Airports - Buy two, get one free.
Weather; or not?

The Oz – “The tension that can exist between an airline and an airport was in sharp focus earlier in May when reports emerged of a March 2017 incident where a Qantas Boeing 737-800 had been delayed from departing Canberra Airport after diverting there while en route from Auckland to Sydney due to weather. (Bollocks).

The Oz – "This was the last in a series of multiple incidents where unannounced, Qantas were diverting large international aircraft to Canberra Airport, and putting other aircraft that had planned and arrangements in place to divert to Canberra Airport in jeopardy. (Bollocks).

I know the ‘big boys’ have other fish to fry and this is all part of a much bigger ball game – but – I wonder why aircraft Sydney or Melbourne bound need to divert the Canberra so frequently. “Due to weather” is cited, which is a little misleading. The instrument landing (bad weather) facilities at the major terminals; and, the equipment in the modern fleet; and the general weather conditions, excluding the occasional Fog, themselves rarely call for a diversion to an alternate – due actual weather conditions precluding a landing.

So it becomes a ‘fuel’ issue – when Sydney has aircraft stacked due to the rules and the restrictive ‘movement rate’ rules under which ATC must operate; the odds are in favour of diversion due to a traffic stack ‘delay’ rather than ‘the weather’ conditions. When confronted by the potential of a further 30 or 40 minute delay - after using the planned holding fuel allocation – a diversion may become necessary – due to delay induced not by poor, below minima weather, but by speed at which preceding aircraft are processed. Just saying..No one is bothered by 'the conditions' - but what's left in the tanks (safe time) causes much discussion.

ATC do the best they can – given their limited options and restrictions, but the traffic does pile up, and fuel available is not an infinite commodity. Nobody diverts an aircraft for fun – the knock-on effects can create horrific problems for everyone. The radical cause is the process in place which slows traffic movement to a standstill during the periods when ‘instrument’ approaches are required. One thing is certain – ATC could shift aircraft a lot faster than the ridiculous political ‘cap’ allows, even faster if ‘distribution’ of noise requirements were lost. One thing is certain sure – neither Sydney or Melbourne have weather conditions anywhere near as poor as our neighbours anywhere North of Darwin have, where conditions actually below landing minima frequently demand a diversion. It will be a big job to clean up the regulatory mess which artificially creates a need to divert.  

Just my two bob’s worth.
Reply
Oh lordy! there are times one wishes they were a cartoonist.
What a gift the Cant berra imbroglio could be for Larry Pickering.

Picture Airforce 1 parked in front of the GA terminal known as Stalag
13 to many in the industry.

Car parked behind it, a very blond plump man at the top of the airstair
Yelling "Wadaya mean you want my VISA card"!!

or maybe a second coming.

A glowing Cloud hovering over the apron

descending from it a thin guy with beard in flowing white robes,
surrounded by angels, under him, a whole bunch of guys dressed as centurions,
with high viz vests of course, poking spears heavenward.
The bearded guy descending holding a card in his hand yelling.
"But I have a visa card"

The possibilities are endless!!
Reply
Story telling is not Can’tberras strong suit...

Have to agree with Thorny and K, the whole story is ludicrous. But it does provide for some entertainment. If a safety car was parked behind the plane it is probably because Sargent Shultz was too lazy to fuel the vehicle at the start of his shift and that’s where it ran out of fuel - behind the plane. Then he was probably too fat to get out of the car and he couldn’t call for assistance because his sausage fingers impede the use of a hand held radio.

Has Geoffrey Thomas provided an expert opinion on the matter yet?

I just hope all involved had their hi-vis vests on, were wearing a valid red background ASIC, had on their hearing protection and had undergone some form of useless and unnecessary airside safety training which included identifying line markings, knowing where the FOD bins are located, knowing the colour of the emergency fuel cut off buttons, and knowing which CCTV cameras won’t catch you taking a sneaky piss behind the GSE on the freight apron late at night!


P.S And for you bastards who piss underneath plane fuselages, DONT! Engineers have to touch and sniff it to make sure it’s not fuel or a hydraulic ‘leak’!


“Safe bedtime stories for all”
Reply
Airports & A4ANZ wars continue -Rolleyes

Via the Oz:

Quote:Airports need freedom to grow

[Image: f1bc448474ddf667d0b181e6f08e4c1c]ANGELA GITTENS
With annual flight passenger traffic in Australia to reach 321 million by 2040, airport growth is essential.


Australia leads the world in promoting a regulatory framework that has facilitated investment by airports in better terminals, better services, and more choice for passengers.


Last year, ICAO, the United Nations’ global civil aviation organisation, made recommendations to governments around the world, urging them to maximise the benefits of aviation for all stakeholders.

Australia has been a global role model in heeding this call, with a regulatory framework that encourages airport investment.

This drives more connectivity, improved passenger service quality, and, ultimately, wider economic growth and job creation.

In delivering these benefits, Australia’s airports have invested $11.5 billion on infrastructure and service improvements over the past decade without taxpayer funding.

This has been facilitated by the liberalisation of airport ownership combined with proportionate economic regulation.

Claims by some that airport privatisation has, over time, led to higher airfares are not supported by evidence and calls for tighter regulation on airport revenues are unfounded.

As such, charges might influence an airline’s choices about capacity and network planning but there is no one-for-one correspondence between airport charges — and any change in their level — and airfares.

Indeed, research carried out by Airports Council International found charges usually do not have a significant influence on airfares; the constant churn in airfares is, in reality, driven by passenger demand, price elasticity, and the level of competition on any given route.

This is an important fact to acknowledge because we forecast annual passenger traffic in Australia will reach 321 million by 2040.

To keep pace with this demand, and to ensure the benefits of this growth are realised by airlines, passengers and the wider economy, Australian airports must be able to invest, improve, and increase aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenue.

This revenue is a crucial source of funds for airports to invest in infrastructure and service improvements and privatisation has been proven to provide fertile ground for investment.

Major projects such as the Brisbane Airport runway now under construction — and planned new runways at Melbourne and Perth airports — are good examples of airport investment increasing capacity, laying the groundwork for meeting the demands of growth.

These and other projects will be crucial as they allow airports to maintain service levels and continue to foster choice and competition that will keep airfares lower over the long term.

Angela Gittens is director General of Airports Council International World based in Montreal, Canada.
"...Last year, ICAO, the United Nations’ global civil aviation organisation, made recommendations to governments around the world, urging them to maximise the benefits of aviation for all stakeholders.

Australia has been a global role model in heeding this call, with a regulatory framework that encourages airport investment..."

What a wonderful concoction of double speak and word weasel confectionary - I guess from an airport's point of view the Airports Act does encourage airport investment. - Dodgy

However I do wonder in individual States maximising the 'benefits of aviation', if it was the intent of ICAO for a State to do so at the expense of aviation safety?

P2 comment: Out of interest here is the applicable link for the latest version of Australia's 41 pages of notified differences to ICAO Annex 14 which is related to airport regulation: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/..._Vol_1.pdf   

Now from the otherside of the airport perimeter fence:

Via A4ANZ on twitter:

Quote:Our CEO, Dr Alison Roberts, will participate in a panel discussion on airport privatisation, sharing insights into how the current regulatory environment is holding our region back. #IATAAGM
A4ANZ added,
[url=https://twitter.com/IATA/status/1001371164764135424][/url][Image: w9RFlth6-cJVtkgw.jpg]2:10
IATAVerified account @IATA
#DYK The world's largest gathering of #airline leaders is the #IATAAGM. It is taking place in #Sydney next week! #SYD @Qantas http://bit.ly/2IQilPe 

12:12 PM - 1 Jun 2018







MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Airlines v Airports war - Update.

First by Jamie Freed, via Reuters... Wink

Quote:BUSINESS NEWS
JUNE 1, 2018 / 7:25 PM / 3 DAYS AGO
Airlines take aim at Australia's airport privatization model

Jamie Freed
5 MIN READ


SYDNEY (Reuters) - As more countries look to privatize airports two conflicting narratives have taken wing: airlines point to Australia’s big city airports as a cautionary tale of light regulation, while airports say they’ve found a winning formula for governments, investors and passengers.

[Image: 5b11111b5124c9b36db648a2-750-469.jpg]
FILE PHOTO: A Cathay Pacific Airways Airbus A330 plane is towed past other planes parked at the Sydney International Airport terminal in Australia, November 30, 2017. REUTERS/David Gray/File Photo

Two decades after airports in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth were sold to pension funds and infrastructure investors, they are reporting the highest margins in the world, data from trade group Airlines for Australia & New Zealand (A4ANZ) shows.

A key factor - and one the airlines are trying to change - is that the government cannot regulate fees or even intervene in disputes over them.

Ahead of an Australian government review later this year, airlines are using the International Air Transport Association (IATA) annual meeting, which starts on Sunday in Sydney, as a platform to loudly argue for new rules that could lower their costs, kicking off a furious industry debate.

“It isn’t wrong to say there needs to be some kind of oversight that ensures that the behavior of the service provider and the service receiver, if you will, act in an appropriate manner,” John Borghetti, chief executive of Australia’s second-biggest airline, Virgin Australia Holdings Ltd (VAH.AX), told Reuters.

Airport take-off and landing charges have risen 26 percent in real terms over the last decade to as much as A$18.30 ($13.81) per passenger, according to a report the Australian competition regulator released in April.

A4ANZ says ticket prices have fallen by 40 percent during the same period, shifting profits from airlines to airport operators and making it difficult to cut fares further.

The Australian rules, which maximized what the government could get upfront from selling the airports, are more extreme than that in other regions with large privatized airports like Europe.

The system is raising concerns among airlines that other countries looking to privatize airports, such as Japan, India and Vietnam, could use Australia as a model.

“We must find an effective regulatory solution to ensure that Australia is well served with competitive infrastructure,” IATA CEO Alexandre de Juniac told reporters on Thursday.

Airport operators, however, say Australia is a success story, with more than A$11.5 billion ($8.68 billion) of capital invested over the last decade, allowing for world-class facilities with cutting-edge automated and biometric technology.

Sydney Airport Holdings Pty Ltd (SYD.AX) CEO Geoff Culbert said Australia’s biggest airport is investing more than A$1 million a day to improve capacity, services and facilities.

“This is all privately funded and comes at no cost to the taxpayer,” he said.


What airlines really want, said Airports Council International (ACI) Director General Angela Gittens, is a return to lower fees, in the days when airports were government-owned, had less sophisticated management teams and suffered from overcrowded infrastructure.

“That is a time that has passed,” she said. “Governments have found that under the right circumstances they can get private investment. They don’t have to decide whether I’m going to spend money on an airport versus spending money on a hospital versus spending money on education.”

ACI data shows that airport charges typically make up only 5 percent of airline operating costs and that lower fees are not usually reflected in ticket prices.

The light-handed Australian privatization model, criticized by the country’s competition regulator, is just as polarizing for industry experts as it is with airports and airlines.

“Because it is a highly regulated industry there must always be some parameters,” said Priveen Raj Naidu, CEO of Singapore-based consultancy Reapra Aviation Partners, which has airport and government clients in Nepal, Myanmar, India and Vietnam. “In Australia it was a free for all. There is no baseline. This is where the government needs to get involved.”

CAPA Center for Aviation Executive Chairman Peter Harbison said it was natural for the airlines to argue hard for more regulation in Australia given it is in their interest to reduce fees.

“We have got some of the best infrastructure in the world I think in Australia largely because of the privatization,” he said. “Is it cheap and lowest cost? Very much no.”

($1 = 1.3256 Australian dollars)

Reporting by Jamie Freed; Editing by Gerry Doyle


And in the Oz today the AAA fires back  Confused :

Quote:
 

[Image: 3ede3de61ca35171eb7323f35860041a]

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce (left) and Air New Zealand CEO Christopher Luxon pose for a photograph during a press conference at Sydney Airport in Sydney on Friday. Picture: AAP
  • The Australian
  • 3:35PM June 4, 2018
  • SAMANTHA BAILEY
  • Business Reporter@SammyAnneBailey
Australia’s peak body for airports says the new Qantas-Air New Zealand codeshare deal will lessen competition and has the potential to constrain the trans-Tasman market.

The Australian Airports Association has called on regulators in Australia and in New Zealand to make sure the agreement won’t impact travellers or Virgin Australia, saying the deal would likely lessen competition on both sides of the Tasman.

“There are a limited number of airlines operating in both countries, and between them, so it is important there remains a healthy level of competition in the market,” said association chief executive Caroline Wilkie.

“This arrangement seems likely to make it harder for Virgin Australia to compete in the Australian market.”

It comes after Qantas (QAN) and Air New Zealand said they’d will remain competitive on trans-Tasman routes as they announced a deal to that will add 115 new domestic routes in Australia and New Zealand on Friday.

The deal, which will come into effect in October, would result in co-ordination of check-in and handling at airports will mean shorter connection times for all customers, while eligible customers will have access to lounges on both sides of the Tasman when flying on routes covered by the codeshare agreement.

A spokesperson for Virgin Australia, which has an interlining agreement with Air New Zealand up for renegotiation in October, said last week that the deal was “bad news for customers” and that it would stifle competition.

“We are particularly concerned this arrangement will further strengthen Qantas’ dominant position in the Australian market to the detriment of both Virgin Australia and the Australian travelling public,” Ms Wilkie said today.

“The ability to distribute each other’s passengers on the other side of the Tasman will improve the market position of Qantas and Air New Zealand and make it harder for Virgin to compete on trans-Tasman routes.

“It is important to ensure both the Australian and New Zealand economies enjoy the tourism benefits of easy and affordable trans-Tasman travel and this can only be ensured if there are more carriers, not less, flying these routes.”

Ms Wilkie said that the details for the agreement should be publicly examined by competition watchdogs to ensure there are not anti-competitive impacts.

“This is the only way to ensure competitive and affordable aviation markets in and between Australia and New Zealand and a visitor economy spanning the two countries that delivers to everyone the economic benefits associated with trans-Tasman travel,” she said.


Where will it end - does anybody know?  Rolleyes 


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
MAY THE AIRPORT AND AIRLINE WAR CONTINUE.....

Firstly, this;

“Australia’s peak body for airports says the new Qantas-Air New Zealand codeshare deal will lessen competition and has the potential to constrain the trans-Tasman market”

I stopped flying QF internationally 5 years ago. Two-bit low budget shit service in every aspect. Does this mean I will potentially buy an ANZ ticket but get stuck on Joyce’s crappy Rainbow Airways all the way to the USA? If so, I will pay the extra and fly a longer route with Singapore Airlines.

And seriously, what about this absolute load of shit;

“Airport take-off and landing charges have risen 26 percent in real terms over the last decade to as much as A$18.30 ($13.81) per passenger, according to a report the Australian competition regulator released in April.
A4ANZ says ticket prices have fallen by 40 percent during the same period, shifting profits from airlines to airport operators and making it difficult to cut fares further’”


Again, take Moranbah for example. When VA pulled out/got booted out, whatever way you want to put it, Qantas doubled its fares. Some flights are almost $2,000 return to Brisbane. What an absolute gouging to the deepest degree. And that occurred overnight! 50% increase over a couple of weeks, compared to a supposed 26% airport fees and charges rise over 10 years (and if the figure of 26% over 10 years is correct, that’s less than CPI you morons).

The ACCC, A4ANZ, Graeme Samuels, they are all spin doctors, bullshit artists not basing their theories on accurate and comparative data. Go do something really worthwhile you dickheads like grilling the electricity suppliers, oil companies and rip off mafia Banks. What a sham, the Royal Commission into banking, although semi-rigged, has unearthed a plethora of shit that the spineless and useless ACCC should have done a decade ago. Fools......


“Safe aviation fisticuffs for all”
Reply
Bruny Island airstrip under attack from local council... Dodgy  

Thanks to Shannon Wells for bringing this to Aunty's attention -  Wink

Via SW & the Oz:

Quote:Lots of coverage for the Bruny island airstrip closure...  #politas
[Image: De9XcjUU0AACm3P.jpg]
7:46 AM - 6 Jun 2018

Bruny Island fights plans to close its only airstrip

Bruny Island is ready to fight to keep its airstrip, warning that its planned closure will cost jobs, ­destroy a successful business, and reduce pilot training and air safety.

The gravel airstrip has been earmarked for closure by its owner, Kingborough Council, after a report found it required $250,000 in upgrades to meet air-safety regulations.

However, several small aviation companies that use the airstrip say the council has misread the regulations and appears ­determined to shed a perceived liability.

At stake is an entire business based at the airstrip, Island Scenic Flights, which employs several young pilots, as well as some sightseeing and pilot training ­operations run on or from the ­island by the larger, Hobart-based Airlines of Tasmania.

Both companies fear the loss of the airstrip would be a significant safety issue, removing the only suitable emergency landing south of Hobart.

Many islanders are outraged, arguing the airstrip was gifted to the community decades ago and built by volunteers.

“The community of Bruny Island are really, really passionate about it needing to remain as an airstrip — people in the pub are saying ‘they can’t do that, that airstrip is for the people’,” said Hotel Bruny owner Dave Gunton.

A recreational pilot, Mr Gunton confirmed he was one of ­several businessmen potentially willing to help buy the airstrip, on the right terms, including that any proceeds be reinvested on the ­island. Island Scenic Flights and Airlines of Tasmania have also expressed potential interest in a deal, but are unsure of the attitude of the council, which rejected all offers in an initial expressions of interest, in favour of closing the airstrip at the end of the month.

Steve Wass, Mayor of Kingborough, which swallowed Bruny in council mergers in the early 1990s, said the council was still open to sale offers. “To bring it up to today’s standard would cost about $250,000 and from our point of view … it may well be better off in someone else’s hands,” Mr Wass said.

Island Scenic Flights founder Peter Steininger said he felt as if the council was forcing him to buy the land he now leased. “Basically, it’s ‘buy it or we’ll shut you down’, which I think is fairly rude,” Mr Steininger said.

He would have to go deeper into debt to make the purchase and flatly rejected the council’s claim that upgrades, including fencing, were needed. “The population of Bruny Island are disgusted,” he said. “They feel it’s their airstrip. They built it and the council has no right to sell it. If the council just shuts it … they will have a fight on their hands.”

Airlines of Tasmania managing director Shannon Wells was mystified as to why the council, in private session, rejected three bids to keep the airstrip open. “My biggest concern is that it is our only refuge, safe haven, south of Hobart (airport), where pilots can land in case of poor weather,” he said.
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
AN AERODROME CONUNDRUM

The challenge in four parts are as follows;

1. Council are useless and should never manage an aerodrome. Local Government is the most dysfunctional and inept beast one could never wish for, and they couldn’t run a school raffle from a tin shed. No idea. They are also risk averse and paranoid about litigation.
2. Small business/GA etc expect to pay absolutely nothing by way of fees and charges yet expect a Rolls Royce aerodrome laid out before them. Unrealistic expectations and demands.
3. CAsA is killing aviation, including aerodromes. Unworkable and expensive regulations and requirements just to keep a pissy little strip open for business. The maintenance costs including compliance requirements, annual technical inspections (depending on aerodrome category), upkeep, capital and operational budgets etc have made aerodrome upkeep a nightmare.
4. Incompetent, inept and out of touch federal government. Minimal money provided to airports to maintain and ensure compliance with all their unworkable rules which are time consuming and expensive. Useless pollywafflers not funding infrastructure.

There are no short term solutions, or really any long term ones on the radar as yet. Just tail chasing day after day and year after year. But the Bruny Island saga is one of many unfolding and the problem is getting worse by the month. No aerodromes = no GA. A desperate situation we have been warning about for years.

TICK TOCK
Reply
DPM McNobody signs up for PC WOFTAM inquiry on airports - FDS!  Dodgy

Via the Oz today:

Quote:[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDpcWP2kZiO_-uBYz_6VA...AXF9ytkFvD]

Inquiry into economic regulation of airport services
The Australian-13 hours ago
Debate over airport regulation is set to take off as the government today ... Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services.




Debate over airport regulation is set to take off as the government today announces a hotly anticipated inquiry.

The Australian can reveal that Treasurer Scott Morrison and Infrastructure and Transport Minister Michael McCormack will today announce the Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services.

The last time the commission looked at the issue was in 2011 and the forthcoming review has been widely expected by the sector.

It comes as airlines have been pushing for changes to airport regulations that would make it easier to bring in the competition watchdog to adjudicate on charges that they argue are “one of the biggest” obstacles to fleet reinvestment.

But airports have argued that, in making their case, the carriers have ignored the benefits of investments made in terminals and other services.

The inquiry will look at the effectiveness of the regulation as well as passenger and freight services at the major airports in the capital cities.

The review, which reports to the government in a year, will also look at whether there are any unintended consequences from the price cap that applies to terminal, check-in, security, runways and apron parking services to regional air services at Sydney Airport.

This system was part of the 2002 privatisation of Sydney Airport.

Can't half tell that there is an election coming up, especially when you read the joint press release put out today by ScoMO and miniscule McNobody  Dodgy :
   
Quote:Inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services
Media Release
MM082/2018
22 June 2018
Joint release with:
The Hon Scott Morrison MP
Treasurer
Federal Member for Cook

The Liberal and Nationals Government has today announced a Productivity Commission (PC) inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services.

The inquiry will review the efficiency and effectiveness of the economic regulation of airport services where scheduled airline services are provided.

The PC inquiry will also review the provision of passenger and freight transport services at the main passenger airports in major cities.

In addition, the PC is to examine any unintended consequences of the regulatory price cap and price notification regime for regional air services into and out of Sydney Airport.
The Commission is due to report to Government within 12 months.

The Commission will undertake public consultation as part of the inquiry and the Government encourages all interested parties to participate.

Further information and the terms of reference are available on the Commission's website.

Media Contacts
  • Mr McCormack - Colin Bettles 0447 718 781 | Dom Hopkinson 0409 421 209
  • Mr Morrison - Andrew Carswell 0418 505 376 | Kate Williams 0429 584 675 | Sonia Gentile 0455 050 007

"..is due to report to Government within 12 months..."  - Perfectly timed so as to be politically nullified/ignored and subsequently obfuscated for the life of the next incoming government - 'nothing to see here, move along'...  Undecided


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Interesting puff piece in the OZ today about political donations to political parties by the same entity who was in the gun to develop the contaminated landfill site on the Southern side of Bankstown. Wonder how much he donated to get approval for that?

Its illegal now in NSW for political parties to accept donations from property sharks because of all the corruption that went on.
Same doesn't apply to Federal politicians and Bankstown is allegedly Commonwealth land and therefore not subject to State approvals, scrutiny or laws. A somewhat debatable hypothesis since it carries a State portfolio and lot number. I would suggest its state land, owned by the commonwealth therefore it comes under NSW law.
Reply
OUT COMES THE MAGICIANS HAT, WAND AND TWO-WAY MIRRORS

P2;

"..is due to report to Government within 12 months..." - Perfectly timed so as to be politically nullified/ignored and subsequently obfuscated for the life of the next incoming government

Yes, that old chestnut - an inquiry. Always a great way to pretend you are interested in the problem and are doing something about it, when in fact you are doing nothing other than producing an obsfucated report that is timed to fall on deaf ears and be shelved with all the other useless, never to be seen again shelfware.

Oh Minister Mc’Do’nothing, you need to get up earlier than that to fool the IOS. Minister, you are a limp wristed spineless droplet of camel piss. Be off with you, you obsfucating hocus-pocus magic practising spin doctor.
Reply
“Honesty is the first chapter of the book wisdom.”

Thorny“Interesting puff piece in the OZ today about political donations to political parties by the same entity who was in the gun to develop the contaminated landfill site on the Southern side of Bankstown. Wonder how much he donated to get approval for that?”

There is an excellent ‘in-a-nutshell’ sketch, with pictures on the UP which, IMO explains the primary motivation for development of our airfields, most worthy of the time taken to read it through, be sure to take a look at the photographs - interesting:-

Flopzone“It was pretty much paddocks until the mid 1970s when the land was rezoned to residential from then until this day. Aspendale, Mentone and Epsom Race Tracks became housing estates. The “green wedge” of farming land has been eroded away by greedy property developers who are hell bent on having Moorabin closed one way or another. Local and State Gov’ts have rezoned the land not the Commonwealth. The commitment of the current operators to maintain the site as an airport lasts only as long as the Federal Gov’t wants an airport there. When Canberra sells it off to the current operators, its all over.”

A parcel of land about 5k to the n/e of Moorabin about half the size of the airport was sold by the farmer a few years ago for 4 mil. It then sold for 14 mil. It was rezoned to housing and sold again for 40 mil. It was then cleared by the developer, carved up into lots and roads instated and sold to the Superannuation Trust of Australia for 400 million and a house hasn’t been built yet. So the land at Moorabin, what’s left of it would be worth a couple of billion once its sold as housing lots. Probably more as they would fill it with 10 story towers to get sea views not 3 bedroom brick veneers.

The best view of the current airport minus the new factories to the south but in anyone’s eyes, it’s a bloody joke.
-----****----

Thorny – “Interesting puff piece in the OZ today about political donations to political parties by the same entity who was in the gun to develop the contaminated landfill site on the Southern side of Bankstown. Wonder how much he donated to get approval for that?”

Its illegal now in NSW for political parties to accept donations from property sharks because of all the corruption that went on. Same doesn't apply to Federal politicians and Bankstown is allegedly Commonwealth land and therefore not subject to State approvals, scrutiny or laws. A somewhat debatable hypothesis since it carries a State portfolio and lot number. I would suggest its state land, owned by the commonwealth therefore it comes under NSW law.

-----****----

There’s more than 'just a few' wondering about ‘influence’ being brought to bear on some of those responsible for management of our aerodromes and the determined push from developers to build within their borders. This is all becoming part of developing notion that the ‘Greens’ push for hush over Melbourne is part of some grand scheme allowing unfettered development on airfields which are no longer ‘in use’. Not that contributions to any political party could influence thinking, nah. But when it is a symbiotic cocktail of two groups wanting the same outcome, for different reasons – then you have to begin wondering about mutual back scratching and grease on wheels. Don’t you? I mean if it ain’t a cock-up -

Toot - toot.
Reply
(06-22-2018, 02:12 PM)Peetwo Wrote: DPM McNobody signs up for PC WOFTAM inquiry on airports - FDS!  Dodgy

Via the Oz today:

Quote:[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDpcWP2kZiO_-uBYz_6VA...AXF9ytkFvD]

Inquiry into economic regulation of airport services
The Australian-13 hours ago
Debate over airport regulation is set to take off as the government today ... Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airport services.





"..is due to report to Government within 12 months..."  - Perfectly timed so as to be politically nullified/ignored and subsequently obfuscated for the life of the next incoming government - 'nothing to see here, move along'...  Undecided

Somewhat related... Rolleyes 

Via the Oz:


Quote:Call to ease ‘rigid’ airport rules

[Image: d54c98947b3dbbb5b8694c289fc16243]ANNABEL HEPWORTH
An easing of ‘rigid and outdated’ operating restrictions at Australia’s largest airport is needed, says a transport forum.


An easing of “rigid and outdated” operating restrictions at Australia’s largest airport is needed to spur the economy, the tourism and transport sector will declare today.

In a paper obtained by The Australian, the Tourism and Transport Forum will step up its push to convince policymakers to overhaul the tight caps on aircraft movements at Sydney airport.

The group will also urge the Coalition and Opposition to support reforms to the rules for when airlines can get dispensation to land during the politically sensitive overnight curfew at Kingsford-Smith Airport, and for changes to allow newer freighters to operate during the curfew.

TTF chief executive Margy Osmond said that while the proposed $5.3 billion Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek would be curfew-free, there was a wait of at least eight years before it started operating and “both leisure and business travellers will in the interim continue to be inconvenienced by delays caused by unforeseen events such as severe weather or aircraft issues”.

Ms Osmond said the cap on aircraft movements at Australia’s largest air transport hub could not be viewed in isolation because the operating restrictions flowed on to “the entire network”.

This was because operating restrictions at Sydney added to initial delays, so they spilt into the national network — especially to Melbourne and Brisbane — sometimes even into the next day.

Federal government restrictions introduced in 1997 limit the number of runway movements at Sydney to 80 per hour, with the caps measured over a “rolling” hour that starts every 15 minutes — stopping airlines from recovering times when flights fall behind if the new times would push out the hourly cap.

The group wants the 15-minute rolling hour scrapped and more than 80 movements an hour allowed, but without increasing the overall number in a day.

This would “help relieve flight backlogs and enable airlines to restore schedule integrity following instances of major weather disruption, technical issues, late inbound aircraft, infrastructure failure or other significant incidents,” the paper says. The group is also wanting the dispensations to depart or arrive during the 11pm to 6am curfew changed to allow landings during “major” weather disruption, which are excluded at the moment.

The paper comes as a slew of groups have called for a review of the tight flight restrictions in place at Sydney airport.

Earlier this year, the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia — whose 32 members include Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Qantas and Emirates — called for “more effective measures of aircraft noise impacts and respite than the current hourly movement cap”.

BARA has suggested “noise budgets”, similar to systems used at California’s Long Beach Airport and London’s Heathrow.

TTF — whose members include Sydney and other airports, as well as airlines including Qantas — also wants new freighters to be allowed to operate during the curfew. Under the Sydney Curfew Act 1995, only the British Aerospace 146 freight ­aircraft can land between 11pm and 6am.

As well, the group is urging changes to the system that guarantees slots at Kingsford Smith Airport for regional services, but caps their number during peak periods. Virgin Australia has previously called for this change.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
MASCOT - THE MASTICATING AIRPORT

Sydney airport has been chewing on the same meal for 21 years - a daily restricted diet of 80 movements per hour.  Back then, in 1997 Australia had 18.5m people. In 2018 we have 24.7m people. In 1996 Sydney’s population was 3.8m people. Sydney’s population in 2017 was 5.1m people. A massive increase in numbers and my lightweight analysis doesn’t include the increase in business, leisure and freight. Yet the airport has been held back to third world operating standards.

From the article;

“TTF chief executive Margy Osmond said that while the proposed $5.3 billion Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek would be curfew-free, there was a wait of at least eight years before it started operating and “both leisure and business travellers will in the interim continue to be inconvenienced by delays caused by unforeseen events such as severe weather or aircraft issues”.

Yep, that’s another 8 years of increased growth that will be held back by another 8 years of airport restrictions at Mascot.

And;

“Federal government restrictions introduced in 1997 limit the number of runway movements at Sydney to 80 per hour, with the caps measured over a “rolling” hour that starts every 15 minutes — stopping airlines from recovering times when flights fall behind if the new times would push out the hourly cap”.

That would be a starting point, but it’s a token one. The issue is above just Sydney airport. The restrictions on movements costs this country tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue every year. Some estimates put it at $50 to $100 billion each year. All because incompetent Governments and their Ministerial wankers are scared of losing their seats to the voters if restrictions are removed.

Well, the time has come. This bullshit cannot continue. It’s time to pull the plug on these archaic third world restrictions, lift the curfews and the movement cap and have the airport act in the capacity of what it is - Australia’s number 1 gateway. The ponces dwelling in the affluent suburbs can just suck it up. If you don’t like it then sell up and piss of to Capital Hill or Woden, Canberra.

It’s not only GA that’s being strangled. Tick Tock
Reply
Responses summary for PIR of Part 139 (NPRM 1426AS)

Via the Fort Fumble website:

Quote:Notice of proposed rule making - Post-implementation review of the legislative framework for Part 139 - Aerodromes (NPRM 1426AS)

Closed 15 Dec 2017
Opened 29 Aug 2017

Contact
ATMS Standards Section

131 757
[email=regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au]regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au
[/email]

Results Updated 10 Jul 2018

Thank you for your feedback on this proposal.

CASA received 109 responses through the Consultation Hub survey, including 76 individual responses and 33 responses on behalf of an organisation.

A summary of consultation is available below with an overview of the responses.  

Individual responses are also published here, where permission to publish has been received.

Files:
[size=undefined][size=undefined]
Published Responses
View submitted responses where consent has been given to publish the response.[/size][/size]


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)