Airports - Buy two, get one free.

No difference in Cairns and Mackay. The Guv'mint sells both airports to a hedge fund consortium and the North Queensland Airports (NQA) company is born. Immediately the new 'owners' set about raising fees, charges, rents and leases to increase profits. Also within 4 years BOTH airports close down their second runways. Why? Well, to push GA out of the airports, but mainly to remove maintenance costs for two runways not used by RPT but used by predominately GA only. It's a disgrace.....
Reply

But,But Gobbles they have to service all that artificial debt somehow.
Ever wonder what Tax haven NQA use?
Reply

SBG 02/04/17 - One topic & one topic only


(04-02-2017, 07:33 AM)thorn bird Wrote:  And the head leases say the airports must be maintained in the condition they were in at the signing of the lease.

I would say chopping off a huge length of runway as seen above aint doing that. Same,same Bankstown, closing runway 18/36 and dumping thousands of meters of asbestos contaminated fill on a flood plain to facilitate another DFO.

Then again its amazing what a few political donations can do or promises of future rewards after retirement from public office.


For your interest thorny... Rolleyes
(04-02-2017, 08:09 AM)kharon Wrote:  "A truth that's told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent".


[Image: 8294318-3x2-700x467.jpg]

...Clearly no one wants to responsible for the unholy mess, but what you have above is merely the tip of the iceberg. Since the airports were sold off there have been some breath taking ‘soft’ manipulations and mind bending ‘interpretation’ of the ‘rules’, which, coincidentally suit developers. Muffled hearing, selective blindness and ‘stay out of it’ hints have become the accepted norm. Clearly demonstrated in the Senate committee hearing. The quote of the year comes from the Senator for NSW and, IMO, he is the type of man who likes to find answers to the questions asked, in hard, solid, realistic, testable answers.

120 - AAA - BURSTON - BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

Quote:In regards to Bankstown Airport

a) The Bankstown Airport was leased by the Commonwealth to Bankstown Airport Limited in 1998. The lease agreement contains the following provision:

"Clause 9.1

Subject to clause 9.2 the Lessee must keep and maintain the Airport Site including the Structures in good and substantial repair at all times during the Term (fair wear and tear excepted) and at the expiration or earlier determination of the term, vacate and yield up the Airport Site and the Structures in that state of repair and condition and in accordance with the Lessee's Covenants. The Lessee accepts the full and sole responsibility for the condition, operation, repair, replacement, maintenance and management of the Airport Site including the Structures during the Term."

Despite the clarity and unambiguity of this clause, the following breaches have been allowed to occur;

i. The original 1942 "Heritage" listed building located on Airport Avenue has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. This was the USAF/RAAF Headquarters building in WW2 and after the war it became Headquarters of the RAAF National Service.
ii. The original Male and Female toilet block are in a state of disrepair and have inoperative toilets and can only be described as disgusting. These are the Public Toilets for the major Secondary Airport in New South Wales and as such are a poor advertisement.

What action does the Department plan to take in relation to this clear breach of the lease agreement that the Commonwealth is a signatory to?

b) I now draw your attention to Clause 9.2 of the lease agreement.

"9.2 Maintenance of runways and pavements

The Lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for the safe access by air transport to a standard at the commencement of the Lease."

This condition has clearly been violated with the use of runway 18/36 being discontinued and asbestos-contaminated landfill placed over it.

What authorisation, if any, was given for this condition of the lease to be so clearly disregarded? Please provide documentation.

c) Are you aware that leases to aviation tenants are only being offered on a three year lease basis, containing a relocation clause?

d) Do you accept that this denies a business security of tenure, and prevents them from being able to invest and carry on their business properly?

e) Are you aware that Bankstown Airport Limited has been purchased by First State Superannuation?

f) Are you aware that First State Superannuation has appointed Altis Property Partners to manage Bankstown Airport Limited?

WRITTEN
28/02/2017


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

A Little Perspective or a Lot of Stupidity

From the 139 MOS.

“The transitional surface comprises inclined planes that originate at the lower edge from the side of the runway strip (the overall strip), and the side of the approach surface that is below the inner horizontal surface, and finishes where the upper edge is located in the plane of the inner horizontal surface.

The transitional surface slopes upwards and outward at a specified rate and is to be measured in a vertical plane at right angles to the centreline of the runway.”

My understanding for the Essendon runways is that you project a line at 14.3 degrees at right angles to the runway centreline to an altitude of 45 metres (the inner horizontal surface). This line is labelled as the Transitional Line.

The transitional surface is then the sloping plane between the edge of the air strip and the transitional line. According to the MOS “The transitional surface should be used for building height control.”


[Image: attachment.php?aid=289]

So what's happening at the other end.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=290]


Attached Files
.jpg Essendon TL1.jpg Size: 195.05 KB  Downloads: 527
.jpg Essendon TL2.jpg Size: 178.57 KB  Downloads: 354
Reply

Of airports, vultures, bonuses and more bonuses

Thorn bird said;

"But,But Gobbles they have to service all that artificial debt somehow.
Ever wonder what Tax haven NQA use?

Herr Thorny, the profits that these hedge fund vultures make heads primarily overseas, especially with J.P Morgan, Hastings and Auckland Airport Limited in the case of Cairns and Mackay airports. The profits don't go back into the asset and they don't go back into Australians pockets, at least not unless you are the CEO and are born, bred and based here. In that case you get lots of juicy bonuses and a huge salary.

Cairns Airport Pty Ltd (CAPL) owns and manages the Cairns Airport which includes all airside and landside operations, terminals, car parking and associated land holdings. CAPL is part of the North Queensland Airports group. The consortium comprises IIF Cairns Mackay Investment Ltd (an entity advised by JP Morgan Asset Management), The Infrastructure Fund (TIF) managed by Hastings, Perron Investments and Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL). Mackay Airport Pty Ltd (MAPL) which owns and manages Mackay Airport is also part of the North Queensland Airports group. Each entity vying for its slice of the pie - squeezing, wringing and strangling every penny out of the assets to feed its line of CEO's, Directors and Executive Managers thirst for greed and wealth.

J'P Morgan and  the Jamie Diamond's of the world are not known for their generosity in contributing to airport infrastructure development such as runways, taxiways, freight facilities and other necessary operational airport needs. They just love the shopping precincts and car parks, and corporate bonuses.

Perron Investments Pty Ltd is an Australian proprietary company, which generates its income from investments in office and retail properties in Australia. Its head office is located in Western Australia.
Perron Investments Pty Ltd and its assets are privately held through various entities collectively known as The Perron Group. The national investment portfolio comprises approximately 75% retail space and 25% office space, through its infrastructure investments in shopping centres and office towers. So I don't see any investment strategy in runways, freight facilities or apron parking in that portfolio, do you? Nope, Perron = shopping precincts. Even sweeter when it's on airport land.

Auckland International Airport Limited was formed in 1988, when the New Zealand Government corporatized the management of Auckland International Airport. In 1998, the Government sold down its shareholding, and AIAL became the fifth airport company in the world to be publicly listed. Auckland Airport’s ordinary shares trade on the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX) and the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). They certainly aren't shy about spending money on Auckland airport, but spend barely a dime on Cairns and Mackay airports. All they do is pillage and rape both airports of their wealth. The Kiwi's aren't as stupid as they look. Remember how ANZ gutted Ansett, another Australian asset?

The Hastings Group has it's headquarters in the Hampton's New Jersey and predominately flog insurance. They too couldn't give a fistful of crap about developing runways and airfield assets as that costs money. They prefer to support the 'strip it for all it is worth and don't spend a penny on it' methodology.

Not one of these companies is about true airport development, and I mean development of the real aeronautical type, the type that supports aviation. No they are about cost cutting, executive bonuses and car parking and shopping precincts. That is why Cairns and Mackay airports have lost two runways. GA is being allowed to be destroyed by corporate sharks. The next time a state or federal government sells one  of our airports they should be made to include caveats and conditions within the sale that prevents runways being closed, GA being forced out and to find another home or sent bankrupt. The Government has a lot to answer for along with the hedge fund vultures profiteering from their airport rackets. The government flog the airports off to make a quick buck so that they can try to fix all their financial clusterfu#ks or fund pork barrel promises and buy votes close to election time.

Disgusting Capitalist greed by Wall Street oligarchs such as J.P Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and of course the Rockefeller and Rothschild cartels as supported by the Clintons, Bush and Obama's of this world is what is screwing the 99% of hard working human beings.

Aeroplanes at airports? What fucking Aeroplanes??
Reply

Download MOS 139 from here. Two volumes. Two files.

Volume 1 : Chapters 1 to 8 is 220 pages.

Volume 2 : Chapters 9 to 14 and the Notes is 266 pages.
Reply

(04-01-2017, 09:29 AM)ventus45 Wrote:  A stich in time ?

Notice how the end of Runway 35 has been moved about over the years.  

This was 4th March 2006

[Image: attachment.php?aid=288]

Just saying .....

YMEN , a walk through time in Google Earth.  ( 55 Images - large file - 39 Megabytes )

(04-02-2017, 10:04 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  SBG 02/04/17 - One topic & one topic only


(04-02-2017, 07:33 AM)thorn bird Wrote:  And the head leases say the airports must be maintained in the condition they were in at the signing of the lease.

I would say chopping off a huge length of runway as seen above aint doing that. Same,same Bankstown, closing runway 18/36 and dumping thousands of meters of asbestos contaminated fill on a flood plain to facilitate another DFO.

Then again its amazing what a few political donations can do or promises of future rewards after retirement from public office.


For your interest thorny... Rolleyes
(04-02-2017, 08:09 AM)kharon Wrote:  "A truth that's told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent".


[Image: 8294318-3x2-700x467.jpg]

...Clearly no one wants to responsible for the unholy mess, but what you have above is merely the tip of the iceberg. Since the airports were sold off there have been some breath taking ‘soft’ manipulations and mind bending ‘interpretation’ of the ‘rules’, which, coincidentally suit developers. Muffled hearing, selective blindness and ‘stay out of it’ hints have become the accepted norm. Clearly demonstrated in the Senate committee hearing. The quote of the year comes from the Senator for NSW and, IMO, he is the type of man who likes to find answers to the questions asked, in hard, solid, realistic, testable answers.

120 - AAA - BURSTON - BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

Quote:In regards to Bankstown Airport

a) The Bankstown Airport was leased by the Commonwealth to Bankstown Airport Limited in 1998. The lease agreement contains the following provision:

"Clause 9.1

Subject to clause 9.2 the Lessee must keep and maintain the Airport Site including the Structures in good and substantial repair at all times during the Term (fair wear and tear excepted) and at the expiration or earlier determination of the term, vacate and yield up the Airport Site and the Structures in that state of repair and condition and in accordance with the Lessee's Covenants. The Lessee accepts the full and sole responsibility for the condition, operation, repair, replacement, maintenance and management of the Airport Site including the Structures during the Term."

Despite the clarity and unambiguity of this clause, the following breaches have been allowed to occur;

i. The original 1942 "Heritage" listed building located on Airport Avenue has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. This was the USAF/RAAF Headquarters building in WW2 and after the war it became Headquarters of the RAAF National Service.
ii. The original Male and Female toilet block are in a state of disrepair and have inoperative toilets and can only be described as disgusting. These are the Public Toilets for the major Secondary Airport in New South Wales and as such are a poor advertisement.

What action does the Department plan to take in relation to this clear breach of the lease agreement that the Commonwealth is a signatory to?

b) I now draw your attention to Clause 9.2 of the lease agreement.

"9.2 Maintenance of runways and pavements

The Lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for the safe access by air transport to a standard at the commencement of the Lease."

This condition has clearly been violated with the use of runway 18/36 being discontinued and asbestos-contaminated landfill placed over it.

What authorisation, if any, was given for this condition of the lease to be so clearly disregarded? Please provide documentation.

c) Are you aware that leases to aviation tenants are only being offered on a three year lease basis, containing a relocation clause?

d) Do you accept that this denies a business security of tenure, and prevents them from being able to invest and carry on their business properly?

e) Are you aware that Bankstown Airport Limited has been purchased by First State Superannuation?

f) Are you aware that First State Superannuation has appointed Altis Property Partners to manage Bankstown Airport Limited?

WRITTEN
28/02/2017


MTF...P2 Cool

(04-02-2017, 01:03 PM)MrPeaBody Wrote:  A Little Perspective or a Lot of Stupidity

From the 139 MOS.

“The transitional surface comprises inclined planes that originate at the lower edge from the side of the runway strip (the overall strip), and the side of the approach surface that is below the inner horizontal surface, and finishes where the upper edge is located in the plane of the inner horizontal surface.

The transitional surface slopes upwards and outward at a specified rate and is to be measured in a vertical plane at right angles to the centreline of the runway.”

My understanding for the Essendon runways is that you project a line at 14.3 degrees at right angles to the runway centreline to an altitude of 45 metres (the inner horizontal surface). This line is labelled as the Transitional Line.

The transitional surface is then the sloping plane between the edge of the air strip and the transitional line. According to the MOS “The transitional surface should be used for building height control.”


[Image: attachment.php?aid=289]

So what's happening at the other end.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=290]

(04-02-2017, 01:50 PM)ventus45 Wrote:  Download MOS 139 from here.  Two volumes. Two files.  

Volume 1 : Chapters 1 to 8 is 220 pages.  

Volume 2 : Chapters 9 to 14 and the Notes is 266 pages.
Reply

Every picture tells a story, and rekindles fond memories, which can lead into many related stories.  But allas, I digress.

I an not a Victorian, (Syney sider actually) but I remember, a long time ago, when I was "very young", that I had the pleasure, as a cadet, of "visiting", on "numerous occasions", YSBK, YSSY, YSCN and YSRI.

One "night" on a memorable visit to YSSY, we were briefed on how pilots get around an airport at night, by the then senior ground staff supervisor at YSSY.  The centrepiece of his "presentation", was the YSSY version of THIS !.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=291]

This actually IS the "old" YMEN light board !!

Anyway, us kids were seated, the lights were dimmed, and "the board" came to life !
A lengthy and detailed explanation followed, with every set of lights turned on and off in turn, so that we could see, and gain an understanding of, everything.

Later, we were driven around the airport in a small bus, following an airport contol car, around the hangars, down the taxiways, "one" of the runways, around the perimeter track etc.  

We stopped at the end of one runway, (not the active obviously !!) the head guy grabbed the microphone on the radio in the car, and low and behold, the "tower" then "turned on" the lights, "just for us".  

Such "power" did a bunch of very highly impressionable 13 to 14 year olds have back then !  (Makes you wonder if modern kids would even be interested enough to go though).  Pardon, I degress yet again.

Anyway, the threshold lights were red (just like on the board) when we looked at them, and when we walked around the "end of the keys" we were not amazed to see that they were green on the other side (just like on the board).  The lights down the sides of the runway were all white (just like on the board), etc, etc.

But then (with torches set "on") we filed off, down a dirt path to the "approach lights".

Anyway, you "get the picture".  I have digressed enough.

The "point" of the photograph of the "YMEN board", in the context of the present day, is to show the "perimeter track" (brown in the photograph).

Enough said, (for now).

Reply

A stitch in time saves - five? nine? ten? twenty?  Dodgy

Mr Peabody nails it - well done that man... Wink  

(proverb - if you sort out a problem immediately it may save extra work later.)

(04-02-2017, 06:33 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(04-02-2017, 10:04 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  SBG 02/04/17 - One topic & one topic only


For your interest thorny... Rolleyes

(04-02-2017, 01:03 PM)MrPeaBody Wrote:  A Little Perspective or a Lot of Stupidity

From the 139 MOS.

“The transitional surface comprises inclined planes that originate at the lower edge from the side of the runway strip (the overall strip), and the side of the approach surface that is below the inner horizontal surface, and finishes where the upper edge is located in the plane of the inner horizontal surface.

The transitional surface slopes upwards and outward at a specified rate and is to be measured in a vertical plane at right angles to the centreline of the runway.”

My understanding for the Essendon runways is that you project a line at 14.3 degrees at right angles to the runway centreline to an altitude of 45 metres (the inner horizontal surface). This line is labelled as the Transitional Line.

The transitional surface is then the sloping plane between the edge of the air strip and the transitional line. According to the MOS “The transitional surface should be used for building height control.”


[Image: attachment.php?aid=289]

So what's happening at the other end.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=290]

Continuing on the "V" theme of historical and referring to this week's SBG with the Archerfield overhead and part of Senator Burston's YSBK QON:
(04-02-2017, 08:09 AM)kharon Wrote:  [Image: 8294318-3x2-700x467.jpg]
120 - AAA - BURSTON - BANKSTOWN AIRPORT
Quote:..b) I now draw your attention to Clause 9.2 of the lease agreement.

"9.2 Maintenance of runways and pavements
The Lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for the safe access by air transport to a standard at the commencement of the Lease."

This condition has clearly been violated with the use of runway 18/36 being discontinued and asbestos-contaminated landfill placed over it.
What authorisation, if any, was given for this condition of the lease to be so clearly disregarded? Please provide documentation...

Going back through the substantial PAIN_Net archives I finally stumbled on the Senate Estimates historical reference that the above quotes had pinged in my memory... Rolleyes

Rewind to the 20 October 2014 RRAT Supplementary Estimates Hansard, where Senator Fawcett was questioning the Department's (at the time) Executive Director of the Aviation & Airports Division, Mr Doherty:
Quote:Senator FAWCETT:  Mr Doherty, last estimates I asked you about the planning process, particularly as it applied to Archerfield in terms of calculating runway length. You undertook on notice to look at the process, including CASA's approach, which they had taken on notice just the night before. Did you have a look at CASA's response to that question? (reference May Budget Estimates: AAA AQON & CASA AQON)

Quote:Senator FAWCETT: With a situation like the master plan for Essendon, where they are proposing to shorten runways, the assurance to the aviation community is that it is a process that will be considered. When CASA provides its input to that process, is that the kind of process that your people will be going through to say that the minimum strip length, particularly for those non-transport category aircraft, is not just what the AFM has but it includes all those factors that an operator is required to consider to operate the aircraft safely?

Mr Leeds: Yes, we would be looking at those sorts of things consistent with the ICAO standards for aerodromes but the exact details I would have to take on notice.

Senator FAWCETT: What I am getting at is, if the proponent for a master plan said the AFM says, 'We need 1,000 metres,' that the aircraft operator would be quite legitimately be able to say, 'What CASA requires is the AFM minimum plus the factors,' which might make it 1,200 metres, that that is actually the minimum strip length required or the accelerate stop distance available, as opposed to the 1,000 metres from the AFM.

Mr Leeds: Again, I am not familiar with the exact science. I would have to take that on notice.

Answer:
In relation to a particular aircraft’s suitability to operate to a particular runway at an aerodrome, Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 20.7.4 is applicable to aeroplanes, not above 5700 kg, conducting regular public transport operations (single-engine aeroplanes only), private operations, aerial work operations (excluding agricultural operations ) and charter operations. The take-off distance required can be determined for a level, short, dry, grass surface with factors of between 1.15 and 1.25 applied to the distance in the Aircraft Flight Manual for certain maximum take-off weights.

However, where there is an approved foreign flight manual or manufacturer’s data manual (such as a Pilot’s Operating Handbook) that sets out the take-off distance for that aeroplane, that data may be used. CAO 20.7.4 cautions pilots that the data in some manufacturers’ data manuals are unfactored, and should be treated with caution.
Determining whether the take-off distance available is adequate to ensure safe operation of an aircraft is the responsibility of the pilot in command.


Senator FAWCETT: Could I take you to the Archerfield case, where there was a proposal to change the orientation of one of the grass runways and make it essentially north-south. My understanding is that CASA has endorsed the consultant's calculation of strip length based on the AFM data as opposed to the factored data. Are you able to shed any light on whether CASA did in fact apply the factors so that the end result is a clear indication of what the operator legally has to have to take off and land—with landing it is even greater—or was that advice purely on the AFM data?

Mr McCormick: I will have to take that on notice for Archerfield. We will get back to as soon as we can. I know where you are going with this.

Senator FAWCETT: Okay, take it on notice, but as a principle the operator's requirement is to comply with his ops manual, which has to take into account engine failure situations in terms of the take-off and landing length available.

Mr McCormick: Certainly for the accelerate stop distance available when we are talking about balanced fields length, I should imagine. The grass case is one where I am not too sure what we have said about the grass orientation. I agree with you, and we will take that on notice and get it back to you as soon as possible. We do not have Archerfield in front of us, unfortunately.

Answer:
An airport operator can build a runway to the length they wish and it is the responsibility of the pilot of the aircraft to assess if that length, with the given environmental factors on the day of operation, is adequate for the aircraft to take off and/or land on the runway in question.

CASA advised Archerfield Airport Limited (AAL) that in their report “Archerfield Airport Planning Issues” they calculated the required minimum runway lengths correctly. The recommendations of the report found the most critical aircraft for calculation of minimum runway take-off length, being the Cessna 208B Caravan 1 Super Cargomaster, would only require a minimum 890 metres and AAL allocated a minimum of 900 metres. There was no requirement to factor in the AFM data into the determination of runway length.

Where there is an approved foreign flight manual or manufacturer’s data manual (such as a Pilot’s Operating Handbook) that sets out the take-off distance for that aeroplane, that data may be used. Civil Aviation Order 20.7.4 cautions pilots that the data in some manufacturers’ data manuals are unfactored, and should be treated with caution.

Mr Doherty : At this stage we have not gone through that issue in detail. I think what is important here is that the runway proposal at Archerfield has not been approved at this stage. While it is indicated as their idea in the master plan, it would need to go through major development proposal to be approved.

Senator FAWCETT:  Can I just cut you off in the interests of time. You have got that in your written answer from last time. In the Manual of Standards, part 139, section 6.2.21, says:

The length of a runway must be adequate to meet the operational requirements of the aeroplanes for which the runway is intended

Is it a reasonable assumption that at Archerfield that includes the current fleet of aircraft to operate—things like the King Airs, Navajos, Conquests, that operate out of Archerfield?

Mr Doherty : That is the sort of issue that we would explore in more detail at the MDP.

Senator FAWCETT: Can I put to you CASA's position in their answer on notice. When I quizzed them about whether or not they required the airport to use the factoring, which is the operational requirements pilots have to comply with, CASA's response was:

An airport operator can build a runway to the length they wish and it is the responsibility of the pilot of the aircraft to assess if that length, with the given environmental factors on the day of operation, is adequate for the aircraft to take off and/or land on the runway in question.

If you are relying on CASA to give you assurance that the airport has done its calculations properly, and CASA's view is the airport can do whatever they like and the pilot must adapt, how are you going to enforce the intent of MOS 139 that we do not degrade the capability of an airport? Under that current interpretation by CASA, and what has been proposed at the moment at Archerfield, it would degrade the airport for the operators of at least three of the most common light charter twin aircraft.

Mr Doherty : That would be a concern to us if that was the result. I cannot answer you in detail at this stage, except to say that that is the issue that we would look at in the MDP process. From what you say, it sounds like we would need to be very careful about the question that we asked to make sure that we got advice which gave us a proper answer about whether this is likely to impact the traffic and the future traffic at the airport.

Senator FAWCETT:  As well as asking CASA, would you also ask the operators for input as to what the impact would be on them with the factors that CASA required them to impose upon their operations.

Mr Doherty : One part of the MDP process is a consultation with stakeholders—and the public, for that matter—in the process, and we would welcome that sort of input from the operators about the effect that a proposal would have on their operations and their aspirations for the airport.

Senator FAWCETT:  Can you give any guarantee to this committee that, if that feedback indicated the proposed change would degrade the operational capability of the airport, that approval would not be granted?

Mr Doherty : I can only indicate what I think is the inclination of us as the department who would be providing advice. At the end of the day the decision rests with the minister, and I cannot speculate about the range of issues that might come into play.

Senator FAWCETT:  But would you recommend an MDP be approved if it degraded the operational capability of an airport?

Mr Doherty : I think I have indicated my previous answer that we certainly would be looking to maintain the capacity of the airport.

Senator FAWCETT:  Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: The risk is to aviation generally because the land is worth more if you put units and factories on it than land aeroplanes on it. The long-term corporate interest of the owner might mean, bugger it, we do not need the planes. We really do need to put some thought into how we are going to protect the long-term future of general aviation. The Bankstown crosswind issue is a really good example—'It just snuck up on us.' Anyhow, we will come to that. Thank you very much. We will move on to Airservices Australia.
    
Or in pictures:



All for the record of course - Rolleyes



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

P2; "All for the record of course"

For the record, agreed. I just hope it isn't dejavu for Archerfield.

“K” - I hope it is – a Senate inquiry into airport development – Boy, oh boy, I’d pay good money to see that – Archerfied remastered in Dolby stereo as the starter, Essendon for dessert. Yum yum......
Reply

Hot off the press from news.com.au.

Jeez mate, what do you expect, they have to find the money to pay the obscene bonuses enjoyed by McBank exec's.

Aint Australia grand, flog our airports to a dodgy bank for 5 billion. Bank borrows eight billion creating a massive debt that didn't exist, then uses artificial debt servicing as an excuse to funnel vast sums of money into offshore tax havens thus avoiding the inconvenience of paying tax. Guv'mint gets a nice pile of cash, off the books, to squander on whatever, without adding to the deficit, and who pays?? poor old taxpayer. Bad deal I reckon, it would have been cheaper to borrow the money if they needed cash rather than give McBank a massive profit centre.

Our wonderfully inept bureaucrats gift a dodgy bank a monopoly cash cow with no oversight or control

and people wonder why our airports are crap, it aint the fault of the tenants or users people, they have to make a buck as well. Bugger the people of Australia.


OPINION.  Dom Knight is a writer, broadcaster and co-founder of The Chaser. Continue the conversation on Twitter @domknight

I COULDN’T believe it when I saw an iPhone charger retailing for $62.95 this week. Until I discovered it was on sale at Sydney Airport. Travel through our transport showpiece, and you’ll probably feel like you’re trapped in a queuing hell where everyone’s hassling you to buy expensive scotch — and after a while, you’ll probably buy it to drink on the spot.
Sydney Airport’s about to appoint a new chief executive — which seems like the perfect time to make a few suggestions to improve the customer experience from woeful to tolerable.
Because maybe we’d all spend more money at the airport if we, the customers, felt appreciated instead of exploited?

THE TAXI QUEUE
Have you ever queued for a cab at the international terminal? While you slowly navigate through Disneyland-style snaking barriers to be paired up with your driver, you’ll spy a line of literally hundreds of cabs stretching off in the distance, as far as you can see.
But you can’t just walk up to one. You have to wait, because they haven’t built a big enough interchange for the two enormous queues to meet. So instead, demand and supply are left to stare wistfully at one another.
And if that experience wasn’t frustrating enough, the airport somehow has the right to charge you an extra $4.25 on top of your fare. Why does that particular patch of road warrant a surcharge that’s applied nowhere else in Sydney? I assume it’s a monopoly thing — it’s certainly not going towards a terrific cab rank.

THE TRAIN RIP OFF
This one’s more on Transport for NSW — but the airport train is a breathtaking rip off. They’ll charge you a $13.80 “station access fee” on top of the train fare, making it cheaper to take a cab from the city for two or more passengers in a city that desperately needs to get cars off the road.
Airport lines around the world often have steep fees — but that’s when there’s a special express train, not a regular suburban train travelling ten minutes from the city. The airport trains don’t even have luggage racks — they’re a nightmare with a big suitcase.

THE PARKING RIP OFF
Holy hell, it’s expensive to park at the airport. At the international terminal, it starts at $9 for half an hour — barely enough time to see your loved one to customs and back, given how far you park from the terminal. An hour costs $18.50, and it goes up to $60.50 for the day — comparable to a discount flight to Melbourne.
You can pre-book parking for cheaper rates, but then you need to accurately estimate how long you need, which doesn’t account for delays — and if you over-estimate, of course you’ll still pay. Or, if you’re literally made of money, why not use valet? It starts at $45 (for two hours).
Parking at Sydney Airport will make you appreciate the bargain rates for the train and taxis.

DUTY FREE
Sure, the airport prices sometimes seem lower because they’re not charging you GST, but you’re almost always paying the full RRP before they take off that 10%.
But it’s on the items with higher taxes where you often really feel the pinch. Bollinger Special Cuvée champagne is currently $69 at the airport’s Heinemann duty-free outlet — or $61 at Dan Murphy’s, despite the GST and the excise!
Oh, and remember that phone charger?
Oh, and remember that phone charger?Source:imgur

THE LONG AND WINDING RETAIL ROAD
There used to be multiple entry points, so you could take to the nearest entrance and end up near your gate — but now everyone has to trudge along the one complex path through that massive retail area where sales assistants hassle you to try perfume samples when you’re rushing to the gate.

I’ve never been to any other international airport that herds its passengers through the middle of a department store. Personally, I’m always so irritated by these forced detours that I resist buying from airport retailers even if I need something.

In other major airports, like Singapore or Hong Kong, they’re constantly looking for ways to make the trip from check in to gate quicker, installing little trains and travelators. Whereas Sydney Airport’s architects clearly have extensive experience in labyrinth design. Every redesign seems to make it more complicated.

The Sydney International Airport's duty free store might be the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere, but we don’t appreciate being forced to walk through it.
The Sydney International Airport's duty free store might be the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere, but we don’t appreciate being forced to walk through it.Source:Supplied

FOREIGN EXCHANGE FEES
I always withdraw from ATMs at the destination, because I don’t trust the cash rates at those “convenient” counters dotted throughout the terminal — here’s a detailed analysis of how to beat the fees. But imagine an alternative universe where those who like to deal in cash could walk away from those counters feeling like they hadn’t been scammed!

EXORBITANTLY PRICED FOOD AND DRINK
Very few people plan to eat at the airport, where mediocre food at exorbitant prices is the norm. Some fast food chains keep their airport prices consistent, but everyone else seems to think that airports magically warrant higher prices. Just on Sunday I was astonished to find one of those FNG bars, which costs between $4 and $4.50 at my local cafes, for an astounding $8.90 at a cafe in the Qantas domestic terminal. No delicious snack for me.

It’s almost enough to make you consider shelling out $895 to join the Qantas Club. But don’t calculate how much you’ll pay per visit — it’s a lot even if you travel weekly.

IS THE AIRPORT FOR CUSTOMERS, RETAILERS OR SHAREHOLDERS?
Sydney Airport is the first experience visitors have of our city. So it’s the perfect preparation for a place that has crummy infrastructure, and wants to charge you a fortune to use it. It’s lucky we have amazing beaches, wildlife and food to keep the visitors coming, because we certainly haven’t made any other aspect of the experience of arriving here pleasant.

Whereas if you live here, your overseas trip may well take you through one of the world’s great efficient, modern airports, where they respect your time, don’t rip you off or force you into a department store, and generally try to deliver a great experience.
And, oh, how you’ll notice the difference when you get back to ours.
Reply

(03-15-2017, 12:07 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Now for the aviation & airports good news - YES WE CAN - stories... Wink :

Quote:Reversing regional decline: Riverina locals doing it for themselves

[Image: 223e53c7edab5cb2b4e32253917debcf?width=650]Dimity and Sally Demamiel outside their general store in Darlington Point, in western NSW’s Riverina district. Picture: James Croucher

[Image: 7d65920d2be3906b85800d3e69da57a7?width=650]Larry Walsh at the state-of-the-art ethanol plant he is about to start operating outside Coleambally, NSW. Picture: James Croucher.
[/url][url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/reversing-regional-decline-riverina-locals-doing-it-for-themselves/news-story/fc115f0c7c68862f972bd872e3ecf5ea#]
Ean Higgins
The Australian
12:00AM March 3, 2017
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Quote:..Further big plans in the Riverina, all essentially about magnifying and expanding the value of the region’s agricultural production, are on the drawing boards.


Edward River Council, which has amalgamated the Deniliquin and Conargo local government areas, has signed a memorandum of understanding with Queensland transport and logistics group Wagners to build a 2km runway at Deniliquin’s airport.

The plan is to use Airbus A320 cargo planes to fly mainly agricultural products to Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport, near Toowoomba, a major new airfreight field, where the products will be put on cargo jumbos and shipped overseas.

The goal, in particular, is to sell fresh produce from the Riverina into Southeast Asia.
“It gives us a direct link to Asia from this district,” said Edward River Council’s acting director of economic development and business, John Harvie, a former local mayor.

There’s a lot happening in the Riverina: visionary entrepreneurship, innovation, a hunt for export opportunities, new jobs.

It’s just the sort of thing Malcolm Turnbull has been talking up since he became Prime Minister.

Though unevenly spread, the new business activity is starting to reverse a profound regional decline since the millennium drought and the global financial crisis.
Never­theless, the widespread feeling in the Riverina community is that the upturn is not because of state and federal ­government intervention but ­despite it.

And today, also via the Biz Oz  Wink :
Quote:
Quote:Ex-refugee’s $2bn airport plan

[Image: 9e6f61ab7383ec60620b6c0124c286ed]12:00amROWAN CALLICK

A former Afghan refugee businessman is in talks to finance a $2bn private airport in Melbourne.

[Image: 5f1a8cf7f2d01f9c623ebe195a893c09]Toowoomba’s Brisbane West Wellcamp airport. Picture: Glenn Hunt

Like chalk & cheese - A strange dichotomy indeed, on the one hand an out of control aviation safety & infrastructure bureaucracy; on the other entrepreneurial business world with innovators and investors prepared to put money where their mouth's are to back up their ideas for aviation infrastructure in this country... Rolleyes

Update: Wagners leading the way... Wink

Via the Oz:
Quote:Riverina hopes airport plan will bear fruit
Sue Neales
The Australian
12:00AM April 10, 2017
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/55351b1bbc8a8010c3b5f636c619a819/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
The Riverina district is in a battle to be the first southern region to build a new airport dedicated to flying high-value fresh and chilled food and farm produce to Asia.
A high-profile meeting will be held in Deniliquin today, with Queensland property developer and the owner of Australia’s newest private airport at Toowoomba, John Wagner, throwing his support behind a new $15 million freight airport for Deniliquin.

Mr Wagner said he envisaged his Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport­ at Toowoomba becoming a fresh freight hub supplied from smaller specialist regional airports in rich farming districts around Australia, as well as being serviced by the proposed $10 billion inland rail link. Deniliquin is seeking $5m from the federal Building Better Regions­ Fund to get the project off the ground, with hopes of matched funding from the NSW government and local council.

It wants to replace its small existing­ airport — not large enough for regular passenger flights — with a 2km runway capable­ of accommodating fully loaded Airbus 320 freight aircraft.

Mr Wagner said he had not committed his own money towards­ Deniliquin’s lofty ambitions — building Wellcamp airport­ cost him $100m — but backed the concept­ of foodbowl regions such as the Riverina-Murray Valley district building smaller regional freight airports to channel greater volumes of fresh food into the central Wellcamp hub and on to Asian markets.

Deniliquin must compete with Victorian government and Fox family plans to build a $140m dedicated freight airport in northern Victoria — likely to be near eith­er Shepparton or Bendigo — with flights direct to Asia, completel­y bypassing Wellcamp.

Cathay Pacific flies weekly 747 planeloads of chilled meat, fresh fruit and vegetables from the Darling Downs into Hong Kong.

Mr Wagner is hopeful more weekly freight flights will soon be scheduled to Shanghai and other Chinese cities.

Deniliquin’s Edward River Coun­cil administrator Ashley Hall said creating a food-freight air hub would bolster the local economy with much-needed jobs and new export opportunities.


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Tell 'im 'e's dreamin' -   Dodgy




(03-31-2017, 12:02 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
(03-31-2017, 11:55 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  
Quote:Index and Answers to Questions on Notice (uploaded when available)

Quote:120 - AAA - BURSTON - BANKSTOWN AIRPORT

In regards to Bankstown Airport

a) The Bankstown Airport was leased by the Commonwealth to Bankstown Airport Limited in 1998. The lease agreement contains the following provision:

"Clause 9.1

Subject to clause 9.2 the Lessee must keep and maintain the Airport Site including the Structures in good and substantial repair at all times during the Term (fair wear and tear excepted) and at the expiration or earlier determination of the term, vacate and yield up the Airport Site and the Structures in that state of repair and condition and in accordance with the Lessee's Covenants. The Lessee accepts the full and sole responsibility for the condition, operation, repair, replacement, maintenance and management of the Airport Site including the Structures during the Term."

Despite the clarity and unambiguity of this clause, the following breaches have been allowed to occur;
i. The original 1942 "Heritage" listed building located on Airport Avenue has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. This was the USAF/RAAF Headquarters building in WW2 and after the war it became Headquarters of the RAAF National Service.
ii. The original Male and Female toilet block are in a state of disrepair and have inoperative toilets and can only be described as disgusting. These are the Public Toilets for the major Secondary Airport in New South Wales and as such are a poor advertisement.

What action does the Department plan to take in relation to this clear breach of the lease agreement that the Commonwealth is a signatory to?

b) I now draw your attention to Clause 9.2 of the lease agreement.

"9.2 Maintenance of runways and pavements

The Lessee must maintain the runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for the safe access by air transport to a standard at the commencement of the Lease."

This condition has clearly been violated with the use of runway 18/36 being discontinued and asbestos-contaminated landfill placed over it.

What authorisation, if any, was given for this condition of the lease to be so clearly disregarded? Please provide documentation.

c) Are you aware that leases to aviation tenants are only being offered on a three year lease basis, containing a relocation clause?

d) Do you accept that this denies a business security of tenure, and prevents them from being able to invest and carry on their business properly?

e) Are you aware that Bankstown Airport Limited has been purchased by First State Superannuation?

f) Are you aware that First State Superannuation has appointed Altis Property Partners to manage Bankstown Airport Limited?

WRITTEN
28/02/2017


113 - CASA - XENOPHON - ESSENDON DFO APPROVAL

Senator XENOPHON: Do you know when the building next to Essendon airport that was involved in the tragedy was approved ?

Mr Carmody: DFO was approved in 2004.

Senator XENOPHON: What role did CASA have in respect of that approval? Did you have any input into that?

Mr Carmody: I think our advice was sought, and it would normally be sought on these sorts or things?

Senator XENOPHON: What was your advice?

Mr Carmody: I am not sure. Can we take it on notice?

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Tiede, do you remember what your advice was?

Mr Carmody: Mr Tiede was not with us either. But I make the point Mr Tiede made before: the DFO, in terms of that runway, would be outside of the obstacle limitation surface parameter.
If we had provided advice we would probably have provided advice that on that runway the DFO construction would be fine.

Senator XENOPHON: But the obstacle limitation constraints are quite different from the matters raised in numerous academic papers around the world, who say that there ought to be a public safety zones policy in respect of where you locate buildings in the event that there is an engine failure. In fact, no less than Senator Fawcett, with his background in aviation, did raise these issues of the ATSB back in the May 2012 estimates in respect of power loss or complete engine failure, so it is not as though this is something that has not been raised in the context of this process by no less than Senator Fawcett almost five years ago.

Mr Carmody: I can provide a response to that on notice and provide as much detail as I can.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you tell us what information CASA was provided with and what role did it have in respect of the development of Essendon Airport a number of years ago, and also I note an article in the Herald Sun on 21 February by Claire Bickers, which asserts that Australia has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, and there is no such legislation here. Is that your understanding?

Mr Carmody: I think Mr Tiede outlined that before—the only legislation is in Queensland. But I would want to check that. I would be happy to respond to that on notice.

115
27/02/2017



114 - CASA - O’SULLIVAN(CHAIR) - SAFETY ADVICE

CHAIR: Do you think they might labour under the honest but mistaken belief that from time to time you might create advice and give it to the government of the day and indicate that perhaps they should look seriously at measures that might enhance air safety?

Mr Carmody: Certainly, Senator.

CHAIR: All right. In the history of CASA, are you able to tell us whether ever this question has been visited upon and advice been developed and given to any government at any time?

Mr Carmody: I would have to take it on notice. All I can say is that we provide advice on safety all of the time, but public safety zones at the ends of runways, I am just not certain about. I know that we provide comment on airport master development plans and all of the changes to the federally-leased airports on a regular basis, so we are in that space; that is what we do. But I am just trying to work out how far this public safety zone requirement would extend.
 

Still no sign of the AQON - see HERE - but given the due date has been extended to 26 April and the list of QON has grown with some very sticky questions (like those from Senator Burston above), I guess we can cut M&M and his minions a bit of slack... Confused

However if M&M (& CO) think that means he will quietly O&O his part in the YMEN DFO accident causal chain, "tell him he's dreaming" - The Castle 1997.

NX quote: "...also I note an article in the Herald Sun on 21 February by Claire Bickers, which asserts that Australia has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways, unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, and there is no such legislation here..."

Reference article:
Quote:[Image: a9df69c79b37776a7c46b236108fa8e7?width=1024]There are no restrictions on how close development can be to airport runways, raising questions about safety after today’s crash at Essendon Airport. Picture Alex Coppel.
Why are there no rules about how close developments can be to airport runways
Claire Bickers, National Political Reporter, News Corp Australia Network
February 21, 2017 6:41pm

AUSTRALIA currently has no guidelines on buffer zones to limit development around airport runways.

Unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, which have implemented public safety zones, Australia has no State or Commonwealth legislation that restricts development based on the risk of an aircraft crash.

Master plans for Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth airports for the next 20 years do not contain public safety zones (PSZ).

A National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group has signalled that it will consider creating guidelines for the zones but as yet none have been published.

[Image: 0b7ef61efa1e3ef9361bc7b97bb574e2?width=650]Essendon Airport has one of the closest off-airport developments of any airport in Australia. Picture: David Caird

PSZs would restrict building within a certain distance from the takeoff and landing end of a runway, with calculations based on the statistical chance of a fatal crash at the particular location.

Essendon Airport, where five people were tragically killed today when a charter plane crashed into a nearby Direct Factory Outlet, has the one of the closest off-airport developments of any airport in Australia.

The DFO complex is within 500m of the runway.

[Image: 067c8f8af92faee1d23a82d25884ba3b?width=650]A policeman photographs a plane wheel on the freeway. Picture: AFP

Moorabbin Airport in Victoria also has a DFO and an indoor children's’ play centre within about 500m of the runway, Bankstown in NSW has a Bunnings within about 500m of the runway, and Adelaide Airport has a Harbour Town within 500m of the runway.

[Image: bc4e2b0f7d42ebc7777308b8f5206220?width=650]The masterplan for Sydney Airport contains no public safety zones.

According to the Sydney masterplan for development to 2033: “no legislation or guidelines exist at a federal or state level governing permissible land uses with respect to aircraft crash risk.”

Perth airport’s masterplan contains a similar reference.

“An aircraft crash is an extremely rare event,” the Perth plan states.

[b]RELATED: Australia’s aviation history littered with tragedies
[/b]
“There is currently no legislation or guidelines at a Commonwealth or State level governing permissible land use taking into account the risk of aircraft crash.

“Off-airport land use zoning falls within the jurisdiction of the state government.”

Adelaide airport’s masterplan notes that the South Australian Government is considering the inclusion of suitable PSZs at the end of runways to “limit development to landscaped buffers or other development that does not generate large numbers of people gathering in one place”.

[Image: 2bb90f8a569706bfb8d4baef11e97082?width=650]A gaping burnt out hole remains in the side of the DFO complex at Essendon Airport after a charter plane crashed just after take off. Picture: Stuart McEvoy

Meanwhile, more than 30 of the UK’s 125 licensed airports have public safety zones.

PSZs at Heathrow, the world’s sixth busiest airport, extend from between 489m to 1412m depending on the runway and are reviewed every seven years to remain in line with the level of traffic.

[Image: 05155cb4486575dd1b81af7d05edb916?width=650]An aerial photograph of Bankstown Airport. There’s a Bunnings Warehouse just 500 metres from the runway. Picture: Kelly Rohan

The National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group established a National Airports Safeguarding Framework for Australia in 2012 but it has yet to include guidelines for public safety zones.

To date, the framework covers:
— measures for managing aircraft noise
— the risk of building generated windshear and turbulence at airports
— the risk of wildlife strikes in the vicinity of airports
— the risk of wind turbine farms as physical obstacles to air navigation
— the risk of distractions to pilots from lighting in the vicinity of airports
— the risk of intrusions into the protected operational airspace of airports
— and the protection of Communications, Navigation and Surveillance infrastructure.

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has been contacted for comment
.

"..Master plans for Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth airports for the next 20 years do not contain public safety zones (PSZ).

A National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group has signalled that it will consider creating guidelines for the zones but as yet none have been published..."


Ah yes the NASAG, a thought bubble with good intentions, birthed by Albo & the Rudd government in their 'Great White Elephant' aviation paper. Unfortunately, like a lot of thought bubbles designed to 'close the loop' on identified dormant but serious safety issues, they invariably get lost in the self-serving bureaucratic process.

To highlight this normalised deficiency in bureaucratic process, the following Senate Hansard extract from Senator Fawcett nearly 2 years ago, in a 2nd reading debate on a previous Airport Amendments bill:
Quote:...It is that long-term planning that I would like to turn to now.


I give credit to the former government for their aviation green paper and the white paper and the NASAG process that came out of that, which is the safeguarding of our airports process. It is the whole idea of trying to get co-operation between the federal government, state governments and local governments around planning permissions to safeguard airports. I am a little disappointed that it seems to have plateaued and the hard work of taking the policy concept and implementing it appears to have stalled. That may not all be the federal government's fault. It takes cooperation from states and local governments as well to make those things happen. We are seeing a lot of discussion with the Federation white paper and the COAG processes. I think both sides of politics suffer the frustration of our three levels of government and sometimes not being able to drive very good common sense ideas through. But can I say that NASAG and the process of protecting our airports and the airspace that goes with them are things that we do need in the national interest to get some alignment between the federal government, of whichever political persuasion, and the state and local governments. Why? Because it is important to our economy and it is important to lots of social functions—things like banking, mail services and medical services. Where we do not protect airports and the airspace, we will see a degradation in the ability of the aviation industry to service Australia in the manner in which we have become accustomed. The reason it is important for this process to be in place is that I frequently come across people at both local and state government levels who are interested in developing their communities, and I fully understand and appreciate that. Whether it is housing close to airports or large high-rise buildings in a capital city that infringe into the airspace,—the PANS-OPS criteria—those things have a direct impact on the viability of airlines to carry the kind of loads they look at.

In South Australia, for example, there was a great deal of contention a year or so back when people looked at the height of the city buildings and complained about what they called the archaic regulations that stopped us having even higher buildings. There was quite some discussion in the media about that and a bit of a head of steam developing in that these were really archaic rules, we should change them and we should have higher buildings. People did not realise that the height limits were actually related to operations out of the airport. If you were taking off from Adelaide Airport on the north-easterly runway and were flying on a cloudy day with a low-cloud base or by night and you had an engine failure in a large transport aircraft with passengers or cargo, then the airspace has to allow for the worst-case in terms of your performance and your climb configuration for you to control the emergency and then return the aircraft to the airfield. If you build higher buildings, then the aircraft has to be able to out-climb the worst-case, which is an intersection with that building. This means that the operators are constrained to carrying less fuel, which means that they go a shorter distance, or they have to off-load passengers or cargo. Eventually, you start constraining the operations to the point where airlines are not prepared to actually service that centre.

The long-term planning that NASAG envisaged is something that is really important for us to get into place. We have seen some benefits with Western Sydney in how the site was originally identified as early as 1969. As a result, the Australian government acquired a site of approximately 1,700 acres over the next decade or so. Land that has been reserved is now having very tangible inputs. For example, around noise and curfew, the fact that those long-term planning restrictions have been associated with that land has largely protected it from incompatible residential development. That means that the typical noise footprint for aircraft does not affect the same number of people it would if unencumbered building had been allowed in those areas. It is going to affect only around 3,900 residents, whereas a similar noise footprint at Kingsford Smith affects nearly 130,000 residents.

Technology for aircraft is getting better, particularly with precision vertical navigation options. Australia is now one of the greatest users, particularly at Kingsford Smith airport. That and new generation aircraft with high-bypass ratio engines, with a low-noise signature, means that we can get higher volumes of traffic into airports. The point I am trying to make here is that long-term planning that allowed us to set aside that land is now going to have a very tangible benefit. That means Western Sydney Airport will be capable of having 24-hour operations. It will not necessarily have to have a curfew. The planning, combined with advancing technology, gives great capability which will benefit our economy and the number of jobs that can grow at Western Sydney Airport.

As we look at these kinds of developments and the threats enveloping other airports—and in your own state, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you would have seen media recently about Perth Airport and concerns about residential development—there are great concerns around incompatible development. Certainly, there are great concerns as I look at places like Archerfield, Bankstown and Jandakot in Western Australia. I just want to lay out, again, for both sides of politics that, for all levels of government, whether we do it through the Reform of the federation white paper or through the COAG process, we need to get on top of the NASAG concepts. I would argue that we even need to extend it to include what the Queensland government has, which are areas set aside in the approach and take-off paths of runway which allow for the fact that many secondary airports service single-engine aircraft with trainees. There is a danger that, if you have a failure, then, obviously, aircraft can come down in the area. Queensland has done a very good job of quarantining, if you like, a splay at the end of a runway. That is something we should be looking at more on a national basis.

So it is an important process, and I would certainly encourage state and local government associations to look at how they can work constructively with the federal government and realise that this is not just about a loss of rates they may suffer if they cannot build a particular subdivision of housing right next to an airport. If they look at the broader impact, the direct jobs associated with an airport and, also, what the airport enables in terms of tourism, in terms of business travel and, particularly, in terms of export for so many of our small- to medium-sized businesses, the economic impact on the state of having a reduced capability in that airport would be extreme. We really do need to take a long-term view around the issues of airport planning.
 
Or if you prefer (2 segments) in pictures... Wink


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

The Height or the Depth of Stupidity..... that is the Question?


Lets have a look at the numbers 1, 2 and 3 below.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=294]

View 1 is  roughly what the pilot of the aircraft would have been looking toward when that first kick of the rudder that "K" pointed to in an earlier post occurred. To give some perspective, the checks painted on the building are 1.7m high; that's 10.2m to the top of the painted area. Then add an additional 3 to 4 metres for the bill boards and other intrusions.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=295]

View 2 is Dan Murphy's. You can make out a white delivery van; the height of the van is approx. 2m. And Dan's is wholly on the strip!

[Image: attachment.php?aid=296]

View 3 is roughly in line with the path over flying Dan's. Note those painted checks.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=297]

Could these views be construed as distractive given the situation?? Confused

It will be interesting to see the QON 113 response from CASA!!

P7 - Choc frog MrP; thanks for the effort...



Dodgy


Attached Files
.jpg Essendon TL3.jpg Size: 195.92 KB  Downloads: 181
.jpg P1030542.JPG Size: 166 KB  Downloads: 180
.jpg P1030540.JPG Size: 165.5 KB  Downloads: 179
.jpg P1030539.JPG Size: 172.5 KB  Downloads: 177
Reply

Fatal attractions.

Thanks Mr. P; CF overruled – Tim Tam awarded instead. But, what a headscratcher this becoming. So many differing points of view – after the fact. One certain fact is that the buildings are there now, which probably opens up a monster can of juicy worms for the legal eagles; the insurance company’s, the corporation’s, the airport’s, the operator’s and the government’s.  All of that before the ‘plaintive’ team get into the game. The parcel passing music must long and loud by now, the speed breath-taking.  

Someone ‘approved’ those buildings. Should those building be deemed ‘illegal’ and a danger then the ramifications are the stuff of legal nightmare. Somehow, not only at Essendon, this aggressive intrusion into ‘airport’ airspace has been allowed to creep in, unchecked and unbalanced. There’ll be hell to pay if the buildings need to be demolished; mind you, those buildings will have crumbled to dust long before the legal battles are over.

Someone ‘approved’ the rules which allowed those buildings to exist where they are. Someone signed off on the ‘master plan’ for the aerodrome and took a big gamble. What are the chances of aircraft smashing into buildings? Not great, I’ll grant you; however, here we sit looking at the wreckage.

[Image: 1491813940129.png]

It is a shame that airport development has been so grossly manipulated and badly managed. Done properly, it is an advantage to aviation; provided some of the profit is reinvested in the airport itself. Makes perfectly good sense to utilize ‘vacant’ space for ‘commercial’ purposes. What does not make sense is putting those facilities in harms way, taking the chance of another accident occurring or even playing the numbers game and hoping an ailing aircraft lands on the roof next door.

Just for the moment, let's set aside ‘operational’ matters and consider the implications of unfettered, aggressive development. As it stands right now, justification for placing a McDonalds ‘taxi-through’ outlet adjacent to a taxiway could happen as the ‘creeping’ inward of development happens. Aircraft being squeezed into ever tighter confines; reduced loads, increased performance risks and the ‘spin’ that the airport is too close to the buildings being accepted as correct.

What then? To whom may aircraft operators address their legitimate concerns? Certainly not CASA, definitely not ATSB and absolutely not to the DoIT. America, Britain and lots of Europe have development about the aerodrome; lots of. But they have rules. You could not; not in a million, build there in the way Essendon is being developed. One chance in ten to the minus three seems like great odds until a King Air fireball lands on the roof and the legal costs far outweigh any saving and the compensation claims outstrip profit. Will the government act to ensure the safety of people shopping within the active precincts of an operational runway? Do not hold your breath; they’ll be scampering about saying ‘not my fault’. It’s a ducking shambles, a dangerous, grubby, cynical shambles.

Sorry Mr. P, I digress; ramble over. P2 and I were having the ‘distraction’ discussion the other day, even Pygmalion got a mention. Inconclusive, was probably the best result. Personally, I can’t see that a structure (obstacle) that close to the runway would ‘distract’. At many airports around the world there are all manner of impediments, both man made and natural; Hong Kong (old) for example, or even Townsville. Rocks and trees and stuff have always been there to be dealt with as best you may. Provided the aircraft is fully functional and reasonable precautions are taken then all should be well. It’s when things are not normal that the wheels tend to come off; and, distraction comes in many forms. Take the Dash 8 crash which occurred because both pilots were fussing about the undercarriage as a classic; many, many similar tales are available for consideration. What are the odds of having a PT6 quit at just the right time, at just the right place, with a building in just the right spot, at just the right height to be lethal. Then consider the chances of a pilot harbouring a deep seated ‘self fulfilling prophesy’ that one day he may hit those buildings. The odds are astronomical; however…

Murphy (not Dan) flies with all of us, ever present.

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_032917_113634_AM.jpg]

Toot toot.
Reply

Some interesting tidbits in the 2013 master plan, as signed off by the scabby headed dishonourable Warren Trus;

http://www.essendonairport.com.au/planning/masterplan

I haven't had a chance to go through the older 2008 - 2013 master plan, yet, where the DFO concept was born.

Tick Tock
Reply

Airports update: The bad & the good - possibly Huh

Slight change of tack, first with another potentially embarrassing PFOS/PFOA contamination story, this time in Brisvegas... Confused :
Quote:
Quote:Foam leaks spark fish warning

[Image: 2f6657e60d74ff443e17bd979ab021a7]12:00amSEAN PARNELL

Firefighting foam has leaked out of a Qantas hangar at Brisbane Airport, potentially contaminating nearby waterways.

[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/eea199fb46693fd5d9004e6a1df49130/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]A controversial firefighting foam leaked out of a Qantas hangar at Brisbane Airport, potentially contaminating nearby waterways before the long weekend.

About 22,000 litres of the foam, believed to have contained perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, was released as a result of a sprinkler system fault within the hangar on Monday night.

While about three-quarters of the foam was contained, the likely seepage into the surrounding environment prompted health authorities to warn recreational fishers of the risk of a contaminated catch.

The warnings extend from the Bulimba Creek to Fisherman Island and north to Shorncliffe. Fortunately, they do not cover areas used by commercial fishers, given the annual Easter seafood boom, however it is another disruption to an industry already reeling from the white spot prawn crisis.

Queensland Environment Minister Steven Miles described the spill as “very substantial” and said it should be a reminder to industries to dispose of foams containing PFOA.

While Queensland is phasing out PFOA use, its ban does not apply to the Qantas hangar because it is on commonwealth land at the airport.

Dr Miles stopped short of blaming Qantas for the spill, but said the department would use “all of its powers” to ensure appropriate penalties were applied if necessary. “This is a chemical that has caused concern worldwide,” the Minister said.

Queensland’s chief health officer, Dr Jeannette Young, said there was “no consistent evidence” that exposure posed a threat to humans but avoiding seafood caught in the area was a necessary precaution.

Concerns that firefighting foam containing PFOA had contaminated the environment around seven Defence bases — and possibly 12 more — recently prompted a massive investigation that included groundwater and resident blood tests.
  
And then the (potentially) good story on the 2nd Sydney airport project.
Via the Oz:
Quote:
Quote:Coalition locks in Badgerys ‘Plan B’

[Image: b705f577665b8e40b4319958588279cf]12:00amSIMON BENSON

The Turnbull government has ­finalised funding contingency plans to build Sydney’s $6 billion second airport.

The Turnbull government has ­finalised funding contingency plans to build Sydney’s $6 billion second airport, amid expectations that Sydney Airport Corporation is unlikely to take up the May 8 deadline offer to build and operate Badgerys Creek.

The Weekend Australian understands the government has modelled several funding options, including one based on the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme, in which the government would become the principal shareholder in a company set up to operate the ­airport.

An off-budget NBN Co-style model is also on the table. Under a government business enterprise model any debt raised to build and operate the airport would be offset by the government retaining equity in the airport, meaning it would not be included under normal budget spending.

It would also give the government the option to sell the airport, which would represent a significant piece of national economic infrastructure, once it is operational and passenger volumes guarantee commercial returns.

Sources have confirmed that the government is preparing for an almost immediate start to construction, with a timetable of next year for major earthmoving works to begin.

It is likely that an announcement on the government’s plans, which would end Sydney Airport’s stranglehold monopoly on commercial air travel in Sydney, would be announced shortly after the May 9 budget.

The industry is widely anticipating that the Sydney Airport Corporation, under its parent company Southern Cross Airport Corporation Holdings, will not take on the project. The deadline for a decision is due on the day ­before the budget.

Sydney Airport Corporation has argued that Badgerys Creek is not commercially viable without significant government assistance.

The government has refused to provide any funding for a ­private-sector operation, arguing that it is offering a “once-in-a-generation” deal for a 99-year lease on a 1700ha greenfield site in western Sydney, with a full airport masterplan that had passed every environmental and regulatory hurdle.

It is also spending $3.6bn on a western Sydney infrastructure plan for “ground transport connectivity” to the airport, including a scoping study for a metro rail line from the CBD to Badgerys Creek.

Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher issued a notice of intention to SAC in January giving it until May 8 to notify the government of its intention.

Mr Fletcher has previously said that the government began planning late last year for the possibility that responsibility for construction would fall to the government.

He said the government ­“certainly had the capacity” to fund the airport.

When Sydney’s main airport, Kingsford Smith, was privatised in 2002 its market capitalisation was about $5bn. It is now three times that amount.

“It’s in the hands of Sydney Airport Corporation,” Mr Fletcher said. “If it chooses to take up the right, it will build and operate; if it doesn’t, then we stand ready to do so.”

Under the 2002 privatisation contract of Kingsford Smith Airport at Mascot, the company was granted first rights for the construction of a second airport in the Sydney basin.

The plan the government drew up sets a strict mandated timetable for the construction of the airport to ensure start of operations by 2026. “Failure to meet” milestone deadlines include significant ­financial penalties.

Airlines are believed to favour the government option over concerns that Southern Cross Airport Corporation Holdings would be handed an expanded monopoly should it decide to build Badgerys Creek, leaving no competition to bring down what are commonly regarded as excessive landing fees.

Sydney Airport said it was still in the process of evaluating the ­notice of intention and would try to meet the May 8 deadline.

It is expected that Sydney Airport Corporation will push the government for expanded runway operations at Kingsford Smith and changes to the curfew, arguing that Badgerys Creek would be a 24/7 airport.

An industry source said that Sydney Airport had expected the government would partly subsidise construction of the new airport but was “blindsided” when this was ruled out. The notice of ­intention issued by the government required that the airport needed to have at least one 3.7km runway, capable of landings for an A380, with a terminal capable of meeting passenger movements of 10 million a year.

Earthmoving works to level a field that currently has a 30m undulation, estimated to cost at least $1.3bn, are required to be underway by next year.

Industry sources said that several institutional investors had been looking at the project. It was not expected that any would take on the contract, despite industry super funds owning or having large stakes in other major airports around the country.

And via Planetalking:
Quote:Is it true Sydney Airport can't afford to screw 2nd airport users?

[Image: Sydney-West-general-view-610x472.jpg]Badgerys Creek airport site may yet escape from monopoly ownership risk

What better timing could there be than an Easter Holiday weekend story or two putting the owners of Sydney Airport in a headlock over the fate of their right to gouge travellers and airlines for another 88 years or so as the monopoly lease holders of existing and future airport facilities in the entire Sydney metropolitan basin?

[b]The Australian[/b] obliges today with a ripper of a story (subscription required) in which the Federal Government calls the bluff of Sydney Airport Group over its insistence that it might not take up its first dibs on building and operating the second Sydney Airport at the Badgerys Creek site.

The [b]Sydney Morning Herald[/b] takes a different, but no less painful approach in a story about claims that the WestConnex road project might not only cost three times as much as officially claimed, but still doesn’t have a plan to connect drivers to the existing airport.

As [i]Plane Talking [/i]has pointed out over the years since Sydney Airport was sold for $5.6 billion in 2002 to a consortium that was then free to totally screw users of the asset for anything short of prices that would collapse demand for airline services to Australia’s largest city, this was the worst privatization of a publicly owned asset in the country’s history.

But the dream that somehow a way might be found to prevent Sydney Airport from exercising its right to extend the screwing to any additional new airport in the metropolitan basin may be about to come true.

Sydney Airport, the company, has baulked at the idea of spending maybe $3 billion to set up the first stage of the Sydney West airport and a May 8 deadline for it to pay up or p*ss off, is bearing down on it. And as [i]The Australian [/i]reports, the Feds have locked in place their Plan B for financing Sydney West, pending no doubt, a future sale to different private owners, or maybe even a Sydney Airport that has undergone some attitude readjustment therapy.

Whatever else might happen, it seems that the Turnbull Government (and most likely any government that might follow) is determined that the Sydney basin will have a second jet airliner airport by 2026.

In economic terms, this would be like giving a patient who will otherwise die of congestive heart failure a new lease on life.

Will Sydney Airport blink? Let us hope not. The countdown is running out of days. The ruinous decision taken by the Howard/Costello government might just be torn down.



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

Three Billion???? How come the Wagners of Wellcamp fame can build an international airport for a couple of hundred million??? Who's kidding who here?
Reply

Update on Brisvegas PFOS leak story. - Confused

Reference:
(04-16-2017, 09:58 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
Quote:
Quote:Foam leaks spark fish warning

[Image: 2f6657e60d74ff443e17bd979ab021a7]12:00amSEAN PARNELL

Firefighting foam has leaked out of a Qantas hangar at Brisbane Airport, potentially contaminating nearby waterways.

[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/eea199fb46693fd5d9004e6a1df49130/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]

From the AAP, via the Guardian today:
Quote:Queensland prawn farmers demand compensation from Qantas after toxic leak

Industry says it is losing money after firefighting foam leaked from airline’s hanger into Brisbane river


[Image: 2500.jpg?w=300&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&f...9a762673fa]
[/url]Qantas planes at Brisbane airport. Prawn farmers are seeking compensation after toxic foam leaked from the airline’s hangar into the Brisbane river. Photograph: Greg Wood/AFP/Getty Images



  • View more sharing options

Shares
1

Australian Associated Press
Thursday 20 April 2017 11.21 AEST
Queensland prawn farmers are seeking compensation from Qantas after toxic firefighting foam leaked from its hangar into the Brisbane river.

The embattled industry, already struggling with white spot disease, was dealt another blow this week when it was advised not to catch produce from the contaminated zone.
The state government urged recreational fishers to steer clear of the area last Friday but commercial operators were not notified until Tuesday, more than one week after the spill.

[Image: 3000.jpg?w=460&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&f...4fba77a4d2]
Firefighting foam spilled at Brisbane airport enters river and kills fish

 
Read more

The Moreton Bay Seafood Association’s vice-president, Michael Wood, said he lost a $10,000 order because of fears the waterways were contaminated.

“What’s [url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/qantas]Qantas going to do? The industry’s looking for compensation,” he said.

Wood said prawn trawlers in the Brisbane river and Moreton Bay operators had been affected by the 10 April spill at Brisbane airport.

“We want to talk to [chief executive] Alan Joyce for starters to see what they’re going to do for us and how they’re going to repair the damage to the general public,” he said.
About 22,000 litres of foam, believed to have contained perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), was released into the stormwater system after a sprinkler system fault in the Qantas hangar. While about 75% was contained, it is believed thousands of litres of the foam leaked into the Brisbane river.

Wood said he did not believe 4,000 or 5,000 litres would infect the waterways.
“It’s just like picking up a glass of water, you won’t even notice it,” he said.

Wood said even if small amounts of the foam were digested, consumers would have to “eat a hell of a lot of product” to be affected.

Queensland Health spokeswoman Sophie Dwyer said although there was no consistent evidence chemicals such as PFOA could cause “adverse health affects”, people should try to reduce their exposure.

“But consumption of small amounts as part of a broad diet is of negligible risk,” she said on Thursday.

Dwyer said “fully detailed conclusions” about the risk from eating prawns could not be drawn until test results from the spill site came back.

“But we do know that this food ... only forms a small part of any individuals daily consumption of food,” she said.

Qantas has been contacted for comment.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

(04-16-2017, 09:58 PM)Peetwo Wrote:    
And then the (potentially) good story on the 2nd Sydney airport project.
Via the Oz:
Quote:
Quote:Coalition locks in Badgerys ‘Plan B’

[Image: b705f577665b8e40b4319958588279cf]12:00amSIMON BENSON

The Turnbull government has ­finalised funding contingency plans to build Sydney’s $6 billion second airport.

The Turnbull government has ­finalised funding contingency plans to build Sydney’s $6 billion second airport, amid expectations that Sydney Airport Corporation is unlikely to take up the May 8 deadline offer to build and operate Badgerys Creek.

The Weekend Australian understands the government has modelled several funding options, including one based on the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme, in which the government would become the principal shareholder in a company set up to operate the ­airport.

An off-budget NBN Co-style model is also on the table. Under a government business enterprise model any debt raised to build and operate the airport would be offset by the government retaining equity in the airport, meaning it would not be included under normal budget spending.

It would also give the government the option to sell the airport, which would represent a significant piece of national economic infrastructure, once it is operational and passenger volumes guarantee commercial returns.

Sources have confirmed that the government is preparing for an almost immediate start to construction, with a timetable of next year for major earthmoving works to begin.

It is likely that an announcement on the government’s plans, which would end Sydney Airport’s stranglehold monopoly on commercial air travel in Sydney, would be announced shortly after the May 9 budget.

The industry is widely anticipating that the Sydney Airport Corporation, under its parent company Southern Cross Airport Corporation Holdings, will not take on the project. The deadline for a decision is due on the day ­before the budget.

Sydney Airport Corporation has argued that Badgerys Creek is not commercially viable without significant government assistance.

The government has refused to provide any funding for a ­private-sector operation, arguing that it is offering a “once-in-a-generation” deal for a 99-year lease on a 1700ha greenfield site in western Sydney, with a full airport masterplan that had passed every environmental and regulatory hurdle.

It is also spending $3.6bn on a western Sydney infrastructure plan for “ground transport connectivity” to the airport, including a scoping study for a metro rail line from the CBD to Badgerys Creek.

Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher issued a notice of intention to SAC in January giving it until May 8 to notify the government of its intention.

Mr Fletcher has previously said that the government began planning late last year for the possibility that responsibility for construction would fall to the government.

He said the government ­“certainly had the capacity” to fund the airport.

When Sydney’s main airport, Kingsford Smith, was privatised in 2002 its market capitalisation was about $5bn. It is now three times that amount.

“It’s in the hands of Sydney Airport Corporation,” Mr Fletcher said. “If it chooses to take up the right, it will build and operate; if it doesn’t, then we stand ready to do so.”

Under the 2002 privatisation contract of Kingsford Smith Airport at Mascot, the company was granted first rights for the construction of a second airport in the Sydney basin.

The plan the government drew up sets a strict mandated timetable for the construction of the airport to ensure start of operations by 2026. “Failure to meet” milestone deadlines include significant ­financial penalties.

Airlines are believed to favour the government option over concerns that Southern Cross Airport Corporation Holdings would be handed an expanded monopoly should it decide to build Badgerys Creek, leaving no competition to bring down what are commonly regarded as excessive landing fees.

Sydney Airport said it was still in the process of evaluating the ­notice of intention and would try to meet the May 8 deadline.

It is expected that Sydney Airport Corporation will push the government for expanded runway operations at Kingsford Smith and changes to the curfew, arguing that Badgerys Creek would be a 24/7 airport.

An industry source said that Sydney Airport had expected the government would partly subsidise construction of the new airport but was “blindsided” when this was ruled out. The notice of ­intention issued by the government required that the airport needed to have at least one 3.7km runway, capable of landings for an A380, with a terminal capable of meeting passenger movements of 10 million a year.

Earthmoving works to level a field that currently has a 30m undulation, estimated to cost at least $1.3bn, are required to be underway by next year.

Industry sources said that several institutional investors had been looking at the project. It was not expected that any would take on the contract, despite industry super funds owning or having large stakes in other major airports around the country.

Update 22/04/17: Via the Oz


Quote:Canberra set to go on airport

[Image: 07ab832813f32ebb6989fa9d29dd3e7a]12:00amSIMON BENSON

The government has met construction companies, a sign it is preparing for an immediate start on Sydney’s second airport.

The federal government has met with nine of the country’s largest construction companies in the past three weeks, a sign that it is preparing for an immediate start on Sydney’s second airport, should it be left to take on the $5 billion project.

Ahead of a May 8 deadline for the Sydney Airport Corporation to say whether it will knock back its option on the Badgerys Creek airport, Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher revealed yesterday that he and federal offic­ials had met construction firms as part of the government’s contingency planning.

“If (SAC) does not accept the notice of intention, the Turnbull government is ready — and we have done a lot of work so that we can ensure our timetables are met,” Mr Fletcher told the Committee for Sydney. “I am personally very confident that there is strong interest in this project from the construction sector.”

The Weekend Australian revealed last Saturday that several funding options were being considered should the government take on construction, including models based on the corporatised Snowy Mountains Scheme or an off-budget NBN Co model.

Mr Fletcher said the government was “working hard to meet our goal of the airport being operational by 2026”.

In 2014, the then Abbott government­ pledged to build Western Sydney Airport after a community push for the city’s second­ major airport.

Mr Fletcher said the federal and NSW governments were “well advanced on a scoping study” into the rail needs of western Sydney and the airport. Badgerys Creek is about 50km west of Sydney’s CBD.

“What is the right route, when should it be built, how much will it cost and how should it be funded? The discussion paper issued last year has generated considerable interest,” he said. The study is to report back this year.

Mr Fletcher said work in progress at the site would ensure it was “completely empty so that it is ready for construction”.

“We have put a lot of effort into tracking community sentiment concerning Western Sydney Airport. According to our most recent data, over 80 per cent of people in western Sydney support or are neutral to the new airport.

“This data is supported by the feedback I received when, earlier this year, I met individually with all of the councils in the areas ­surrounding the airport: Blacktown, Blue Mountains, Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Liverpool, Penrith and Wollondilly.

“While some councils maintain a formal position of oppos­ition to the airport, that is not the majority sentiment which I detected­ in these meetings.”

He said the airport would not be “designed by public servants in Canberra”. The government would weigh its options to deliver an airport by 2026. If it took on the project, the next steps would be indicat­ed very soon.

Mr Fletcher said the airport would generate almost 9000 direc­t jobs by the early 2030s and 60,000 jobs long-term.

It will feature a 3700m runway capable of carrying large commercial passenger aircraft, including the A380 and 747. The terminal will have capacity for 10 million passengers a year.

Hmm...wonder if Wagners feature on the EOI construction company list... Huh


MTF....P2 Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)