Cohuna - Ah; Yes – BUT.
I guess it will all come down to 'the dollars'. The landowner sees closure as a proper response to the council 'cost saving' exercise. The landowner doesn't want to pay for the airport; the council don't want to pay for the airport – But, someone has to pay for the maintenance, upkeep and 'costs' associated with the aerodrome. But who?
Kerang is just 32 Kms away, (20 road minutes) with instrument approaches and fuel. In bad weather, that is where the ambulance will land; effectively knocking the emotive hysteria out of the game. Seems to me that if the 'locals' don't want to stump up the dollars (lots of) and the State don't want to, and the Council don't want to, and the owners of the land don't want to – then who's left standing?
Nice to have or need to have? The Feds won't go anywhere near it – support one, support all philosophy will scotch that, quick smart. Why would the Feds spend money on infrastructure when there are 'real' causes to support, with real votes attached; like land rights for gay whales etc. – there's a winner for ya.
Nah mate, it's another five bucks a quarter on the rates for all; or, a 'slight' increase in landing fees from the vast amount of traffic using the facility. Sympathy yes – dollars – not a chance.............Unless a clever accountant can wrangle the numbers, make the field a tax deduction or something – well????
I guess it will all come down to 'the dollars'. The landowner sees closure as a proper response to the council 'cost saving' exercise. The landowner doesn't want to pay for the airport; the council don't want to pay for the airport – But, someone has to pay for the maintenance, upkeep and 'costs' associated with the aerodrome. But who?
Kerang is just 32 Kms away, (20 road minutes) with instrument approaches and fuel. In bad weather, that is where the ambulance will land; effectively knocking the emotive hysteria out of the game. Seems to me that if the 'locals' don't want to stump up the dollars (lots of) and the State don't want to, and the Council don't want to, and the owners of the land don't want to – then who's left standing?
Nice to have or need to have? The Feds won't go anywhere near it – support one, support all philosophy will scotch that, quick smart. Why would the Feds spend money on infrastructure when there are 'real' causes to support, with real votes attached; like land rights for gay whales etc. – there's a winner for ya.
Nah mate, it's another five bucks a quarter on the rates for all; or, a 'slight' increase in landing fees from the vast amount of traffic using the facility. Sympathy yes – dollars – not a chance.............Unless a clever accountant can wrangle the numbers, make the field a tax deduction or something – well????