headline of this article.  It’s a google earth image of the Canberra Airport showing runway 12/30.  Now take a look at the graphic below, which shows what happens when Canberra Airport runway 13/30 no longer exists.


ABOVE: With Canberra Airport’s cross runway removed, two new large scale real-estate development zones can be established worth hundreds of millions.[/size][/color]

So, do you believe that coronavirus COVID-19 and a downturn in aircraft movements are the reason for the Canberra Airport runway 12/30 closure?

I am sure someone famous once said… ‘Never let a disaster stand in the way of creating opportunity’ and I fear that’s exactly what we are witnessing here.

Should Canberra Airport runway 12/30 be closed and removed, it will directly compromise aviation safety and will reward the airport operators with hundreds of millions in commercial property developments.

During a time when our industry is fighting for it’s very survival, we have Canberra Airport closing an essential runway, reducing aviation safety and making access for general aviation harder.  How do these actions help Australia? How will these actions help us kick-start aviation again?

How much money have the Australian people pumped into Canberra Airport to assist with it’s development since Privatisation?  And importantly, what do we now have to show for that investment?

I dare say, that it appears that Canberra Airport are hoping that this closure will slip through unnoticed during a time of national disaster and crisis, without facing any opposition from the Government.

Shameful stuff indeed.

AOPA Australia has written to the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, and is calling on all members of government to oppose the closure of Canberra Airport runway 13/30 and for Australia’s aviation infrastructure to be protected.

---

Plus some comments off AOPA FB page:

Noel Casey Spent 10 days in CB flying a fire bomber on the Braidwood fire in December. Used 30 about 95% of the time due to excessive crosswinds on the main strip. Can't imagine how many houses would have been lost if we didn't have access to 30.

---

Gordon Briggs This is the unfolding of the eventual outcome of the government sale of the airports. After 50 years the owners can do what they want and the developers will have a field day. Some things are more important than immediate profit. The Governments decision to sell the airports was due to greed for the money, the rigid dogma of small government, the excuse of user-pays and an extreme disregard for possible outcome. A total failure of good government.

---

Mark Leslie Dixon Absolute rubbish. Nationalise the airports again. It might mean you can park an aircraft or a car there without taking out a mortgage.

---

Stephen Hsl If there is a downturn in movements just look at the landing and parking fees

Ian Mooney - Stephen Hsl exactly - price it so nobody comes then you have the argument to close it down and sell it off.

---

David James Wiman Only satisfies one agenda, reducing airport costs, and opening more area for leasing to tenants who will likely not be aviation tenants and whinge about noise.
Any safety case would highlight the risks of not having an into wind alternative. Not to mention the environmental impacts of less noise sharing and increased delays due to sequencing for same runway.

---

Gordon Briggs The buildings at Moorabin airport are rotting and falling to pieces but representations to the relevant government authorities to force the owners to get things fixed are totally ignored.
From the time that that airport was opened with fanfare until now when it is being raped to death there seems to have been some major change in government attitude. I blame little Johnny and his foaming at the mouth pursuing of small government. I lost my last decent (IT) job in his 2000 public service downsizing.

---

Rob France Looks like they want to start building another bloody shopping centre, or.more offices

---

Gary Carter They are gradually pulling our airport s apart just like they closed Bankstown Airport cross runway many years ago and then sold Hoxton Park Airport which didn’t belong to them ,how does that work

---

Simon McDermott They have done the same here on the Sunshine Coast at the #sunshinecoastairport prior to Covid.

---

Tony Griggs Where is the Minister for Transport? Napping again? - 

---

Gerald Davies Same frustrating struggle to reopen our crosswind strip in Narrabri. The Hon. Mark Coulthard emailed back to me on the 2nd April 2020:

Further to my email on 24 March 2020, please see the below response from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Michael McCormack MP.

"While Narrabri Airport was originally operated by the Commonwealth, ownership of the airport was transferred to Narrabri Shire Council under the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP). The ALOP transfer process fundamentally recognised that the management of aerodromes was best achieved at the local level – ALOP aerodromes serve local and regional needs, and as such, planning and developments matters are considered through State and local planning schemes.

Under the terms of the deed of agreement governing this process, Narrabri Shire Council, as the owners of the aerodrome, are required to keep Narrabri Airport open for use as an aerodrome.

Provided Narrabri Airport remains in use as an aerodrome, there is no restriction on the airport closing a runway for economic reasons.

We understand Runway 09/27 is an unrated grass runway which has been closed for approximately five years due to the cost of maintaining the runway to the required CASA safety standard. Narrabri Shire Council informs us that the runway will remain closed for the foreseeable future, owing to the low historic use of the runway and the cost of restoring it to meet the required safety standards.

We encourage Mr Davies to contact Narrabri Shire Council directly about this matter.

Hmm...meanwhile despite the aviation industry getting economically hammered by COVID19 in the US -

Congress Looks to Protect Aviation Infrastructure During COVID-19

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-12-07-20-is-thi...r-despair/

SAVE OUR AIRPORTS!

Via AOPA Oz...  

AOPA AUSTRALIA CALLS FOR ACTION ON PRIVATISED AIRPORTS
July 3, 2020 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia CEO Benjamin Morgan


3rd July 2020


The Hon Michael McCormack MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport

PO BOX 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia

Loss of Further Aviation Facilities, Land-Space and Resources:  Moorabbin Airport

Deputy Prime Minister,

I write to you on behalf of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA Australia) seeking to highlight the further loss of aviation facilities, land-space and resources at Moorabbin Airport in Victoria – all making way for more non-aviation commercial and industrial development (see page 3).

News has broken this past week that the privatised airport operator has moved to further reduce the aviation facilities footprint at the airport, to make way for more non-aviation development.  Developments that neither promote aviation or serve to provide investment into aviation – but ultimately place aviation at risk.
Non-aviation developments at Australia’s airports in many cases represent significant risks to aviation safety (as graphically and tragically demonstrated at Essendon Airport) and have served to drive-up airport real-estate valuations to record levels that are now unsustainable for aviation participants.

Minister, the Australian public were told by our government that the purpose of airport privatisation was to attract investment into airports and aviation, yet despite this assurance, the vast majority of investment at Australia’s privatised airports continues to be non-aviation.

The limited investment that has been made into aviation-use facilities at Moorabbin Airport pales in comparison with that of non-aviation land-developments, which is without doubt the primary goal and focus of the property developers who are masquerading as airport operators.

Privatisation has been destructive to small to medium sized aviation enterprise, exposing our fragile general aviation sectors to unsustainable increases in access costs.  This situation has also impacted Australia’s regional, domestic and international airlines, whom have all called for Government intervention – yet there has been none.

The aviation industry for over a decade has highlighted the many abuses, yet they have been ignored.  The industry associations and peak-bodies have called on Government to protect our fragile aviation infrastructure, yet we have been ignored too.

Exactly, how bad does the situation need to get before our Government takes appropriate action?  Or is it this Governments intention to allow the slow but determined destruction of our airport infrastructure and our aviation business communities?

AOPA Australia is requesting an urgent meeting with yourself to discuss the above and is seeking to understand what the Government intends on doing to remedy the situation.

Given COVID-19 restrictions, we shall be more than happy to participate in a video conference call.  Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.

Yours Sincerely,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
Chief Executive Officer

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA Australia)
Hangar 600, Prentice Street, Bankstown Airport NSW 2200 Australia.
PO BOX 26, Georges Hall NSW 2198 Australia.

---

Plus;


LIVE PANEL DISCUSSION - MON 13TH JULY 2020 - 6PM

IMPACTS OF AIRPORT PRIVATISATION ON AVIATION

Join us for an open and candid conversation about the impacts of airport privatisation on Australia's recreational, general and commercial aviation sectors, and how the future of aviation is at risk without Government action.

Mr Benjamin Morgan
AOPA Australia CEO

Mr Simon McDermott
McDermott Aviation Group

Mr Ken Cannane
AMROBA Executive Director

Mr David Young
Azimuth Partners Managing Director

Join the conversation from 6pm tonight and submit your comments and questions LIVE.

NOT A MEMBER? WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
Join today: www.aopa.com.au/membership

AOPA Australia | Your Freedom to Fly

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

SAVE OUR AIPORTS - Because SMA won't...

In the hunt for secondary airport photo (recent development pics) for this week's SBG, I came across this photo album - https://www.facebook.com/pg/sydneymetroa...e_internal - from none other than the Sydney Metro Airports FB page...  



Some of the disturbing development pics attracted these comments:

Stephen King Stupidity right there !!

---

 Andrew Whiteman What happens when someone loses an engine on takeoff??? I can count two that have parked there in the last 15 years, a Seneca which sadly ended in a fatality and the PA28 a couple of years back that ended up in the ditch behind Bill Whitworth...

---

 Graham Wilson Ruining it......the future of the airport is now dim.

---

David Ian Grant Note the vehicles on Landsdown road. The Airport proudly says this abomination will create 2000 jobs. Thats another 2000 vehicles + into what's already a parking lot. thats a third of the airport land and they had to destroy a runway to do it. stage two is the destruction of the northern precinct, another third gone. Is the real Master plan to completely close the airport? What happened to the notion of reserving the airports for aviation use?

---

Sandy Reith Sadly we have had decades of very poor public airport policy and no policies for private enterprise to be sustained on these airports, let alone flourish, with hopelessly compromised leasing arrangements and no provision for freehold. The lack of oversight by successive governments has been irresponsible to say the least, and downright stupid to boot. The combination of the strangulation of General Aviation by the CASASTROPHE and the alienation of irreplaceable public airport lands and the absence of secure tenure for airport tenants is policy failure with very bad long term consequences.

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Cui Bono?

Cui prodest?

Ad cuius bonum?

Cui bono?, in English "to whom is it a benefit?", is a Latin phrase about identifying crime suspects. It expresses the view that crimes are often committed to benefit their perpetrators, especially financially. Which party benefits may not be obvious, and there may be a scapegoat (Wiki).

Fair questions – someone must – but whoever it is, it ain't the aviation industry.

SR - “Sadly we have had decades of very poor public airport policy and no policies for private enterprise to be sustained on these airports, let alone flourish, with hopelessly compromised leasing arrangements and no provision for freehold. The lack of oversight by successive governments has been irresponsible to say the least, and downright stupid to boot. The combination of the strangulation of General Aviation by the CASASTROPHE and the alienation of irreplaceable public airport lands and the absence of secure tenure for airport tenants is policy failure with very bad long term consequences.”

Not quite within a stones throw, but certainly within a short drive in Sydney, you can reach anyone of the many huge shopping centres – dreadful, soul destroying places IM insignificant O. But, to get to one of the two aerodromes which support the city, it is a bloody nightmare. As it stands for non scheduled air services, there is a choice; but not for long. To use Mascot is an expensive business; when the cost of holding and the fees associated are added, it makes charter and corporate flying into a luxury rather than an effective business tool. The loss of a useful secondary airport drives another nail into the coffin of what, in other lands, is an essential revenue generating tool – which employs thousands. I cannot see any benefit to the nation or the aviation industry in the sacrifice of an airport for yet another 'complex'.

DIG - “Note the vehicles on Landsdown road. The Airport proudly says this abomination will create 2000 jobs. That's another 2000 vehicles + into what's already a parking lot. that's a third of the airport land and they had to destroy a runway to do it. Stage two is the destruction of the northern precinct, another third gone. Is the real Master plan to completely close the airport? What happened to the notion of reserving the airports for aviation use?

Valid argument – to deaf ears. It's not just Bankstown though; eviction notices served at Moorabin, Camden under threat, – Evans head: the list goes on. But, for a taste of the real villainy, read Senator Larissa Waters questions on notice. Those just scratch the murky surface of this ugly picture.

When the grab for cash from flogging off our airports was on; there were supposed to be safeguards in place, cast in stone, to preserve our airfields. For once they have been rendered useless for purpose, we will never get them back. Well not unless we buy a golf course and do a Wellcamp development on it – now that would be fun to watch. Can you imagine the public outrage then; Lord, how the rabble would come screaming out of the woodwork then. Bring your torch and pitchforks.

Aye well, someone, somewhere is laughing all the way to the bank; all we know is it's not an aircraft operator, that is for certain sure. What say you minister – shopping centres for all; or will you protect, foster and promote a dying, essential industry?

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-19-07-20-pictur...-of-words/



Ref: GROUP HOPES QUARRY QUESTIONS WILL CRUSH FLIGHT PATH PLANS

Read and absorb the ABC Sunshine Coast 4 October 2019 FB post (link above):

GROUP HOPES QUARRY QUESTIONS WILL CRUSH FLIGHT PATH PLANS

Rocks hitting planes is one of the concerns a Sunshine Coast community group has about planned flight paths.

The Sunshine Coast Council's current flight path proposal means planes will fly over a planned quarry at Yandina Creek.

The land, at 945 North Arm Yandina Creek Road, is owned by Parklands Bluemetal Pty Ltd.

Parklands lodged an initial development application in 2009.

In the same year, MJG Consultants developed flight path concepts.

In October 2011, the Sunshine Coast Council refused the quarry's development application on planning grounds with Parklands appealing the decision shortly after.

In a submission to the Queensland Coordinator-General, Flight Path Forum has detailed a July 2012 meeting between Steve Adams of Leading Edge Aviation Planning Professionals, Sunshine Coast Airport, a business unit of council and Airservices Australia.

In the submission, an email from Mr Adams states it was his opinion "blasting at the location is completely incompatible with aviation activities involving approach and departure of commercial aircraft."

After receiving that advice, council's solicitor added an 'aviation safety issue' to their grounds for DA refusal.

However Flight Path Forum president Cheryl Sykes said council "failed" to disclose the safety risk in its 2014 Environmental Impact Statement.

"It's quite clear when you look at the terms of reference for the environmental impact statement - which the Queensland Coordinator-General puts together - council had an obligation, a requirement to disclose a project that would impact the current project (new runway construction)," said Ms Sykes.

"This clearly impacts that project, council were arguing that in court."

"Council are wearing two hats - they're acting as a developer of a major infrastructure project with the airport.

At the same time they're acting as a regulator of development."

Ms Sykes said a "proper transparent fully accountable review" was needed to investigate the issue.

A spokesperson for Sunshine Coast Council said that:

"Through two legal appeals, the Planning and Environment Court and the Queensland Court of Appeal have determined, based on expert advice on aviation safety issues, that there were no unacceptable safety issues arising from the Quarry if the applicable conditions are in place.

While the Quarry application has been approved by the Courts, the approval does not take effect until the conditions are resolved.

The proposed flight paths have been in the public domain for nearly five years and have been the subject of extensive public information and consultation processes along the way. The proposed Quarry development and the relevant appeals and decisions have been in the public domain for at least eight years."

The spokesperson said CASA had been given "appropriate and full disclosure" of the blasting issues relating to the proposed Quarry and that any pending approvals would be "determined by CASA - not council." - Determined by CASA?? - Yeah right...

Now referring to Greens Senator Larissa Waters QON 229 and 230 (ref: QON from the Greens) :

(QON 229)...CASA has previously advised the public that a quarry site at Yandina Creek had

been subject to a Danger Area application in 2014, but found to pose no threat to

aviation safety at the Sunshine Coast airport. However, documents released under FOI

indicate that no application was ever made or assessed. Following an investigation,

the Queensland Coordinator General asserted in a report that CASA "thinks that the

[Sunshine Coast] airport operations should close during blasting sessions" at the

quarry. Does CASA concede that no Danger Area application was received? Does

CASA intend to take any action to correct the public advice that the quarry had been

assessed and determined not to be a Danger Area? Is it CASA's view that the

Sunshine Coast airport should close during blasting operations at the Yandina Creek
quarry? If not, what was the basis for the Coordinator-General's assertion?...

(QON 230)...CASA has proposed to manage the risks posed by the proximity of the quarry to

flight paths by including a plume symbol on the Visual Terrain Chart, but not to avoid

overflights. When determining mitigation measures, did CASA consider the Regular

Passenger Transport (RPT) aircraft operations from only the existing north-south

aligned 18/36 runway, or general aviation traffic under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) ?

Was CASA satisfied that the condition regarding the plume symbol was sufficient to

mitigate the risks from the quarry? The assessment documentation refers to the quarry

being 5 nautical miles from the aerodrome, which minimises risks of damage to

aircraft at the aerodrome from flyrock. Does the distance from the aerodrome have

any significance when assessing the risk of damage to aircraft flying over the quarry?

Given the potential risk to overhead aircraft of flyrock from hazardous activities like

blasting, was the quarry operator ever advised to apply for a Restricted Area

declaration? If not, why? The Joint Experts in the quarry operators' planning appeal

recommended an exclusion zone for airspace around the quarry with a 2nm radius up

to an altitude of 3,000ft. Was this information provided to CASA / OAR? If CASA /

OAR received a copy of the Joint Experts' recommendations, what action was taken

in response to the recommendation? Has any independent assessment been made of

blasting impacts and suitable vertical dimension limits for the quarry? If so, who

undertook the assessment/s and what was the outcome of the assessment/s? If no

assessment was made, why not? Does CASA or OAR have any relationship with Mr

Guselli, expert witness for the quarry operator, that could give rise to an actual or

perceived conflict of interest? What consideration has been given to minimising the

risks posed by the quarry by re-designing the flight path? Why has this option not
been pursued?...

Hmm...cover-up of a cock-up or pure complacency and lazy ineptitude? - either way with these and other questions, it is not a very good look for the million dollar man Harfwit and the soon to be outgoing Patron Saint of Aviation Safety St Commode to be at the helm of government agencies tasked with mitigating such safety issues as potential fly rock coming up through the cockpit floor and taking out the flying pilot on final approach to Runway 13...       

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

Another one bites the dust.

Local council quite happy for their ratepayers to die. See no value in local airport.

Saving Cohuna airfield can be difference between life and death, doctors say
ABC Central Victoria
/
By Tyrone Dalton, Beth Gibson and Natalie Kerr
Posted TueTuesday 14 JulJuly 2020 at 4:09pm, updated 6ddays ago

The council says it is doing all it can to facilitate the transition to a new operator.(Supplied: Cohuna Aviation)

More than 1,500 people have signed a petition backing calls from the Cohuna medical community to save the local airfield from closure.
Key points:
o A petition attracts 1,500 signatures to save the Cohuna airfield from closure
o Local doctors say access for emergency patients can be the difference between life and death
o The landowner, Coliban Water, says it will assess the viability of leasing the airfield to another operator
The landowner, Coliban Water, will close the airfield when Gannawarra Shire Council surrenders its licence as a cost-saving measure.
The water authority says it will close the aerodrome on September 11.
But local GP Megan Belot said the airfield was vital in getting emergency patients to hospitals in Bendigo and Melbourne.
"It's extremely important because Cohuna provides 24/7 obstetric care at the moment, and we also do a lot of paediatric work as well as general medicine," she said.
"If we were to transfer out of the Kerang medical airfield, it would take an extra 20 minutes.
"Twenty minutes in medical time is a long time — it really can be the difference between life and death, or the difference between a poorer or better outcome."

Megan Belot says closing the airfield is the wrong decision.(ABC News)
The petition, started by Cohuna GP Peter Barker, gained 1,500 signatures in a week.
Dr Belot said the response had been overwhelming.
"We really rely so heavily on that airfield to provide the care for Cohuna and surrounding districts," she said.
"The fact the council has gone ahead and done this without a lot of public consultation is concerning."
Council hopes for smooth handover
The council said it was doing all it could to facilitate the transition to a new operator.
It will hold a two-day course in August for community groups and individuals who want to lodge an expression of interest in taking over the running of the airfield.
"The main role of the Cohuna airfield operator is to be a 24/7 point of contact for Ambulance Victoria and Victoria Police in the instance aircraft from either organisation need to land at the facility," chief executive Tom O'Reilly said.
"Ambulance Victoria has stated publicly that the temporary closure of the aerodrome, as determined by Coliban Water to ensure its expression-of-interest process can proceed, will have no impact on Ambulance Victoria's ability to deliver emergency care to residents.
"The airfield licensee will also not be responsible for the maintenance of other facilities on site, as these buildings are privately owned. The aerodrome also does not have refuelling facilities on site."
The local medical community is trying to save the airfield.(Supplied: Cohuna Aviation)
'We'll consider another operator'
Coliban Water said it understood how important the aerodrome was to the community and would consider leasing it to another third party.
It said it would examine the viability of another party operating the aerodrome before deciding if an expression of interest for new operators was worthwhile.
That process is expected to take until December.
One group that has expressed an interest in the airfield licence is the Cohuna Model Flying Club, which is headquartered at the Chuggs Road location.
Posted 14 JulJuly 2020, updated 6ddays ago

[P7_TOM]

Cohuna - Ah; Yes – BUT.

I guess it will all come down to 'the dollars'. The landowner sees closure as a proper response to the council 'cost saving' exercise. The landowner doesn't want to pay for the airport; the council don't want to pay for the airport – But, someone has to pay for the maintenance, upkeep and 'costs' associated with the aerodrome. But who? 

Kerang is just 32 Kms away, (20 road minutes) with instrument approaches and fuel. In bad weather, that is where the ambulance will land; effectively knocking the emotive hysteria out of the game. Seems to me that if the 'locals' don't want to stump up the dollars (lots of) and the State don't want to, and the Council don't want to, and the owners of the land don't want to – then who's left standing?

Nice to have or need to have? The Feds won't go anywhere near it – support one, support all philosophy will scotch that, quick smart. Why would the Feds spend money on infrastructure when there are 'real' causes to support, with real votes attached; like land rights for gay whales etc. – there's a winner for ya.

Nah mate, it's another five bucks a quarter on the rates for all; or, a 'slight' increase in landing fees from the vast amount of traffic using the facility. Sympathy yes – dollars – not a chance.............Unless a clever accountant can wrangle the numbers, make the field a tax deduction or something – well????

[Peetwo]

Moorabbin AIrport: The Ugly Side of Airport Privatisation - AOPA Australia

Via Youtube:

AOPA Australia
94 subscribers

Join the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia for an open and candid conversation with representativesof the Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce and local Moorabbin Airport aircraft owners and pilots, as we discussthe wholesale non-aviation development of the airport, examining the ugly side of airport privatisation.

THIS WEEKS PANELISTS
- Benjamin Morgan: Chief Executive Officer, AOPA Australia
- Milton Holmes: President, Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce
- Allan Middleton: CEO, Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce
- Dr Sean Runacres: Moorabbin DAME, Aircraft Owner & Pilot
- Kris Constandopoulos: Director, Oasis Flight Training Moorabbin

JOIN IN THE DISCUSSION - LIVE

AOPA Australia invites you to post your comments and questions during the live panel broadcast.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Moorabbin AIrport: The Ugly Side of Airport Privatisation - AOPA Australia

Via Youtube:

AOPA Australia
94 subscribers

Join the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia for an open and candid conversation with representativesof the Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce and local Moorabbin Airport aircraft owners and pilots, as we discussthe wholesale non-aviation development of the airport, examining the ugly side of airport privatisation.

THIS WEEKS PANELISTS
- Benjamin Morgan: Chief Executive Officer, AOPA Australia
- Milton Holmes:  President, Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce
- Allan Middleton:  CEO, Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce
- Dr Sean Runacres:  Moorabbin DAME, Aircraft Owner & Pilot
- Kris Constandopoulos:  Director, Oasis Flight Training Moorabbin

JOIN IN THE DISCUSSION - LIVE

AOPA Australia invites you to post your comments and questions during the live panel broadcast.

Via AOPA Facebook:

Comments:

Sandy Reith · 19:27 expecting all the operators to work together is looking for an ideal but there will always be a real problem due to General Aviation being under tremendous stress by the depredations of an out of control regulator CASA. I don’t agree that what has happened is the fault of the industry. We do need to engage regularly with our MPs, ring write or contact your MPs and call for reform.

Ralph Holland · 49:20 Unfortunately GA is further eroded, GA customers move on, GA maintenance and operators are forced out of trade so our sky’s become empty. I think a royal commission is probably too late. The damage has been done and if we wish for GA to survive we will have to do so in another country.

Ralph Holland · 36:35 Well at least one positive thing may come from this; less need for staff in CASA because there will be nothing left to regulate and scrape fees out of.

Ralph Holland · 27:27 Greedy property developers subsuming land set aside for aviation infrastructure; eroding sovereign security of aviation and the nation.

Ralph Holland · 32:30 GA is where flying starts; when GA is eroded all aviation will suffer; where are those airport owners going to get their passengers and customers from; I know it’s Costco and the retirement villages that they will setup in their wake.

Sandy Reith · 28:24 The privatised model is wrong in every way because the incentives are not in favour of the prime purpose for maintaining an airport. We should should call for the airside to remain for aircraft use in exactly the same way as are roads. The landside should be sold off as freehold lots. In this way businesses can build their infrastructure, have collateral for loans and security of tenure which is imperative for any successful business.

Ralph Holland · 42:14 We can drive our cars anywhere within reason, but the only place we can land an aeroplane is at landing areas aka airport.

Sandy Reith · 37:58 Sean, quite right about the importance of GA to the country. We have already lost around 1500 flying schools due to the most horrendous avalanche of unworkable rules and associated fee gouging by CASA, read Government. We must redouble our efforts to get the ear of MPs.

Ralph Holland · 40:45 There should be an embargo on property developers being allowed anywhere near an Aerodrome rubbing their hands with glee.

Sandy Reith · Good move Ben and AOPA Australia. We need to publicise the loss of irreplaceable airport land allowed by a total lack of responsibility on behalf of the Minister McCormack and the Government. Like Bankstown, adjacent golf courses protected by state governments. What priorities are we seeing here?

Stephen Bennett · 44:48 We the aviation community are terribly complacaite which is why we are loosing our aviation assets. Get active people. Get together with your aero club. Lobby your local politician. Support our strong industry association like AOPA.

Dave Berenholtz · 41:55 The solution is to either have the government buy back our airports or legislate for aviation use with enforceable guidelines with existing owners. Our challenge is to convince politicians of the value of affordable aviation at airports for the benefit of the whole community. IMHO only via political intervention will airports in the future have airplanes!

Ric Wilson · 0:00 Too little too late - I think we have lost the airport. These property developers use managers on bonus incentive to fast track sections of development then change them. With their office in lock down they have a good excuse for ignoring phone calls and emails - even from the media asking questions about how GA will respond to future national disasters.

Philip Munro · 1:08 Airports should be classed as essential transport infrastructure and be classed such!!

Michael Stowell · 51:20 It has further implications that most people outside of GA don’t get. Our freedoms are being eroded and GA is a category that most people aren’t involved in and therefore don’t care. When they sell off parks, beaches, golf courses, tennis courts etc, then people will understand and get upset.

Michael Stowell · 51:20 It has further implications that most people outside of GA don’t get. Our freedoms are being eroded and GA is a category that most people aren’t involved in and therefore don’t care. When they sell off parks, beaches, golf courses, tennis courts etc, then people will understand and get upset.

Ric Wilson · 0:00 No - crushing out airports paves the way for property developers to make more profits. They don't care about how vital GA is and it cannot be sold to their hardened and brainwashed handlers.

MTF...P2

[thorn bird]

Privatisation of Australia’s publicly owned infrastructure such as airports was first mooted by Paul Keating, which is passing strange, disposing of public assets was supposedly an anathema to socialist ideals.

Keating’s labour government made a start on the process, the Howard liberal Government completed the scheme largely to produce a budget surplus to cement his governments credentials as sound managers of the public purse.

Was that directive in the public interest or in the interest of political ambition?

Was it a “good deal” for the Australian taxpayers?

Did it serve the interests of those utilising those airports?

Was a fair price paid?

Was the whole process transparent?

Was the intention of government to retain and protect the utility and viability of the airports for airport users?

Were sufficient protections and controls placed on Airport monopolies, to prevent erosion of the governments stated objectives and prevent them from asserting their position to unfairly gouge their stakeholders?

The primary Capital city airports were easy assets to dispose of, as Rupert Murdock so famously said, “nobody likes a Monopoly, unless you own one”. Unfortunately, the primaries were leased with virtually no controls, oversight, or accountability to curb Monopolistic entities from taking advantage of their position.

In Australia, in times past access to airports were essentially free of charge for aviators. Much like motor vehicles, aircraft registration and other fees were paid to cover the costs of airports and regulatory services, until the advent of “The user pays” principle and the notion that public services should be profit centres

In the USA, airports are vehemently protected as vital National assets and essentially free to use, in Australia they have become the plaything of big business generating huge returns with very little return to the actual owners, the Australian public.

Sydney airport as an example:

Remember, our airports are owned by the Australian people, they were owned debt free.

Mascot turns over is around a billion dollars a year. The original buyer paid around five and a half billion dollars for the lease and ran the airport for over a decade. In those years with a bit of “Creative accounting” they paid very little if anything in tax. With very high profit margins, I believe they very quickly recovered their initial investment.

Investing heavily building Car parks and hotels massively increased cash revenues, most likely to improve the balance sheet to maximise the returns for a future public offering rather than improving the utility and experience of airport users. It is also interesting to note that the company holding the lease for Sydney airport resides in Bahama, a notorious tax haven. Do we know anything about this company? it could be owned by china’s communist party for all we know.

Very little has been spent on improved aviation infrastructure other than minimal maintenance required by the lease.

As the gateways into Australia our airports are consistently voted some of the worst in the world, most certainly some of the most expensive. Consider air travellers experience passing through Changi in Singapore or Dubai then compare that to Sydney.

I often wonder why Qantas, who go to great pains to promote themselves as Australia’s airline spent hundreds of millions of dollars to establish their heavy maintenance base in Los Angeles USA employing thousands of Americans. I can’t imagine labour costs in the USA are much less than in Australia. Was the real reason that none of the privatised airports in Australia were prepared to offer reasonable terms to establish it here, preferring to build cash generating car parks and hotels rather than aviation related industrial infrastructure?

Privatisation shifted the ethos from public utility to a profit driven focus, to the detriment of the travelling public and the industry that requires an airport for their very existence. I believe Australian’s are paying a very heavy price for that and will continue to pay that price.

We have seen in recent times the airlines protesting at the price gouging of our predatory monopoly airports, it would seem that a limit has been reached on what they are prepared to pay. The airports say they must protect their profits, the paradox is without the airlines there is no profit, as we are now seeing with the current pandemic, just a bunch of empty carparks and hotels. The airports are crying poor and want the Australian public to prop them up. Might I suggest if they need propping up let them use some of their ill-gotten tax free profits rather than the largess of the Australian taxpayer. If they do go broke, I believe insolvency is a condition that voids the leases, the government could return them to public management.

No great loss I believe.

We reserve huge tracts of land as open spaces in the public interest because our ever increasing numbers make space more difficult to find and impossible for most individuals to afford especially in urban areas.

Aviation is a unique enterprise that requires large open spaces to operate from. It can hardly up stakes and move to a cheaper location, as any other industrial enterprise can if its costs become unsustainable, it has choice, aviation does not.

Aviation also requires structures such as hangers and terminals with access to runways. Basing charges for aviation use against the ever-inflating price airport land could achieve on the open market puts it at an unfair disadvantage to other industry who have the advantage of buying the land their factories sit on thereby gaining an asset, aviation is denied that option.