[Peetwo]

CASA give Senator (WOFTAM) Watt's QON 300 the big IF?? - 

Excerpt's from previous reference post:   

UTCOC - Example 2

Not that I want to give much oxygen to Labor QLD Senator 'WOFTAM' Watt but it is airport and CASA related so bear with me with the following extract from Senate Estimates Hansard:

Senator WATT: The particular issue I want to focus on with CASA is the air safety implications of the realignment of the Northern Road and the impact that has on the public safety area. I appreciate that you haven't read the Auditor-General's report in full. Before I go into it, are you aware that one of the contentious issues in this whole scandal is the realignment of the Northern Road to make it closer to the Western Sydney airport boundary?

Mr Carmody : I'm generally aware, yes, but not in detail.

Senator WATT: In the Auditor-General's report, paragraph 2.27, it states:

The proposed road alignment runs through the HIAL system for Runway 05R. L&B—

Landrum & Brown, which is the department's aviation consultants—

… has advised that this has the potential to cause serious disruptions to operation on Runway 05R.

The proposed road alignment runs through the PSZ for Runway 05R. L&B recommends a detailed risk assessment.

Did CASA undertake any detailed risk assessment involving the Western Sydney airport and the change to risk that resulted from the changes to the Northern Road alignment?

Mr Carmody : I'd have to take that on notice; I'm not aware. We are involved in a Western Sydney technical working group. We participate in an executive-level steering group about the airport, but that's it. So I wouldn't know, and I'll have to take the question on notice.

Mr Atkinson : Senator, could I table something to assist. This was in 2015. The Landrum & Brown advice, the final advice, was quite different to the advice that was in the body of the report, but it is contained in the appendix to the report.

Mr Carmody : Thank you.

Mr Atkinson : As I understand, CASA was quite involved and consulted on it, and it was found to be fine.

Senator WATT: So CASA was involved in what exactly?

Mr Atkinson : In the discussions around the Northern Road in 2015.

Senator WATT: Okay. Is it the case that CASA is the agency that regulates and advises the department on the safety risks of airport developments and roads and other infrastructure that adjoins it?

Mr Carmody : For federally leased airports, that's correct; we provide advice to the department, and I'm sure that we are one of the many sources of advice that the department receives...

First I call bullshit on this statement...

...Are any of your officers here today aware of that?

...No. And I didn't bring any of the airport specialists with me. Sorry, Senator, we've been a bit limited in our COVID numbers today. So, unfortunately, I'll have to take it on notice...

 Throughout Senate Estimates there were many examples of where a Dept or agency would throw to video conference facilities for witness testimony back at the Dept/agency HQ. So IMO there is no excuse for the required airport specialists not to be available at short notice - 

---

Senator WATT: To that point, could you come back to us on notice to tell us which other airports in Australia do have a major road that crosses a public safety zone? You're saying that you think Canberra airport would be one such example.

Mr Atkinson : Just obviously.

Senator WATT: I don't know where the public safety zone in that particular airport is.

Mr Atkinson : The public safety zone is only in force in Queensland.

Mr Carmody : Yes. It's not defined anywhere else. I'll take the matter on notice and construct the best response I can, understanding the question that you're asking.

---

Hmm...so the Secretary is quite obviously aware of the fact that QLD is the only State or Territory that has established a model in law for public safety zones around airports. It goes without saying that the Secretary should also be cognisant of his own department's NATIONAL AIRPORTS SAFEGUARDING FRAMEWORK and it's guidelines for the establishment of public safety zones around airports:

Purpose of Guideline 

1. To provide guidance to Australian Government, state, territory and local government decision makers on the assessment and treatment of potential increases in risk to public safety which could result from an aircraft incident or development proposal in areas near the end of an airport runway.

2. To inform a more consistent approach to the application of Public Safety Areas (PSAs) at and near Australian airports.

Which brings me to CASA's big IF AQON 300...

Question Senator WATT: To that point, could you come back to us on notice to tell us which other airports in Australia do have a major road that crosses a public safety zone? You're saying that you think Canberra airport would be one such example. Mr Atkinson: Just obviously. Senator WATT: I don't know where the public safety zone in that particular airport is. Mr Atkinson: The public safety zone is only in force in Queensland. Mr Carmody: Yes. It's not defined anywhere else. I'll take the matter on notice and construct the best response I can, understanding the question that you're asking.

Answer
The National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) guidelines on Public Safety Areas (PSAs) agreed in November 2018 provides guidance to state and territories on the application of PSAs.

All leased federal airports are expected to consider public safety risk on the leased airport area. It is up to each state and territory and local government to decide if and how to implement the new NASF PSA guidelines into their own planning schemes. Queensland and New South Wales (for Western Sydney Airport) have requirements for the application of PSAs.

It is common for roads outside of the airport to pass close to the end of a runway and there are examples of this throughout Australia, including Sydney (Kingsford Smith Airport) and Canberra. Canberra for instance has Pialligo Avenue located within 50m of the runway pavement, with High Intensity Approach Lighting operating across the road.

Ref: https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber300

"..All leased federal airports are expected to consider public safety risk on the leased airport area. It is up to each state and territory and local government to decide if and how to implement the new NASF PSA guidelines into their own planning schemes..."


Hmm...incoming??    

MTF...P2 

AMROBA Addendum: 

Reference: https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads...ssue-2.pdf

Regulatory “Theft” – Its Real

This term was recently used by a politician, Mark Latham, in relation to people losing their properties as part of the new Western Sydney Airport development.

Aviation airport businesses have been, and continue to be, affected by “regulatory theft” policies that governments include in aviation Acts and Regulations that they basically created to split the aviation bureaucracy into a number of departments and agencies in 1998.

In particular, under the Airports Act, 1988, aviation businesses at metro and other airports have gone from ‘permanency of residency’ on airports to total uncertainty and many now live on a week by week arrangement depending on the (non-aviation) property development focus of current airport operators. Ministers approve airport development plans. Your Minister.

•      Airports bring benefits of the community, not just aviation businesses.

•      The more aviation businesses, the more benefits are brought to the community.

•      Less aviation businesses, less benefits are brought to the community.

•      If you only have an airstrip left, who will use it to bring benefits to the community?

•      This government endorsed model replaces aviation with non-aviation businesses.

Worse still, aviation businesses are now being given terminating leases so the property developers can replace their businesses with non-aviation businesses.

We have an Act that states the airport must primarily be used for aviation but just about all airports have a Minister approved Master Plan where airport property development is primarily the development of non-aviation commercial businesses at the expense of aviation businesses.

The collapsing of General Aviation since 1988 is not based on other economic or social reasons, it is really based on the regulatory “theft” of aviation dedicated premises at airports by government endorsed programs that replace aviation businesses with non-aviation commercial industrial site development.

Political party policies are nothing but public relations spin. In fact they are purposely misguiding spin treating small to medium aviation employers and employees as fools.

Senior bureaucrats that implement, or are supposed to implement political party policies, must also accept their role in the destruction of mainly airport located general aviation businesses, including manufacturers, design, training and private participation, in preference for other non-airline businesses.

Regulatory ”theft” is an apt description of the Airports Act and demonstrates the short term vision of our bureaucrats and politicians towards general aviation. 

Now that aviation businesses are being replaced with non-aviation businesses, less aviation businesses means less use of the airstrip and benefits to the local community. 

That is when the airport operators will lobby the government of the day to close the airstrip and taxiways for more non-aviation businesses. These property developers are too smart for the average politician or bureaucrat as many of our closed aviation businesses have found out.

The Minister, current and past, have created this decline of general aviation when they sign Airport Master Plans that include the replacement of aviation with non-aviation businesses. 

Foreign countries have a different approach, they see aviation as a sector with jobs.

Their governments actively obtain recognition of the aviation capabilities.  

International recognition has one big advantage to local aviation, it requires Australian aviation Acts and Regulations to be as close as practical with the ICAO Annexes Standards and Practices. This means harmonised with the FARs which the whole of GA supports.

[Peetwo]

AMROBA Addendum II: Minister’s Approved Master Plans

Don’t Blame Airport Operators

They Have Minister Approval for Non-Aviation Property Development

THOUGH THE FOLLOWING SLIDES ARE BASED ON THE NON-AVIATION PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AT MOORABBIN AIRPORT, IT IS SYSTEMATIC.
BASICALLY, THE SAME APPLIES TO ALL METRO, AND OTHER AIRPORT MASTER PLANS THAT THE MINISTER, PAST AND PRESENT, HAVE APPROVED.


IT IS NOT WHAT AVIATION PARTICIPANTS EXPECTED
IS IT “SOUND DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL AVIATION”?

Airport Act: The objects of this Act are as follows:
(a) to promote the sound development of civil aviation in Australia;
So the Minister, past and present, approval on non-aviation development of
airports is the “sound development of civil aviation.” Airport Act: Part 2—Leasing and management of airport Airport leases are subject to the following key rules:
• An airport-lessee company has a statutory obligation to use the airport
site as an airport.
• An airport-lessee company’s sole business will be to run the airport.

(Go to AMROBA PDF link above &/or the AP blog: https://auntypru.com/amroba-breaking-new...ter-plans/ ..to view the very disturbing phots etc of the ongoing decimation of Moorabbin airport).

[Kharon]

Bored rigid;

The following is my feeble attempt to paraphrase an (IMO) interesting discussion which developed last evening. Not a full house BRB indaba, but enough to seriously discuss the 'risks' real and imagined presented by large buildings close to a landing area. Essentially, logical lines of 'argument' but with only one 'consensus' of any merit being reached. Interesting enough (to the really bored) for a short blurb I thought. Essendon kicked it off. It went something like this:-

Essendon: Tall buildings & light aircraft.

Those against: the main discourse featured Essendon and the multi engine aircraft with problems. There are 'a lot' of charter class 'light twins' which do not have 'guaranteed' (certified) climb performance with an engine failed, particularly in the just airborne range of speed. Until the aircraft is at an airspeed which will allow a positive rate of climb and 'cleaned up' (flap and undercarriage retracted) they are vulnerable until reaching a 'clearance height' (i.e. missing the building). Turns are not encouraged during this vulnerable period. Manufacturers often state in flight manuals; 'no turns' below a specific height and to do so is not only fraught with peril, but is technically illegal. (Hobson's choice).

Those converse: cite the 'numbers'. The number of engine failures during the 'critical' first stage of take of is a very, very low one. The period of 'vulnerability' is very short (seconds) up to perhaps a minute (hot day – heavy load). They also point out that many (many) airfields have much larger obstacles of the natural variety (rocks and trees and stuff) which can spoil your day.

The solution is unpalatable, (commercially) and operationally unrealistic. Using manufacturer data one can reduce the take off weight (TOW) to a point where the 'good book' says climb on one engine is 'possible' though not guaranteed. But: that is based on manufacturer test and certification data; a brand new, factory prepared airframe and engines; flown by a skilled test pilot, under ideal conditions. For 'transport' class the demands made are much higher, but for the 'utility' class those rigorous standards need not be met. So, it becomes a toss up; the mathematics supporting an acceptable level of risk. Tall buildings, trees or mountains matter little once the 'critical' period gate is passed. One could safely wager that 99.999% of operations will be trouble free and as safe as possible. The pub test – would I let my loved ones fly in a light twin? Yes I would. BRB voted 86% in favour; 10% would consider on the day.

Which brought us single engine light aircraft; we excluded the Caravan and the Pilatus PC12. The 'high risk' area is flight training. Here, tall buildings close in to the runway can and do, in the 'right conditions', create an increased safety risk; there can be no doubt about it. But, what are the 'right conditions'? Here's the thing: runways are mostly oriented to take advantage of the prevailing wind conditions (give or take). Buildings which stand alongside a runway (parallel – ish) do not present much of a threat provided the wind flows down the runway (more or less within sensible limits); however the wind is rarely, if ever so obliging. So it becomes a matter of safety to determine 'the right conditions' which produce an elevated risk level to aircraft taking off and landing. This can be calculated, indeed there are thousands of research documents defining and describing the effect 'wind' has on buildings, great and small. Then it becomes a simple matter of passing along 'advice' to operating aircraft that 'windshear' or 'vortex' are 'probable' on a given day. Control towers are most obliging when it comes to passing on this advice, a regular occurrence and most welcome. The old saw of being forewarned and forearmed is a proven asset. For most aircraft, it is a routine matter and qualified, experienced pilots are fully capable of handling errant wind phenomena; a routine daily event, world wide.

But, what of the rest? The inexperienced part time private operator, the unqualified trainee, student venturing out on first solo exercises. Realistically,common sense and instructor advice would prevent all but the most fool hardy from trying to fly in 'silly' conditions and mostly, the quirks of the aerodrome wind shifts are well known, and so the 'safety' equation' is balanced – not bullet proof, but mostly at an acceptable risk level.

This ain't rocket science or engineering brilliance; building 'close' to runways can and does present difficulties which can be clearly defined. With mathematical precision. So why is there no study defining the 'risk matrix' a building presents prior to construction being authorised? As it stands, buildings are erected right up to the minimum 'boundaries' as defined by regulation. Fair enough – all legal; but where is the risk analysis? Where is the NOTAM which says that runway 18 is subject to undershoot wind sheer when the wind is between 160° and 200° and above 10 knots.

In short - no one has an 'operational' problem with buildings on the airfield – provided that close in structures, those which can affect air operations during the critical periods of flight (take off and landing) have been identified, subjected to analysis and the risks associated with various wind conditions are published and available. 

Aye, just a twiddle to pass the time. The Essendon accident and the shabby treatment of that accident still rankle; the delays and obfuscation (read arse covering) deserve an inquiry – a real one, no holds barred. If it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck – odds are it is a Duck.

See how to protect the building -and how two vortices are produced. Happy landings indeed.
Toot – toot.-.

[Peetwo]

United we conquer...divided we fall - 

Reference via the Mick Mack thread:

The McDonaught Aviation shame file continues to grow?? -   



Next via the AP blog, library and the airports thread:

Ref: https://auntypru.com/sbg-3-01-20-the-year-of-the-ox/
 

Ref: https://auntypru.com/amroba-breaking-new...ter-plans/ & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...5#pid11855





Of course all fully supported and endorsed by our miniscule McDonaught, the witless wonder from Wagga...  

Which brings me back to this pic (with embellishments) borrowed from this Betoota Advocate article...

Liberal Party Put In Place Measures To Protect Their Non-Idiot Image While PM Is On Holidays

To follow up on the above, with the latest disturbing tales from the YMMB, via Oz Flying...

MACCI rallies Aviation Businesses as New Master Plan looms

1 April 2021

Comments 0 Comments

Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc, (MACCI) has encouraged aviation businesses to make submissions to the new airport master plan to help stave off commercial development that is seen to be strangling the airport.

Tenants became alarmed in July last year when they were handed six-month eviction notices to allow Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) to bulldoze a large part of the northern apron and begin development of new commercial, non-aviation buildings.

Several of those evicted were not given alternative premises to move into, and fears are rising the the 2020 draft master plan due for release in mid-April will herald the destruction of even more aviation infrastructure.

At a networking function at Royal Victorian Aero Club last night, MACCI president Rob Simpson stressed the dire situation facing aviation businesses and encouraged the gathering to voice objections, especially given the 2015 master plan attracted only six submissions.

"We can't do anything about the 2015 master plan," Simpson said. "The problems we are seeing with that plan is that they are picking and choosing what they decide to do and not to do. There are these wonderful glossy things in there, but they may do absolutely nothing going forward for aviation. They may do nothing for us to stay in business.

"We all know, literally, they really don't care; we're just a thorn in their side rather than a viable income source."

Simpson's company, Simpson Aeroelectrics was one of the companies evicted last year.

"I got six months notice," he said. "On 13 June I was told my eviction date was 29 December, and I had no legal recourse. The letter said the notice was irrevocable ... I've lost 50% of my business with the demolition of that hangar.

"Do you want that for your business? If you don't want it, get behind the chamber."

Simpson's sentiments were echoed by Councillor Tracey Davies from City of Kingston, who expressed her concerns about the future of the airport and predicted more dire circumstances if people did not respond during the master plan consultation period.

"The time for submissions will shortly arrive ... I would really suggest that everyone looks at that master plan and if you don't want to read that document, at least put in a response outlining the difficulties you have, because if nobody responds to the Department of Infrastructure, they're going to think everything is fine," Davies said.

"I've walked around this area, and I'm really concerned about the number of warehouses around this site, and I've had a couple of briefings by tenants and one from MAC, and I'm a little bit concerned about some of the inconsistencies about what I've been told and what I've seen.

"You should set out your individual concerns, that the airport is being strangled ... that you haven't got enough space for planes to land, that the costs you're being charged for your rent is ridiculous and that it seems to be skewed towards commercial non-aviation tenants."

MAC is owned by the giant Goodman logistics and property development conglomerate, which aviation businesses have accused of being reluctant to engage on issues and described as "unhelpful."

Simpson said he believed the best was to counter Goodman was as a collective rather than as individual companies.

"What we need is for everyone to get together," he stressed. "The problems we've seen recently are dividing everyone, and they've done that time and time again.

"It's quite simple: bit-by-bit-by-bit they chip away until it gets to the stage that we don't care. We're too traumatised to care, we just plain give up.

"If you want this airport to flourish, you've got to get off your bums and not not care."

MAACI was formed around 10 years ago and currently has 15 members. The chamber hopes the impending loss of more infrastructure will encourage more people to join and strengthen the voice for aviation tenants on the airport.

Plus from this week's (day early) LMH: http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...april-2021

...Storm clouds are gathering over Moorabbin again. The next draft master plan is due in a couple of weeks are there aren't many operators on the airport that believe the MP will yield a vibrant future for aviation on a patch that has been a GA mainstay since 1949. Leaseholder Goodman Group recently ploughed up the western end of the northern apron, razed several hangars and evicted operators without offering alternative homes for the businesses. According to Goodman's 2015 master plan, all of this was considered surplus to aviation needs. It is expected that Goodman–a property development behemoth–will find more "surplus infrastructure" in the next master plan, which has operators feeling very vulnerable. None of this, however, is new ... it was all in a the last master plan that drew only six submissions from the aviation community. Such low levels of feedback are effectively a green-light for the department to approve the master plan. Now, in the shadow of a growing construction site where aeroplanes were once tied-down, airport operators are understanding the fight they are in. But they're not alone, or rather, they shouldn't be alone. Moorabbin Airport is an asset for everyone in aviation. There wouldn't be many licensed pilots in Victoria that haven't landed there, and almost none that haven't used businesses based there. Skylines, AvPlan, Royal Vic ... all of these are assets for everyone in aviation. We are all stakeholders and all have a right to have our say. When the draft master plan is released, it should not be only the Moorabbin operators who pull it apart and register their objections; it should be everyone in GA right across Australia. And that goes also for the futures of Bankstown, Camden, Archerfield, Jandakot, Parafield and every airport in the nation where the Moorabbin story is being repeated. It is the entire industry's responsibility to defend the infrastructure that benefits us all...

"...the 2020 draft master plan due for release in mid-April..." - Thinking out loud??...this means that not long after the miniscule (with the advice of the DARD) will actually have to make a decision to whether he will sign the Master Plan. Leading into an election year this could be yet another significant wedge for ALL of industry to get behind and support the efforts of the YMMB aviation tenants and the MACCI - 

MTF...P2    

[Sandy Reith]

There’s little point in taking to Goodmans, only action by the Commonwealth can stop Goodmans from pursuing their commercial goals. To think otherwise is to waste time and energy. Government must be persuaded that irreplaceable airport land should not be given away to non aviation uses.
To an outsider there are adjacent golf courses protected by governments (state) but the Commonwealth calmly stands aside while our Commonwealth owned airports are being taken over by commercial property developers. How stupid can you get!

[P7_TOM]

Top 100 Golf courses in Victoria.

You may read (and drool) over the list – HERE -.

Each fully capable of becoming 'development' for the frenzied shopper. Consider the list of aerodromes available to Melbourne; then consider how many could support regional transport class aircraft. It is a bloody short list. But wait; there's more. Didn't the Commonwealth hold the land on which our nations airfields were built? So, the 'nation' paid for and owns that land – don't it? In essence Melbourne has three aerodromes; Tullamarine; Essendon and Moorabin. Two of those capable of supporting  serious transport – one a 'back-up' and a haven for Charter operations and flight training. Count Avalon if you must - (just try to build a monstrosity on that one: Ha!).

So why is Commonwealth land (land the tax paying public paid for and 'theoretically' own) being flogged off at 'peppercorn' rates? Try to buy Royal Melbourne golf course (privately owned for profit) and build a concrete monstrosity which impinges on the third; fifth and seventh hole. Lord, I can hear the howls and protest now. The increased traffic in and out, the noise, the offended little committees – all up in arms; resident action groups – the whole nine yards. But the nation gets to loose one airport (bought and paid for by them)  - for no return - and never a Dickie bird of protest?

Bloody silly; ain't it – when you think it through. Ayup - 'We got ripped off - once again'.

[Kharon]

Via Aus Flying - Moorabbin update.

Moorabbin Master Plan signals More Apron Destruction
16 April 2021
Comments 0 Comments

A Preliminary Draft Master Plan (PDMP) published for comment this week has flagged further loss of main apron space at Moorabbin Airport.

Tenants were shocked last year as Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) issued six-month eviction notices ahead of the western part of the apron and taxiway being redeveloped for commercial use, resulting in loss of businesses, hangars and aircraft parking spaces.

The 2021 PDMP heralds further loss of the main apron as MAC expands its industrial precinct on the airport's western boundary, threatening several well-established aviation businesses.

According to the PDMP, the land-use concept outlined is based around MAC's aviation objectives.

"Consistent with prior Master Plans, land use in Master Plan 2021 is framed around aviation objectives and activities. Precincts are planned in response to safety, airspace, our flight training role and aviation infrastructure," MAC says in the PDMP.

"Airport land identified for non-aviation purposes rings aviation land and as it is developed renews and upgrades legacy infrastructure for benefit of aviation and non-aviation customers."

The master plan states that 44 hectares of land may be developed for non-aviation purposes over the next eight years, leaving 40 hectares for aviation support businesses. MAC also states it intends to increase the movement areas by 10,000 sqm, redesign the layout to provide more airside sites, move infrastructure closer to the runways and develop facilities at the northern apron for maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) companies.

Organisations that stand to lose premises when the western end of the main apron is transferred from the airside zone to the landside zone include Tristar Aviation and Moorabbin Flying Services, both of which have made substantial investments in their respective operations.

Tristar Aviation's Geoff Fleming said the PDMP cast a shadow over the school's future, but the aviation community was rallying around them.

"The support from the wider aviation community has been amazing," he told Australian Flying. "This is our 29th year in business at Moorabbin Airport and even after last year's COVID lockdown, business in increasing.

"At the moment we have no idea as to whether there are any alternative plans for our relocation."

MAC is projecting an increase in movements from 286,000 to 375,000 by the end of the planning period, 90% of which is flight training. CAE Oxford is thought to account for 25% of all training movements. MAC has invested $17 million in aviation support, including a $10 million facility for CAE.

MAC also has stated that aircraft parking for up to 720 aircraft could be possible over the life of the master plan, although some of that is planned for the triangle of land between the thresholds of runways 35 and 31, which tenants on the airport have labeled as impractical and dangerous.

The preliminary draft master plan has been published on the MAC website and is open for comments until 12 July, after which the document must be approved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport before it comes into effect.

Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. (MACCI) has encouraged all airport tenants to respond to the PDMP after the 2015 plan attracted only six submissions.

[P7_TOM]

You forgot a bit old Son-

"Say, from whence

You owe this strange intelligence? or why

Upon this blasted heath you stop our way

With such prophetic greeting?"

[Peetwo]

Moorabbin Airport Extinction Plan Continues - 

Via Aus Flying - Moorabbin update.

Moorabbin Master Plan signals More Apron Destruction
16 April 2021
Comments 0 Comments

A Preliminary Draft Master Plan (PDMP) published for comment this week has flagged further loss of main apron space at Moorabbin Airport.

Tenants were shocked last year as Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) issued six-month eviction notices ahead of the western part of the apron and taxiway being redeveloped for commercial use, resulting in loss of businesses, hangars and aircraft parking spaces.

The 2021 PDMP heralds further loss of the main apron as MAC expands its industrial precinct on the airport's western boundary, threatening several well-established aviation businesses.

According to the PDMP, the land-use concept outlined is based around MAC's aviation objectives.

"Consistent with prior Master Plans, land use in Master Plan 2021 is framed around aviation objectives and activities. Precincts are planned in response to safety, airspace, our flight training role and aviation infrastructure," MAC says in the PDMP.

"Airport land identified for non-aviation purposes rings aviation land and as it is developed renews and upgrades legacy infrastructure for benefit of aviation and non-aviation customers."

The master plan states that 44 hectares of land may be developed for non-aviation purposes over the next eight years, leaving 40 hectares for aviation support businesses. MAC also states it intends to increase the movement areas by 10,000 sqm, redesign the layout to provide more airside sites, move infrastructure closer to the runways and develop facilities at the northern apron for maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) companies.

Organisations that stand to lose premises when the western end of the main apron is transferred from the airside zone to the landside zone include Tristar Aviation and Moorabbin Flying Services, both of which have made substantial investments in their respective operations.

Tristar Aviation's Geoff Fleming said the PDMP cast a shadow over the school's future, but the aviation community was rallying around them.

"The support from the wider aviation community has been amazing," he told Australian Flying. "This is our 29th year in business at Moorabbin Airport and even after last year's COVID lockdown, business in increasing.

"At the moment we have no idea as to whether there are any alternative plans for our relocation."

MAC is projecting an increase in movements from 286,000 to 375,000 by the end of the planning period, 90% of which is flight training. CAE Oxford is thought to account for 25% of all training movements. MAC has invested $17 million in aviation support, including a $10 million facility for CAE.

MAC also has stated that aircraft parking for up to 720 aircraft could be possible over the life of the master plan, although some of that is planned for the triangle of land between the thresholds of runways 35 and 31, which tenants on the airport have labeled as impractical and dangerous.

The preliminary draft master plan has been published on the MAC website and is open for comments until 12 July, after which the document must be approved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport before it comes into effect.

Moorabbin Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc. (MACCI) has encouraged all airport tenants to respond to the PDMP after the 2015 plan attracted only six submissions.

Plus via the LMH: https://www.australianflying.com.au/the-...april-2021

...There are some very nervous operators at Moorabbin Airport, and the recently released 2021 Preliminary Draft Master Plan (PDMP) has not only justified the jitters, but amplified them into out-right despair. After seeing bulldozers plough up large tracts of aeroplane movement area to accommodate non-aviation development, the PDMP has done nothing but offer more of the same for main-apron tenants. Despite talk of expanded apron space and increased parking, there is a confusing undercurrent to the plan: MAC acknowledges that Moorabbin is essentially a training base, but is putting schools at risk by ousting them from their buildings, and the master plan contains no clear solutions. With the case of MROs that were evicted by the 2015 plan, MAC is building new premises on the northern apron for them to lease, but flying schools are not MROs. Well-established schools like Tristar and Moorabbin Flying Services have poured sweat and money into making Moorabbin a successful flight training hub, only to find themselves effectively discarded. MAC has invested $10 million for new premises for CAE Oxford, a foreign company, but has gone completely backward in their support for smaller Australian-owned customers. With Soar Aviation collapsing having done little for aviation except take up circuit space, you would think MAC might turn towards the established schools to help them achieve the forecast increase in movements touted in the PDMP. There's an old saying in business: it is easier to keep an existing customer than it is to find a new one. MAC seems to have forgotten that. It would be very appropriate if a flood of submissions to the PDMP was to remind them...

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

RE Bankstown Airport

Dear Prime Minister,

Bankstown was originally planned by the Commonwealth Government as an airport site in 1929.

It was not until 1940 with the outbreak of world war two when Australia suddenly realised there was a dearth of airports in Australia from which to defend the country.

The formal proclamation of the Bankstown airfield project occurred under the National Security Act on 7 June 1940. The urgency was such that work began immediately.

By 1942, with the threat of Japanese invasion Bankstown became the main fighter base by the United States air force for the defence of Sydney.

After the end of the second world war Bankstown continued to develop as a training and general aviation airfield and to support various aviation Defence projects. At its height, over eight thousand people were employed directly in support of aviation industries based at the airport.

We were led to believe, when privatisation of secondary airports was first mooted, that the Government recognised, as an industry, aviation was somewhat unique as it required an airport to function. An airport is also necessary for recreational pilots, much the same as boat ramps are needed for boating people.

We were led to believe that protections would be placed in the Airports Act and in the Airport leases that would protect the airports as airports reserved for present and future aviation use and growth.

We were led to believe when privatisation occurred that a fair price would be paid to the Commonwealth basically the people of Australia.
In 2002 the State government of NSW valued the land at Bankstown being in excess of a Billion dollars, yet a large bank purchased the leases for the three airports in the Sydney basin for around two hundred and fifty million dollars, one of which they sold for that amount, basically gaining two airports for free.

Was a fair price paid or were the Australian Taxpayers swindled?

We were led to believe that Bankstown Airport was Commonwealth land therefore State Government fees and regulations could be bypassed, no State government stamp duty was paid on the leases, nor scrutiny by the State government of any development that has occurred and planned in the future.

Were the people of NSW swindled?

We were led to believe that the Airport Act prohibits a trust from owning and airport lease.
The NSW superannuation fund now owns the lease. Is a superannuation fund not a trust?

We were also led to believe that development companies were prohibited from owning or controlling airports. Are ALTIS property partners not a property development company?

Is this not contrary to the ACT?

In the course of various owners’ control of the secondary airports, aviation businesses have been subjected to the predatory behaviour of development sharks with draconian increases in rents, forced to either relocate or close their doors, resulting in ever diminishing aviation activity. In Bankstown’s case a runway and taxiways were closed against safety advice, to facilitate non-aviation development. Fully a third of the airport land has been subject to or slated for industrial development with more to follow according to so called “Master Plans” approved by the responsible minister.

So much for reserving the airport for aviation present or future use. The development sharks make billions at the expense of aviation and the general public.

Bankstown airport since its initial development has been highly contaminated, both from wartime use and in the years after. In their quest for profits the development companies have compounded that contamination by bypassing State EPA approvals on the pretext that Bankstown was exempt as commonwealth land. Large quantities of asbestos contaminated soil was used to build over the floodplain of the runway they closed for industrial development. This reclamation work could also exacerbate flooding upstream in the Georges river as it creates a bottle neck through which floodwater must pass.

Should this occur will the taxpayers be liable for claimed compensation by those affected?

Building very large structures near an Airport was never a good idea. Building them right up to the boundaries of runways is almost lunacy. Large structures generate vortices in the air, even with a fairly gentle breeze they can extend out to a kilometre from the structure. Bankstown is by and large a training airport; very inexperienced pilots learn to fly there in very small aircraft. The closure of the only north south runway in the Sydney basin to facilitate warehouse construction poses a considerable hazard for these trainees. Add in strong vortexes generated by these buildings compounds the safety risk, Bankstown tower now repeatedly warns aircraft of windshear in the touch down zone when southerly winds are blowing.

Could the Airport users and the Australian public be forgiven for imagining some very dodgy practices have occurred in the pursuit of the holey dollar. We may live to regret allowing that to happen, as we did in 1940.

Choc frog - well said TB. Vortex and wind shear analysis is where? Safety case examined where?. About time government took some responsibility for dangerous, uncontrolled development of irreplaceable aviation infrastructure. Bugger it; two Choc frogs - damn the expense.....

[thorn bird]

Front page of Mondays Australian

“Revolt on China’s grip over coal port”

The brouhaha and angst over a Chinese firms control of the port of Newcastle is gaining traction across the mainstream media with fifteen Coalition MP’s demanding Josh Frydenberg impose tougher controls on the half-owned Port of Newcastle because they fear its monopoly powers could be exploited to impose “punitive costs” to hurt Australian coal exporters.

I understand the Port of Newcastle has already faced a federal court over using its monopoly position to force businesses off port land they were leasing by jacking up their rents in an attempt to make them unviable.

Apparently the China Merchants Port Holdings admits its ambition is to implement a “Port-Park-City’ development at the port of Newcastle.

The Australian newspaper article goes on the quote the NSW Minerals Council chief executive Stephen Galilee

“The Port of Newcastle is a monopoly, yet current government policy allows it to operate without any ACCC oversight or role”

I cannot help wondering why there is all this hand wringing over Newcastle Port when exactly the same predatory behaviour has been going on with Australia’s secondary airports for years and never an eyebrow raised nor a Tut Tut by anyone from the political class, not even when rampant skulduggery and corruption is apparent.

Is all the hand wringing because it is a Chinese company involved?

They bought their share fair and square, unlike the development sharks who control secondary airports which according to an act of parliament they are supposedly not permitted to do.

It is so often said that airports are a vital part of Australia’s infrastructure, yet our political class turn a blind eye to developers pillaging in the pursuit of the holy dollar, destroying a whole industry in the process, all with no oversight or scrutiny by anyone. Creating severe risks to safety, choking already grid locked roads with heavy traffic and potentially releasing considerable pollution into the environment along with flood risks upstream of the airport.

This of course exposes the Australian taxpayers to compensation liability claims when, not if, a disaster occurs.

(Remember the Essendon DFO?)

Those that control Australia’s secondary airports maintain that the draconian rent increases inflicted on aviation enterprises merely reflect the value of surrounding industrial estates and they were entitled to those rents based on that premiss as they were just gaining a return on their investment.

There is, I believe, a couple of flaws to this argument.

Firstly, the airports were “privatised” to be run as airports, not industrial estates, recognising that the aviation industry was unique in that just like ships need a port, they need an airport to operate from. The industry couldn’t just move down the road to find a cheaper alternative. This is reflected in the mass decline in aviation users of secondary airports, some just closing their doors, those that could, relocating to regional airports.

None of the entities who took control of these airports have spent much on aviation improvements, in fact the reverse as they closed runways and taxiways to facilitate industrial development, a fair indication that they never intended the end result of their venture to be anything else but industrial development and to hell with aviation.

A fair return on investment?

The three main airports in the Sydney basin were sold as a package. The buyer closing one and selling it freehold for basically what they paid for the three. They gained two pieces of prime real estate for no cost. Its not just aviation that lost out, the Australian people also missed out, land that they owned literally given away by the bureaucrats.

Billions of dollar’s worth, prime for industrial development at no cost.

So much for a fair return on capital.

As someone once said “Everyone opposes a monopoly, unless you happen to own one”.

Today’s Australian carries a story in the business section of a company in SA called “Bespoke Engineering”. They have developed a Radial Motion engine to cater to the high-performance speed needs of car racers and recreational light aircraft enthusiasts. The company’s spokesperson Nick Mebberson’s described the engine as unique, designed developed and built in Australia.

Australian ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit at work, actually making something tangible.

The tragedy is there may not be an aviation industry left in Australia to take advantage of it.

[Peetwo]

Moorabbin on the chopping block with latest DRAFT Master Plan - 

To follow on from this post...

Joining dots and dashes on the Hooded Canary's last HURRAH!!?? 

With the return of BJ (no longer obligated to Mick Mack) maybe now would be a good time to suggest that Senator MacDonald uphold her previous promise of instigating an inquiry into non-aviation development around airports...  
Ref: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companie...55zmf.html & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...0#pid11550

The chair of the Senate transport committee is chasing a sweeping inquiry into commercial developments around Australia's airports amid concerns that new office blocks, retail developments and hotels are jeopardising the safety of critical transport infrastructure...

..."We can’t risk aviation safety over commerce," Ms McDonald said. "We need to shine a spotlight on the decision making for infrastructure within air spaces and ensure that there is a clear understanding that maintaining airspace is a priority."

  

...I note the following (OP post) from Ben Morgan CEO of AOPA Oz, via Facebook:

MOORABBIN AIRPORT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 2021 MASTER PLAN
AOPA AUSTRALIA CALLS FOR SUBMISSIONS TO REJECT

AOPA Australia CEO Benjamin Morgan calls for industry submissions opposing the Moorabbin Airport Corporation's Preliminary Draft 2021 Master Plan, in support of local aviation businesses, aircraft owners and pilots.

Local aviation businesses, aircraft owners and pilots are calling for help at Moorabbin Airport (YMMB) in Victoria, following the release of the Preliminary Draft 2021 Master Plan, that signals even greater losses of aviation land at the site.

Since privatisation some 118 hectares of airport land have been developed for non-aviation use at the airport, with Moorabbin Airport Corporation now seeking approval for a further 44 hectares of land for more industrial, commercial and retail developments, bringing the total of non-aviation development to 162 hectares.

Non-aviation development at Moorabbin Airport has become so prolific, that the airfield’s runways are now almost entirely land-locked by large-scale commercial and industrial structures, with virtually no useful land remaining for aviation expansion.

AOPA Australia has long regarded the non-aviation developments as inconsistent with maintaining aviation safety, with pilots operating into and out of the airport provided degraded and limited options in emergency situations.  We need only look back at the fatal King Air accident at Essendon Airport in February of 2017, to understand the risks of allowing such incompatible development at airports.  A concern we have advocated to the Senate Rural Regional Affairs Transport Committee.

The non-aviation development has also introduced a range dangerous turbulence and strong wind rotor events, caused as a result of the large structures in close proximity to the runways, creating risks for pilots of all experience levels.

Then there is the issue of aviation land leasehold, with aviation businesses unable to obtain long-term lease tenures, forced into accepting short-term leasing or being told there is no available space to build aviation structures.  Meanwhile, some 162 hectares of land has been converted into non-aviation development...

Added to the above, the nearly two decades of serious complaints regarding unsustainable leasehold rentals, user fees and charges, have all conspiring to force aviation business at the airport into serious decline or closure.

At privatised airports, aviation businesses have been forced to absorb staggering increases in leasehold rentals and rates, with the airport operators arguing their non-aviation developments have made aviation more valuable.  Non-aviation development has artificially increased and manipulated airport leasehold values to unsustainable levels, and is a major and significant driver of general aviation decline at Australia’s capital city airports.

Whilst there has been some investment into certain aviation facilities on the airport site, very little to no investment has been made into the vast majority of the aviation structures at Moorabbin Airport.  A simple drive around the airport site makes clear the obvious.

Meanwhile, it is evident that hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested into state of the art industrial, commercial and retail warehouses, all to encourage high-net worth non-aviation tenancy.

Capital expenditures of this magnitude are not being made for little to no return, which begs the question - where is all the income going?  Because it certainly isn’t finding it’s way into aviation related airport infrastructure, neither is it being used to subsidise aviation use at the airport site.

The reality is, that Moorabbin Airport has become an extremely fat cash-cow for Moorabbin Airport Corporation’s owners, Goodman.  A multinational  business with 51.6b in property assets under its management and an operating profit of approximately $1billion annually, according to their annual report.

It’s obvious that Goodman are pulling handsome returns from Moorabbin Airport each year and they’re giving very little in return for it.  They’ve played the government for fools and have been laughing all the way to the bank, ever since they paid a pittance for its lease.

Given the current trajectory of non-aviation development at the airport, a drastic realignment of government policy is needed.  Clear and concise policy that stipulates both the protection and fostering of aviation infrastructure and user access at privatised airports must be implemented.

Should the government allow the status quo, then it is not too difficult to imagine that the next master plan will deliver a knock-out blow, with two prospective runways in the cross hairs for closure and further non-aviation development encroaching the site.  All justified, by the argument that there is just not enough aviation business and activity to warrant all the runways.

Or was this the plan all along?

AOPA Australia members and industry supporters are being urged to make a submission of opposition, with public consultation set to close on the 12th July.

DOWNLOAD THE 2021 MASTERPLAN:
https://www.moorabbinairport.com.au/about-us/planning

TIPS FOR YOUR RESPONSE:
AOPA Australia is encouraging aircraft owners, pilots, aviation businesses and industry participants to send an individual letter, opposing the Preliminary Draft 2021 Master Plan for Moorabbin Airport.

Your response should be polite and respectful and refrain from using abusive language or leveling any personal attack.  Focus on the key issues of concern you feel are important.

When responding, please ensure you have included a copy of your response to AOPA Australia.  We will be packaging up all responses received and ensuring that they are distributed to the;
- Deputy Prime Minister
- Department of Infrastructure
- Moorabbin Airport's Local Member of Parliament

EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR YOUR SUBMISSION:
Moorabbin Airport Corporation:  mac_mp2021@moorabbinairport.com.au
AOPA Australia:
ben.morgan@aopa.com.au

SUBMIT BY AUSTRALIA POST:
Moorabbin Airport Corporation Pty Limited
Airport Management Centre
66 Bundora Parade, Moorabbin Airport, VIC 3194, Australia.

Bring on a full blown Parliamentary Inquiry now and rewrite the Airports Act NOW! #ChangetheAviationActs 


MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

For a city the size of Melbourne the area set aside for aviation is pitiful. The ‘parking area’ would have to be a joke, its cut off from all the servicing areas, car parking, terminal facilities, flying schools and maintenance businesses. Obviously made to be so inconvenient that lack of use will lead to the area being sold off to more non aviation cash cows.

[thorn bird]

Sandy,

its often said you can't beat the "Big end of town" What the big end wants it gets, by hook or by crook. In the case of secondary airports, given the evidence, more by crook than hook I would suggest, there is no logical imperative for the destruction of vital public infrastructure.

The land is owned by the Commonwealth, they are the ones who have signed off on this wanton vandalism.

When the inevitable disaster strikes who will carry the liability?

My guess, the Australian taxpayer.

What will be the Commonwealths response?

After a few political donations and promised directorships, I would guess........

"Secondary airports are far too dangerous to be located in heavily urbanised locations and need to be shutdown"

Anyone want to take bets on that outcome?

[Kharon]

An insignificant twiddle.

Did you ever, in all innocence, ask a question of 'experts' in an alien field? I did and it has led to some confounding questions. I was chatting with an old mate (a retired Judge), and introduced to two of his barrister mates and a couple of legal eagles recently - social thing.  It was pure chance - on account of stopping to say Hi to my old friend. Anyway - 'airports' came up as an aside - one fellah had been messed about and was unhappy about it; so I was asked for the what and the why of it.

Second mistake; tried to get away with a quick, short, probably flippant answer. Not good enough; and so I ordered an Ale pulled up a chair and did my best - in short. The question of public safety came up - I cited the Essendon event and the DFO debacle. I could tell they all thought I was drawing a very long bow - but in my defence I had kept it short and to the 'facts'. So I then asked the question "say your wife and children had been in that building and the aircraft 20 feet lower - what then?"

This led us to large structures close in to operational surfaces and safety zones; this led to the ignored safety case of failed engines, building generated vortex and wind shear affecting the aircraft during critical periods etc. Took a half hour and used many napkins - but 'twas worth it. A rare chance to observe several sharp legal minds hard at work; the collective shaking of heads and disbelief was a rare threat.

"Can the dangers be mathematically defined?" - Oh yes said I.  "Then someone is for the high jump".

The point questioned was why has there has not been a 'safety' case built to support the development in and around our airports. It can be argued (they opined) - probably successfully - that some of the development was the directly related or even causal in such an accident; one leading to death and injury. There appears to be a blatant disregard for aircraft performance, the effect of wind on buildings and the potential 'man made' hazards can create.

Will there be another tragedy? - Yes there will, so long as Murphy has a hand. 


Now the legal crew could see years of gainful employment and school fees through to Uni for their kids and a 'interesting' case from the legal side. But, when I close my eyes, I can only see a wind shear affected light twin, in inexperienced hands loosing performance and ploughing into a building. It need not happen - the risk can be reduced to the travelling public by simply returning the aerodromes to their proper function - the safe arrival and departure of aircraft.

Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect. " — Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group, London; 1930's

[Peetwo]

A word of advice Minister; Mandarins; and their Minions - 

Via AMROBA Newsletter: 




...L&Ks KC 

Addendum to K's post (above): 

Extract from AMROBA's latest newsletter:

Volume 18 Issue 6 (June 2021).pdf Size: 297.08 KB  Downloads: 1

1. Airports Act Review – Minister’s responsibility

When government made the decision to privatise aerodromes, to shift the cost of running aerodromes from government to private operators, nobody understood the effect it would have on aviation in Australia. How many of these leased aerodromes will exist in 100 years is now debateable as civil aviation is being restricted in favour of non-aviation businesses operating on these airports.

Unlike USA legislation, the operators (Property Developers) can freely remove aviation businesses and replace with non-aviation businesses simply by developing non-aviation commercial development within a comprehensive master plan submitted to the Minister for approval.

California has a bigger aviation community than Australia and it has professional airport legislative requirement specifying airport land use. The new leaders, Minister and Secretary, should read and model Australia’s aerodrome land use on California’s State Aeronautics Act and adapt their “Airport Land Use Planning Handbook” to properly control aerodrome development and compatible planning in the vicinity of each existing and new public use aerodrome. The Handbook states:

“Aviation is a vital link in the local, national, and global transportation system. Air cargo, consisting mainly of high-value, time-sensitive documents and goods, plays a significant role in the vitality of the state’s economy. In today’s international and technology-oriented economy, businesses use the speed and reliability of air service to achieve operating efficiency. California’s airports are critical for providing services such as business travel, tourism, emergency response, fire suppression, and law enforcement. Airports, airlines, and businesses that support airports provide direct and indirect jobs and income throughout the State. The vital role that airports play in economic development and as a means of passenger and cargo transportation cannot be understated.

Incompatible development near an airport can lead to a politically contentious relationship between an airport and the communities around it, resulting in complaints and demands for restrictions on airport operations, ultimately threatening the airport’s ability to operate efficiently and serve its function in the local economy.”

The last sentence says it all.

Current Australian, Minister-approved, aerodrome master development plans will lead to a “political contentious relationship between the aerodrome and the communities around it ultimately threatening the aerodrome’s ability to operate efficiently and serve its function”

In Australia, government development policy for our Metro airports is the exact opposite to California’s airport land use requirements.

The desired outcome or result of airport land use compatibility planning is to “minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards” while providing for the “orderly expansion of airports”

“3.4.2 General Aviation Airports

The characteristics of general aviation airports and their environs vary widely. They range from very busy “reliever” airports in metropolitan areas to minimally used facilities in rural locations. The extent of compatibility issues and the availability of data from which to create an ALUCP also run the full gamut.

For an average general aviation airport, noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight compatibility concerns are all important issues to be addressed in ALUCPs. Moreover, because many general aviation airports are located on the fringes of urban areas, both the threat of new incompatible development and the opportunity for ALUCs to help preserve compatible land uses are great. Available activity level, noise impact, and other data needed for compatibility planning is not normally as extensive as for air carrier airports. Essential information often must be gathered from a variety of sources ranging from airport master plans to interviews with airport staff and others familiar with operation of the airport. Obtaining data on the locations of principal flight routes can be particularly difficult, yet of key importance at moderately busy facilities. Again, planning for the distant future is highly important.”

Long Term Policy

The simple question to government (Minister & Secretary) is: Why do you allow aerodrome master development plans that will be negative to aviation expansion?

While having an airport environs totally devoid of development may be ideal from a land use compatibility perspective, it seldom is a realistic objective. For one, existing development already makes such sterility impossible to achieve at most airports. Moreover, even in sparsely populated areas, trade-offs generally must be made between an ideal degree of land use compatibility and the community needs for land use development.

This is accepted by the aviation industry but the current trade-off is destroying the aviation industry future growth by enabling non-aviation growth that is incompatible with aviation businesses today and into the future.

Urgent Action.

The Secretary must develop a strategy for Minister approval for achieving noise compatibility in the vicinity of an airport by preventing or limiting development of land uses that are particularly sensitive to noise. Common land use strategies are ones that either involve few people (especially people engaged in noise-sensitive activities) or generate significant noise levels themselves (such as other transportation facilities or some industrial uses).

The Airport Act does not contain these standards and is deficient when compared with the California Handbook. No wonder aviation can grow in a more highly populated nation that is very environmentally strong.

Without doubt, the overseeing bodies, pricing controls and monopoly powers are supposedly oversighted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). But who provides the oversight of development of these airports?

The Productivity Commission raised an issue with the current monitoring arrangements that have been described as being an example of ‘light-handed’ regulation, as compared with traditional ‘heavy-handed’ regulation.

Under this “light-handed” approach, smart property developer airport operators managing these aerodromes have utilised loop holes to implement their master plans.

Hmm...remember this?

Coming to an airport near you...

MTF...P2 

[thorn bird]

Business is business according to the big end of town.

No one should be under any miscomprehension that Sydney Airport is a monopoly.

As a famous person once said "Everyone abhors a monopoly unless you own one"

A bank once bought an airport for around 5 billion Dollars.

That airport turned over a billion dollars a year, give or take, with reported profit margins of over 70%.

They ran the airport for more than a decade, yet they paid no Tax.

The big end of town describes that as "creative accounting".

After they had retrieved the funds they had paid out to gain the airport plus a nice little profit

They then IPO'd their asset, making its anyones guess how much more treasure they gained but it would have been substantial.

On tonights news we hear that a superannuation fund, essentially a trust, is bidding to buy out the company the "bank" created, which is essentially illegal as the Airport Act precludes a trust from owning an airport, but what the hell, the Act also precludes a foreign entity from owning an airport, so its not surprising that the leaseholder of the airport is a company that resides in the Bahamas a notorious tax haven, which may explain the lack of tax paid.

The offer is 22.5 Billion dollars which amounts to almost five times the original purchase price for what was a public asset owned by the people of Australia.

Ah the machinations of the big end of town playing us all for suckers, but then I'm just pissed I didn't buy shares in the "bank" at the time.

Who cares that we have one of the most expensive airports in the world from which aviation operates, certainly not the big end of town.

[Peetwo]

Business is business according to the big end of town.

No one should be under any miscomprehension that Sydney Airport is a monopoly.

As a famous person once said "Everyone abhors a monopoly unless you own one"

A bank once bought an airport for around 5 billion Dollars.

That airport turned over a billion dollars a year, give or take, with reported profit margins of over 70%.

They ran the airport for more than a decade, yet they paid no Tax.

The big end of town describes that as "creative accounting".

After they had retrieved the funds they had paid out to gain the airport plus a nice little profit

They then IPO'd their asset, making its anyones guess how much more treasure they gained but it would have been substantial.

On tonights news we hear that a superannuation fund, essentially a trust, is bidding to buy out the company the "bank" created, which is essentially illegal as the Airport Act precludes a trust from owning an airport, but what the hell, the Act also precludes a foreign entity from owning an airport, so its not surprising that the leaseholder of the airport is a company that resides in the Bahamas a notorious tax haven, which may explain the lack of tax paid.

The offer is 22.5 Billion dollars which amounts to almost five times the original purchase price for what was a public asset owned by the people of Australia.

Ah the machinations of the big end of town playing us all for suckers, but then I'm just pissed I didn't buy shares in the "bank" at the time.

Who cares that we have one of the most expensive airports in the world from which aviation operates, certainly not the big end of town.

-------------------------

Via Bloomberg:

Sydney Airport Gets $17 Billion Offer in Bet on Travel Rebound
By 
Angus Whitley
July 5, 2021, 9:11 AM GMT+10 Updated on July 5, 2021, 4:45 PM GMT+10

•  
  Succesful deal would be biggest takeover of Australian company
  
  
•  
  Bid is below value of Sydney Airport stock before pandemic hit
  

Sydney Airport received a A$22.3 billion ($17 billion) takeover offer from a group including IFM Investors in what would be Australia’s largest acquisition and one of the boldest bets on a recovery in global travel since the pandemic started.

The offer values Sydney Airport shares at A$8.25 each, the company said in a statement Monday. While that’s 42% higher than Friday’s closing price, it’s below the stock’s peak of around A$9 in late 2019 before Covid-19 devastated aviation. The shares closed up 34% to A$7.76 on Monday.

Sydney Airport Offer at Premium Now, Not Pre-Covid: M&A Snapshot

The suitors are seeking to capitalize on the slump in market value at Australia’s largest airport before global travel starts to pick up. While airlines worldwide have received billions of dollars in government handouts to survive the crisis, infrastructure providers like airports haven’t been helped on the same scale.

Read more: The World’s Airports Are Catching the Coronavirus, Too

Sydney Airport, Australia’s main overseas gateway, has also been smashed by one of the most restrictive border policies of the global health crisis. The government effectively closed the international border in March last year, and also barred citizens from leaving. On the eve of the pandemic, close to 4 million passengers passed through Sydney Airport every month, a figure that almost completely evaporated within weeks.

The border is expected to stay closed until mid-2022 given Australia’s lagging vaccination program.
Rolling state border closures to contain sporadic outbreaks have also played havoc with domestic travel. Sydney is in the midst of a two-week lockdown coinciding with winter school holidays when many people usually head north to warmer climes in Queensland.

However, a buyer of Sydney Airport may not have to wait long before air-travel demand more than recovers its losses. According to the International Air Transport Association, which represents almost 300 airlines worldwide, global passenger numbers will surpass pre-Covid levels in 2023.

IFM Investors, an infrastructure manager owned by a group of Australian not-for-profit pension funds, is a long-term investor that can weather another year of travel restrictions on a bet that tourism will soon return to normal. Including debt, the offer values Sydney Airport at A$30.4 billion, or about five times more than the A$5.6 billion the airport fetched when it was sold by the government in 2002.

IFM’s airport assets include Manchester Airports Group and Vienna International Airport, as well as stake in gateways in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane. Collectively, the consortium has more than A$177 billion of infrastructure funds under management globally, including stakes in 20 airports, it said in a separate statement on Monday.



Sydney Airport said it’s considering “whether the proposal is reflective of the underlying value of the airport given its long-term remaining concession and the expected short-term impact of the pandemic.”

What Bloomberg Intelligence says:
“A takeover bid for Sydney Airport could enable early monetization of its recovery potential, which may only be visible in 2022 as vaccination promotes a more-sustained traffic rebound. Yet the indicative price is 8% below its pre-pandemic peak, and may not reflect the long-term return opportunities for this long-duration, essential infrastructure.”
--Denise Wong, infrastructure analyst

A successful deal at the offer price would be the largest on record for an Australian company inclusive of debt, eclipsing the A$29 billion Europe’s Unibail-Rodamco paid for mall owner Westfield in 2017, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Sydney Airport named Barrenjoey Capital Partners and UBS Group AG as financial advisers. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is advising the bidding group, which also includes QSuper Board and Global Infrastructure Management LLC.

One of the conditions of the offer is that Australian pension fund UniSuper Ltd., which owns about 15% of Sydney Airport, agrees to reinvest its equity interest for an equivalent stake in the consortium’s holding vehicle, according to the statement.

[Peetwo]

Via the latest Oz Flying:

---

---

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Of stable doors and horses bolted.

Wow! after aerodromes have been raped and built over for almost a decade now; suddenly the 'aviation media' - such as it is, begin publishing stories related. Articles which have about as much impact on developers and the minister as a wet noodle flogging. Its too bloody late -

There were two viable means to prevent development - the most powerful being the public who live near the airports. They kick up a fuss about 'aircraft noise' - wait until their roads are blocked - chocked with heavy traffic - midnight deliveries - and all the noise and disruption folks living close to big shopping centres and warehouses endure, in a zone now labelled "Industrial/commercial' - no longer 'residential'. .

The clever lads who initiated these development plans have been on holiday in the Bahamas for years now; the sharks have been and gone and now any government which decides enough is enough (highly unlikely) will face years of legal wrangle, a massive demolition bill and be left with a wasteland. The businesses which once thrived on our secondary airports long gone to dust and ashes.

Suddenly - Hitch and his mates have decided its time to raise protest in rarely read magazine articles which will never be seen by anyone who can do anything to change the existing situation; or even care to, even if they could.

The protest bus left the depot years ago and got lost on the way to the meeting. Now then, if you wanted to 'raise hell' the parallels between Covid lock downs and CASA treatment of the aviation industry is a great place to start. What is happening to our people during this 'pandemic' is a large scale version of how aviation is managed. Join the dots; the similarities are remarkable. The only noticeable difference is sooner or later, sanity will return for the greater population - but aviation will still be saddled with the same old 'lock-down' restrictions and savage penalties.

If I were Hitch, I'd not bother chasing the horse which kicked down the stable door and bolted - it's at least three counties away, had a name change and at least two new owners. Arrest the development? Here words fail - I shall sign off, torn between peels of laughter, howls of anger and head shaking bemusement.

Toot - toot.....