Albanese does nothing on Sydney Airports
Leaddie is clearly correct in his view that near misses don’t count and there’s nothing to be learnt from them.
I'm all for increasing the movement rate at Sydney, working to capacity but the romantic notion that we can "land a few on RWY 07" is not worth the effort and as I have shown, could be counterproductive. Increasing complexity (read increased coordination between controllers) makes the job more difficult and on a cost/benefit analysis, would it be worth it?
- RWY 07 missed approach vs a RWY 16L arrival
- RWY 07 missed approach vs a RWY 34R departure
And this is without considering the fact that whilst LAHSO is occurring on RWY 07 then the runway would be unavailable to the Ground controllers (who routinely use RWY 07/25 as either a taxiway or a parking lot!).
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't waste your 'breath' Sunny, sadly pilots will never know/understand/comprehend anything outside their own cockpit when it comes to ATM/ATC. Whilst I would never pretend that I know enough to suggest ways of improving their way of flying the aircraft, apparently they are full of knowledge as to how ATC can improve their ability to get aircraft closer together...
Apply to ASA Leadsled, someone with your intimate and omnipotent knowledge of ATM is sorely needed....obviously.
Apply to ASA Leadsled, someone with your intimate and omnipotent knowledge of ATM is sorely needed....obviously.
Thread Starter
Max Moore Wilton stills thinks Sydney doesn't need another airport. He may be right if they ditch all curfews and restrictions and build a 2 new terminals, otherwise I cannot see how his position is at all logical.
Anyway the circus rolls on..........
Air chiefs agree to agree, and disagree, on Badgerys Creek
Anyway the circus rolls on..........
Sydney Airport chairman Max Moore-Wilton and Qantas Airways chief executive Alan Joyce don’t always agree.
The outspoken Mr Moore-Wilton doesn’t expect a second airport in Sydney will be needed for 30 to 35 years.
He also described former Labor transport minister Anthony Albanese as “the worst aviation minister we’ve had in my lifetime”.
Mr Joyce, by contrast, thinks all of the slots at the current airport will be gone by 2030 and that Mr Albanese did a “great job”.
But at The Australian Financial Review and Macquarie Future Forums Transport lunch in Sydney on Wednesday, the airport and its biggest customer did agree that if another Sydney airport is built, it should be at Badgerys Creek.
The Abbott government is expected to make a provision for a new airport at the site west of the city in its first budget in May, although the amount allocated is unknown.
More practical matters
As a result, once theoretical discussions about a second airport have turned to more practical matters like operating fees, transport links and state government support. There is an expectation within the Coalition that NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell will ultimately drop his opposition to Badgerys Creek to bring him in line with his federal counterparts.
Scott Charlton, the chief executive of toll road operator Transurban, indicated it would be important for the state to support the development because of the need for surrounding rail, road and fuel pipeline infrastructure.
“The infrastructure to get people there is usually a multiple of the cost of the airport itself,” said Mr Charlton, who once worked on the construction of a new airport in Hong Kong.
“The good news for toll road companies is all roads lead to an airport or away from an airport eventually. Whether it is Badgerys Creek or Sydney there is need for increased capacity in transport.”
When questioned about federal funding for a second Sydney airport, Treasurer Joe Hockey would not comment specifically.
“I’m not spending a hell of a lot of time on the second airport for Sydney,” he said. “I’m the guy who has to find the money for that and other projects if they’re to proceed.”
First right of refusal
He emphasised the government needed partnerships with the private sector to develop infrastructure.
Sydney Airport has a first right of refusal over the development of a second airport in Sydney. Mr Moore-Wilton questioned whether there would be a large amount of private sector participation.
“Unless somebody is coming and prepared to wear an enormous overhead cost, the issue is the federal government would have to bear that,” he said. “Under any scenario that I could imagine it would have to be a huge government subsidy in the early years. I couldn’t offer that because my 38,000 shareholders, they would lynch me.”
Mr Joyce said it would make sense for Qantas, as the national flag carrier, to operate from more than one airport in Sydney just as British Airways does in London, Japan Airlines in Tokyo and Air France in Paris.
“Obviously a lot depends on the infrastructure cost and having the right operation for that airport,” he said. “But there is absolutely a market for it if it is in the right location, has the right cost base in terms of delivery of service, the right transport links, we would be keen on using it.”
Macquarie Equities analyst Ian Myles said he believed the solution for a second Sydney Airport would be to require a reworking of the current airport concession, so that fees levied to airlines were done across airports and a regulated split of traffic types between the new airports.
He said assuming a $5 billion development cost, to make it financially feasible, airlines would have to agree to pay a landing fee twice as high as Sydney to land passengers 50 to 100 kilometres further way from the CBD.
“No rational airline would agree to this, save the usual caveats of government subsidy or regulatory change [unless] there was some type of agreement across both airports,” Mr Myles said.
The outspoken Mr Moore-Wilton doesn’t expect a second airport in Sydney will be needed for 30 to 35 years.
He also described former Labor transport minister Anthony Albanese as “the worst aviation minister we’ve had in my lifetime”.
Mr Joyce, by contrast, thinks all of the slots at the current airport will be gone by 2030 and that Mr Albanese did a “great job”.
But at The Australian Financial Review and Macquarie Future Forums Transport lunch in Sydney on Wednesday, the airport and its biggest customer did agree that if another Sydney airport is built, it should be at Badgerys Creek.
The Abbott government is expected to make a provision for a new airport at the site west of the city in its first budget in May, although the amount allocated is unknown.
More practical matters
As a result, once theoretical discussions about a second airport have turned to more practical matters like operating fees, transport links and state government support. There is an expectation within the Coalition that NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell will ultimately drop his opposition to Badgerys Creek to bring him in line with his federal counterparts.
Scott Charlton, the chief executive of toll road operator Transurban, indicated it would be important for the state to support the development because of the need for surrounding rail, road and fuel pipeline infrastructure.
“The infrastructure to get people there is usually a multiple of the cost of the airport itself,” said Mr Charlton, who once worked on the construction of a new airport in Hong Kong.
“The good news for toll road companies is all roads lead to an airport or away from an airport eventually. Whether it is Badgerys Creek or Sydney there is need for increased capacity in transport.”
When questioned about federal funding for a second Sydney airport, Treasurer Joe Hockey would not comment specifically.
“I’m not spending a hell of a lot of time on the second airport for Sydney,” he said. “I’m the guy who has to find the money for that and other projects if they’re to proceed.”
First right of refusal
He emphasised the government needed partnerships with the private sector to develop infrastructure.
Sydney Airport has a first right of refusal over the development of a second airport in Sydney. Mr Moore-Wilton questioned whether there would be a large amount of private sector participation.
“Unless somebody is coming and prepared to wear an enormous overhead cost, the issue is the federal government would have to bear that,” he said. “Under any scenario that I could imagine it would have to be a huge government subsidy in the early years. I couldn’t offer that because my 38,000 shareholders, they would lynch me.”
Mr Joyce said it would make sense for Qantas, as the national flag carrier, to operate from more than one airport in Sydney just as British Airways does in London, Japan Airlines in Tokyo and Air France in Paris.
“Obviously a lot depends on the infrastructure cost and having the right operation for that airport,” he said. “But there is absolutely a market for it if it is in the right location, has the right cost base in terms of delivery of service, the right transport links, we would be keen on using it.”
Macquarie Equities analyst Ian Myles said he believed the solution for a second Sydney Airport would be to require a reworking of the current airport concession, so that fees levied to airlines were done across airports and a regulated split of traffic types between the new airports.
He said assuming a $5 billion development cost, to make it financially feasible, airlines would have to agree to pay a landing fee twice as high as Sydney to land passengers 50 to 100 kilometres further way from the CBD.
“No rational airline would agree to this, save the usual caveats of government subsidy or regulatory change [unless] there was some type of agreement across both airports,” Mr Myles said.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 24th Oct 2013 at 05:10.
Mad Max has still got the knives out for Albo!
Love the title...err hang on a sec.."Air Chiefs"..but where was our Phearless Leader Herr Skull???
IOS 2nd Mad Max's comment on Albo
:
Although if Truss doesn't pull his finger out and come out from behind the Kingcrat's shirt tails pretty soon, he'll be running a close second in the WOFTAM awards!
Anyway enough of the drift Ben's take on the Financial Review and Macquarie Group transport forum
: Did Sydney Airport’s owners buy city’s economic future for $5.6 bn?
By the way the resident Red Rat Leprechaun Sociopath reckons Albo did a good job
..he would wouldn't he??
IOS 2nd Mad Max's comment on Albo
:
He also described former Labor transport minister Anthony Albanese as “the worst aviation minister we’ve had in my lifetime”.
Anyway enough of the drift Ben's take on the Financial Review and Macquarie Group transport forum
: Did Sydney Airport’s owners buy city’s economic future for $5.6 bn?By the way the resident Red Rat Leprechaun Sociopath reckons Albo did a good job
..he would wouldn't he??
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's funny, Max knifing Albo? Albo took advice from Mike the magician. Now although Albo the great white elephant hunter is out of the picture, his adviser Mike the magician still remains, except now he advises the Trussmeister. So does that mean Max the axe now dislikes the Trussmeister as well?
As for McSkull, I think he is to busy updating his CV to be worried about Sydney airport shenanigans, unless of course there is a requirement for a star chamber?
As for McSkull, I think he is to busy updating his CV to be worried about Sydney airport shenanigans, unless of course there is a requirement for a star chamber?
Here we go again more bloody politics on Badgerys!
Ed Husic the western suburbs version of Albo?
What is it with pollies in the Sydney basin do they want the benefits jobs, convenience etc that a 2nd airport would bring or do they just want to pander to a minority that don't want to live under a flight path...
News.com:
Meanwhile Melbourne's talking about a 3rd airport...
What is it with pollies in the Sydney basin do they want the benefits jobs, convenience etc that a 2nd airport would bring or do they just want to pander to a minority that don't want to live under a flight path...News.com:
New airport would mean 24hr noise: MP
RESIDENTS in Sydney's west would cop round-the-clock noise if Qantas were allowed to operate out of an airport at Badgerys Creek, a backbench MP says.
Labor MP Ed Husic's federal seat of Chifley adjoins Badgerys Creek, the site first proposed 30 years ago for a second Sydney airport.
News Corp Australia reports Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce as saying there's no reason why Qantas and Jetstar couldn't operate out of the western Sydney site - putting to bed the idea that major airlines wouldn't use the facility.
But Mr Husic says Qantas would operate there only if it had 24-hour access, meaning round-the clock-noise for locals.
"The only way Qantas will actually get to Badgerys ... the carrot for them is 24-hour-a-day access ... because they know that most of their passengers want to get straight into the city, which is why they prefer Mascot," he told Fairfax Radio on Monday.
Sydney Business Chamber western Sydney director David Borger welcomed Mr Joyce's comments.
Mr Borger said a Badgerys Creek airport would mean "the days of the long commute from Western Sydney to Sydney Airport could be a thing of the past".
"A person travelling by taxi from Penrith to and from Badgerys Creek could potentially save over $200 compared to travelling to Sydney Airport," he said in a statement.
An airport at the Badgerys site would also create around 28,000 jobs in the region, he said.
The federal government has previously called the Badgerys Creek site a "prime contender" for a second airport, but says it will also look at the capacity of Richmond and the existing airport at Mascot.
RESIDENTS in Sydney's west would cop round-the-clock noise if Qantas were allowed to operate out of an airport at Badgerys Creek, a backbench MP says.
Labor MP Ed Husic's federal seat of Chifley adjoins Badgerys Creek, the site first proposed 30 years ago for a second Sydney airport.
News Corp Australia reports Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce as saying there's no reason why Qantas and Jetstar couldn't operate out of the western Sydney site - putting to bed the idea that major airlines wouldn't use the facility.
But Mr Husic says Qantas would operate there only if it had 24-hour access, meaning round-the clock-noise for locals.
"The only way Qantas will actually get to Badgerys ... the carrot for them is 24-hour-a-day access ... because they know that most of their passengers want to get straight into the city, which is why they prefer Mascot," he told Fairfax Radio on Monday.
Sydney Business Chamber western Sydney director David Borger welcomed Mr Joyce's comments.
Mr Borger said a Badgerys Creek airport would mean "the days of the long commute from Western Sydney to Sydney Airport could be a thing of the past".
"A person travelling by taxi from Penrith to and from Badgerys Creek could potentially save over $200 compared to travelling to Sydney Airport," he said in a statement.
An airport at the Badgerys site would also create around 28,000 jobs in the region, he said.
The federal government has previously called the Badgerys Creek site a "prime contender" for a second airport, but says it will also look at the capacity of Richmond and the existing airport at Mascot.
Thread Starter
Both QANTAS and QATAR are lobbying for a 2nd airport.
QANTAS and Jetstar have confirmed for the first time that they would fly services out of a western Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek in a blow to critics who claim the facility would become a ghost airport because major airlines wouldn't use it.
The Daily Telegraph has confirmed that Middle-East carrier Qatar, which flies routes from Australia to Europe and the UK, has also privately told the Federal Government it was interested in running 24 hour operations from a Badgery's Creek airport.
Executives from both carriers are believed to have told the Federal Government that they would be willing to commit services to a Badgery's Creek airport.
Joe Hockey and Sydney Airport Holdings Ltd boss clash over Badgerys Creek
The services would include low-cost flights and potential services to Asia and Europe as well as freight and logistic operations.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce yesterday confirmed to The Daily Telegraph that the company's flagship carrier Qantas and budget airline Jetstar could run services from a second airport at Badgerys Creek.
"There are many cities around the world that have more than one successful airport operating with flag carriers and low-cost airlines too," Mr Joyce said.
"There is no reason why this couldn't be the case for a new airport at Badgerys Creek and see both Qantas and Jetstar operating.
Qantas boss Alan Joyce says his airline could run services from a second airport at Badgerys Creek. Picture: Annette Dew
Qantas boss Alan Joyce says his airline could run services from a second airport at Badgerys Creek. Picture: Annette Dew Source: News Limited
"We are always looking for new ways to provide more options for customers, as well as reduce costs - so a new airport at Badgerys could definitely provide us with this."
Qantas would be expected to still keep services flying out of Sydney Airport at Mascot. While Mr Joyce has been a strong advocate for a second airport, it is the first time the airline has confirmed it would also run services out of a second airport at Badgerys Creek.
Mr Joyce last week publicly confirmed that Qantas would be "keen" to operate some services from a second Sydney airport but only if it was in the right location and had the right infrastructure.
Editorial: Barry a lone voice against Badgerys
The confirmation that major airlines would service a second airport at Badgerys Creek puts them at odds with Sydney Airport Corporation chairman Max Moore-Wilton, who has argued against a second airport in competition with Sydney Airport, claiming that no one would use Badgerys Creek - which was first proposed 30 years ago.
Mr Moore-Wilton has described proponents of the second airport as "smoking" something.
Major airlines have privately complained to the government that the monopoly situation at Sydney Airport has resulted in exorbitant landing and lease fees for airlines. They have argued that a second airport at Badgerys Creek would provide competition and ultimately lower costs and prices being passed on to customers.
The Daily Telegraph has confirmed that Middle-East carrier Qatar, which flies routes from Australia to Europe and the UK, has also privately told the Federal Government it was interested in running 24 hour operations from a Badgery's Creek airport.
Executives from both carriers are believed to have told the Federal Government that they would be willing to commit services to a Badgery's Creek airport.
Joe Hockey and Sydney Airport Holdings Ltd boss clash over Badgerys Creek
The services would include low-cost flights and potential services to Asia and Europe as well as freight and logistic operations.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce yesterday confirmed to The Daily Telegraph that the company's flagship carrier Qantas and budget airline Jetstar could run services from a second airport at Badgerys Creek.
"There are many cities around the world that have more than one successful airport operating with flag carriers and low-cost airlines too," Mr Joyce said.
"There is no reason why this couldn't be the case for a new airport at Badgerys Creek and see both Qantas and Jetstar operating.
Qantas boss Alan Joyce says his airline could run services from a second airport at Badgerys Creek. Picture: Annette Dew
Qantas boss Alan Joyce says his airline could run services from a second airport at Badgerys Creek. Picture: Annette Dew Source: News Limited
"We are always looking for new ways to provide more options for customers, as well as reduce costs - so a new airport at Badgerys could definitely provide us with this."
Qantas would be expected to still keep services flying out of Sydney Airport at Mascot. While Mr Joyce has been a strong advocate for a second airport, it is the first time the airline has confirmed it would also run services out of a second airport at Badgerys Creek.
Mr Joyce last week publicly confirmed that Qantas would be "keen" to operate some services from a second Sydney airport but only if it was in the right location and had the right infrastructure.
Editorial: Barry a lone voice against Badgerys
The confirmation that major airlines would service a second airport at Badgerys Creek puts them at odds with Sydney Airport Corporation chairman Max Moore-Wilton, who has argued against a second airport in competition with Sydney Airport, claiming that no one would use Badgerys Creek - which was first proposed 30 years ago.
Mr Moore-Wilton has described proponents of the second airport as "smoking" something.
Major airlines have privately complained to the government that the monopoly situation at Sydney Airport has resulted in exorbitant landing and lease fees for airlines. They have argued that a second airport at Badgerys Creek would provide competition and ultimately lower costs and prices being passed on to customers.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a cold hard look at Sydney airports turnover the past ten years compared with the amount of tax they have paid should be enough to ring alarm bells at the ATO and the gov'mint....then again Mcbank are past masters of riding the fine line between legal and illegal or moral and immoral.
Never let the public good get in the way of directors bonuses!! is the Mantra.
Interesting that all paths lead to a certain company in the Bahama's.
Wasnt that a tax free haven?? so one has to ask the question why???
The new minister has indicated he's not interested in investigating corruption in the Aviation regulator so I guess there's no point complaining we are ruled by the regulators, so basically we're screwed.
Never let the public good get in the way of directors bonuses!! is the Mantra.
Interesting that all paths lead to a certain company in the Bahama's.
Wasnt that a tax free haven?? so one has to ask the question why???
The new minister has indicated he's not interested in investigating corruption in the Aviation regulator so I guess there's no point complaining we are ruled by the regulators, so basically we're screwed.
Will I stick it here "K"?
Slight drift but I promise there is relevance...
Kharon quote from Senate thread:
Interesting challenge that one…I note that airports and in particular management of airport lease agreements, expansion plans etc has been a favourite bugbear of one Senator Fawcett right from the first day of face to face engagement with the Dept in Senate Estimates. It is also a hot topic for Kimpton and co representing the Archerfield Tenants group, plus I reckon it is listed high on the Kingcrats CV as significant achievements in the course of him being in the top job.
So challenge accepted even if, for a knuckledragger, it is a somewhat dreary subject!!
Pages 154-171 from the GWEP (if you can bear to read it) contains the previous government’s (Albo’s) policy on Airport planning and development.
What struck me, as most disturbing in regards of the GWEP is that it takes until page 159 before the word ‘safety’ is mentioned. Even then it is just a throw away line…. “Advice from the Expert Advisors would supplement other sources of advice, such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in respect of aviation safety,”.
The GWEP does somewhat redeem itself from page 166 under the heading of Safeguarding Airports and Communities and mentions…
> protection of the safety of aircraft operations by preventing developments that could present a physical obstacle to aircraft, interfere with communications or navigation equipment, or produce significant hazards in the form of smoke or turbulence.
There is even a PANS-Ops reference further on…
> work with state and territory governments and authorities to strengthen arrangements to protect airspace around airports:
– address potential risks to aviation safety arising from inappropriate developments in the vicinity of aerodromes;
– ask that all states and territories put in place statutory powers and regulations to prohibit unauthorised construction that penetrates the published Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations (PANSOps) surfaces for all airports;
– strengthen requirements for notice of proposed developments in areas where protected airspace might be affected a proposed structure, by cranes or other equipment used during construction, plumes or other gaseous emissions;
– extend the coverage of operational airspace safeguards to all registered airports
and aerodromes including incorporating requirements for notification to CASA and
Airservices Australia of potentially impacting developments;
– prevent unnecessary interference to aviation technical facilities, such as radar, from new buildings in the vicinity of airports; and
– prevent unnecessary lighting and other pilot distractions from off-airport sources.
However this information would all appear to be tacked on at the end as an inconvenient encumbrance of not much significance and low on the priority list. This is on the back of the former Minister stating numerous times that aviation safety is his highest priority. No wonder Senator Fawcett took on the airport development/planning issue as a personal crusade.
Hansard from Senate Estimates May 2012:
Yawn 
and on it goes but I think you can get the picture…having now taken a small peak at the former govt policy on airports..I’d be somewhat surprised if more GA IOS members don’t follow in the footsteps of the Archerfield tenants group and take the Dept head on, after all they’ve got a vested interest with a lot to lose if they don’t.
Here it is from the horse’s mouth (Senate Additional Estimates Hansard February 2012):
Hansard from Senate Additional Estimates February 2012:
Nup no mention of 'aviation safety'..?? All I can say is…‘God help GA!’
Kharon quote from Senate thread:
Keep digging Sarcs, there is a constant factor, join the dots and soon or late, the pattern will emerge from under the rubble; a hint, look at airport management.
Interesting challenge that one…I note that airports and in particular management of airport lease agreements, expansion plans etc has been a favourite bugbear of one Senator Fawcett right from the first day of face to face engagement with the Dept in Senate Estimates. It is also a hot topic for Kimpton and co representing the Archerfield Tenants group, plus I reckon it is listed high on the Kingcrats CV as significant achievements in the course of him being in the top job.
So challenge accepted even if, for a knuckledragger, it is a somewhat dreary subject!!
Pages 154-171 from the GWEP (if you can bear to read it) contains the previous government’s (Albo’s) policy on Airport planning and development.
What struck me, as most disturbing in regards of the GWEP is that it takes until page 159 before the word ‘safety’ is mentioned. Even then it is just a throw away line…. “Advice from the Expert Advisors would supplement other sources of advice, such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in respect of aviation safety,”.
The GWEP does somewhat redeem itself from page 166 under the heading of Safeguarding Airports and Communities and mentions…
> protection of the safety of aircraft operations by preventing developments that could present a physical obstacle to aircraft, interfere with communications or navigation equipment, or produce significant hazards in the form of smoke or turbulence.
There is even a PANS-Ops reference further on…
> work with state and territory governments and authorities to strengthen arrangements to protect airspace around airports:
– address potential risks to aviation safety arising from inappropriate developments in the vicinity of aerodromes;
– ask that all states and territories put in place statutory powers and regulations to prohibit unauthorised construction that penetrates the published Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations (PANSOps) surfaces for all airports;
– strengthen requirements for notice of proposed developments in areas where protected airspace might be affected a proposed structure, by cranes or other equipment used during construction, plumes or other gaseous emissions;
– extend the coverage of operational airspace safeguards to all registered airports
and aerodromes including incorporating requirements for notification to CASA and
Airservices Australia of potentially impacting developments;
– prevent unnecessary interference to aviation technical facilities, such as radar, from new buildings in the vicinity of airports; and
– prevent unnecessary lighting and other pilot distractions from off-airport sources.
However this information would all appear to be tacked on at the end as an inconvenient encumbrance of not much significance and low on the priority list.
This is on the back of the former Minister stating numerous times that aviation safety is his highest priority. No wonder Senator Fawcett took on the airport development/planning issue as a personal crusade. Hansard from Senate Estimates May 2012:
Senator FAWCETT: I turn to answers you gave on notice at the last estimates following up on the NASAG. One of the questions I asked was: do you consider that the airspace and noise considerations are all that is required to safeguard airports? Your answer was yes. Are you aware of the ATSB report into engine failures or degradation of power after take-off?
Mr Mrdak: I am not aware of—
Senator FAWCETT: There is a specific report. I would like you to look into it. That report made recommendations about the requirement for forced landing areas for aircraft. There were 240-odd incidents leading up to 31 December 2010 in the decade before that. They include degradations in the forced landings and 75 energy failures. I would like you to revisit the discussion on public safety areas that has been pushed off to a later date. I would like your response to that on notice as to whether it is adequate.
Mr Mrdak: Certainly, Senator. I will do that.
Senator FAWCETT: Secondly, in terms of Adelaide and the efficacy of the NASAG process, I asked if a request to extend building heights were put forward, how would it be handled? The response was that there is no request. In February this year, the front page of the Adelaide Advertiser reported on a strong push to get rid of what they called archaic limitations on building heights. There was some talk of a 100-storey building. If you are familiar with the layout of airports in Adelaide, that would have a huge impact. I would like your written answer as to how you will handle that request when it inevitably comes.
Thirdly, I asked about the investment into aviation infrastructure in leased airports. During the briefing your staff gave, you talked about the percentages, and quite high percentages, in some cases. At Jandakot, for example, the figure is in the tens of millions allocated against the airport. The best the Parliamentary Library could find was water supply, sewerage, drainage, electricity, gas communication systems and existing interests. There is no mention of runways, taxiways, aircraft run-up areas and additional runways, which have been on the books for ages. What oversight does your department have on the implementation of the undertaking that these lessees have to invest the money they make in aviation related infrastructure?
Mr Doherty: I am not sure that there is a general obligation on us to do that. When the sale agreements were set up for the initial privatisation of the airports, a number of the airports did have obligations in relation to particular developments. They were discharged within the time frame for those obligations. So we do not as a rule have a process of keeping an account of the individual investment.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Doherty, thank you. I ask you to take this on notice, given that we are rapidly running out of time. How will the department implement your stated vision from the white paper and your response to me that airports are predominantly about aviation? How will you actually achieve that vision statement for your department’s view of airports if you do not monitor the investment and the upkeep? I ask you to also extend that to ALOP aerodromes, particularly given that the transfer deed specifically prohibited local government from doing things like building dams or things that might attract bird life? Right at the moment there are a number of councils who are doing things like interrupting drainage, creating bird habitats and building dams right next to runways. I would like your detailed explanation about how you will maintain oversight of aviation infrastructure that is clearly degrading at both the leased airports and within the ALOP space.
Mr Mrdak: I am not aware of—
Senator FAWCETT: There is a specific report. I would like you to look into it. That report made recommendations about the requirement for forced landing areas for aircraft. There were 240-odd incidents leading up to 31 December 2010 in the decade before that. They include degradations in the forced landings and 75 energy failures. I would like you to revisit the discussion on public safety areas that has been pushed off to a later date. I would like your response to that on notice as to whether it is adequate.
Mr Mrdak: Certainly, Senator. I will do that.
Senator FAWCETT: Secondly, in terms of Adelaide and the efficacy of the NASAG process, I asked if a request to extend building heights were put forward, how would it be handled? The response was that there is no request. In February this year, the front page of the Adelaide Advertiser reported on a strong push to get rid of what they called archaic limitations on building heights. There was some talk of a 100-storey building. If you are familiar with the layout of airports in Adelaide, that would have a huge impact. I would like your written answer as to how you will handle that request when it inevitably comes.
Thirdly, I asked about the investment into aviation infrastructure in leased airports. During the briefing your staff gave, you talked about the percentages, and quite high percentages, in some cases. At Jandakot, for example, the figure is in the tens of millions allocated against the airport. The best the Parliamentary Library could find was water supply, sewerage, drainage, electricity, gas communication systems and existing interests. There is no mention of runways, taxiways, aircraft run-up areas and additional runways, which have been on the books for ages. What oversight does your department have on the implementation of the undertaking that these lessees have to invest the money they make in aviation related infrastructure?
Mr Doherty: I am not sure that there is a general obligation on us to do that. When the sale agreements were set up for the initial privatisation of the airports, a number of the airports did have obligations in relation to particular developments. They were discharged within the time frame for those obligations. So we do not as a rule have a process of keeping an account of the individual investment.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Doherty, thank you. I ask you to take this on notice, given that we are rapidly running out of time. How will the department implement your stated vision from the white paper and your response to me that airports are predominantly about aviation? How will you actually achieve that vision statement for your department’s view of airports if you do not monitor the investment and the upkeep? I ask you to also extend that to ALOP aerodromes, particularly given that the transfer deed specifically prohibited local government from doing things like building dams or things that might attract bird life? Right at the moment there are a number of councils who are doing things like interrupting drainage, creating bird habitats and building dams right next to runways. I would like your detailed explanation about how you will maintain oversight of aviation infrastructure that is clearly degrading at both the leased airports and within the ALOP space.
and on it goes but I think you can get the picture…having now taken a small peak at the former govt policy on airports..I’d be somewhat surprised if more GA IOS members don’t follow in the footsteps of the Archerfield tenants group and take the Dept head on, after all they’ve got a vested interest with a lot to lose if they don’t. Here it is from the horse’s mouth
(Senate Additional Estimates Hansard February 2012):Hansard from Senate Additional Estimates February 2012:
Senator Fawcett: In the white paper on page 156 it states that the government’s position is that the primary purpose—and in this case you talk about federal leased airports—is aviation. What does that actually mean?
Mr Mrdak: I think that reflects the very strong view by the government that the primary development on airport sites should be aviation focused. As you know, there has been criticism in the past that at some of the leased federal airports there has been development, which in the view of some in the aviation industry has diverted from the primary purpose of the airport. In leasing the airports we are always seeking to maximise non-aeronautical revenue to support the airport. I think in that statement the government is clearly stating its view that in reviewing master plans, major development plans and the way in which the airports develop, it is looking to make sure that the primary planning focus is allowing for aviation growth.
Mr Mrdak: I think that reflects the very strong view by the government that the primary development on airport sites should be aviation focused. As you know, there has been criticism in the past that at some of the leased federal airports there has been development, which in the view of some in the aviation industry has diverted from the primary purpose of the airport. In leasing the airports we are always seeking to maximise non-aeronautical revenue to support the airport. I think in that statement the government is clearly stating its view that in reviewing master plans, major development plans and the way in which the airports develop, it is looking to make sure that the primary planning focus is allowing for aviation growth.
?? All I can say is…‘God help GA!’
Last edited by Sarcs; 9th Nov 2013 at 07:24.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clever lad.
Sarcs ref # 274. I wonder if the GWEP* was deliberately written to lull the reader into a transcendental state by about page two, eyes glazed over by page 10, with the really tricky bits starting at about page 50 where, even the dedicated reader has packed it in (promising, as you do, to continue later). It takes time and interest to plough through the whole thing. Mostly by the time that's done, it's too late – game over. The clever lads have used the tricky bits, just after printing and got the job done before you have even started to decipher what they are talking about, let alone unearth the 'cunning plans' concealed. But well done Sarcs, well done indeed Sirrah...
. *GWEP -Great White Elephant Paper (for those with short attention spans).
Now then, for a choccy frog; define "Air transport". Perhaps Creampuff could hazard a guess, because there is a fair amount of legal jiggery-pokery within the term; as applied. I think Fawcett has a glimmer though; if, (big IF) he and his crew can see the mirrors, through the smoke; e.g.
Subtle emphasis shift and all is revealed. The primary planning will go ahead irrespective of aviation growth. Deuced clever weasel words, but is the primary purpose not aviation, i.e air transport ?
Could this possibly be renamed, from the Sale of the Century to the battle of the century. If Fawcett and his masters (who's edicts he must bear in mind), property developers and airport owners are to be persuaded that the development of aviation must take precedence over town houses, green houses, carpet factories and McDonalds outlets on airports; they will need a lot more encouragement from aviation than they are presently getting. Even then, the chances of success are slim against so many other, more profitable vested interests.
Perhaps the good Senator could consider that even icons like the Barrier reef and rain forest eventually fall prey to developers, in one form or another. The only hope (IMO) is that airports are taken back under the wing of Commonwealth control; it's probably the only way the Murky, Machiavellian plans for our 'paddocks' can be thwarted, before your local airport becomes a housing estate. Not that I like the odds of success, but it is a solution if aviation is to develop. Funding ? easy the legal costs for the Archerfield, Moorabbin and Bankstown debates alone would probably cover most of it - (kidding).
Safe investments for all. (except the aviation ones of course).
Edit - Is it just me having trouble with spacing? (the last TB post was well 'spaced out'. Only asking.
. *GWEP -Great White Elephant Paper (for those with short attention spans).Now then, for a choccy frog; define "Air transport". Perhaps Creampuff could hazard a guess, because there is a fair amount of legal jiggery-pokery within the term; as applied. I think Fawcett has a glimmer though; if, (big IF) he and his crew can see the mirrors, through the smoke; e.g.
Mrdak: "it is looking to make sure that the primary planning focus is allowing for aviation growth.
Senator Fawcett: "Thirdly, I asked about the investment into aviation infrastructure in leased airports:" etc -
Senator Fawcett: "What oversight does your department have on the implementation of the undertaking that these lessees have to invest the money they make in aviation related infrastructure?"
Could this possibly be renamed, from the Sale of the Century to the battle of the century. If Fawcett and his masters (who's edicts he must bear in mind), property developers and airport owners are to be persuaded that the development of aviation must take precedence over town houses, green houses, carpet factories and McDonalds outlets on airports; they will need a lot more encouragement from aviation than they are presently getting. Even then, the chances of success are slim against so many other, more profitable vested interests.
Perhaps the good Senator could consider that even icons like the Barrier reef and rain forest eventually fall prey to developers, in one form or another. The only hope (IMO) is that airports are taken back under the wing of Commonwealth control; it's probably the only way the Murky, Machiavellian plans for our 'paddocks' can be thwarted, before your local airport becomes a housing estate. Not that I like the odds of success, but it is a solution if aviation is to develop. Funding ? easy the legal costs for the Archerfield, Moorabbin and Bankstown debates alone would probably cover most of it - (kidding).
Safe investments for all. (except the aviation ones of course).
Edit - Is it just me having trouble with spacing? (the last TB post was well 'spaced out'. Only asking.
Last edited by Kharon; 9th Nov 2013 at 20:06. Reason: As the actress said to the Bishop; put it where you like it best mate.
"Oh we're...drifting..drifting..away!"
Kharon:
Hmm..but the GWEP is only previous Government Policy, it is not written in law, and now that policy, which used to have its own dedicated webpage, would appear to have been put out the back door, see here… Aviation White Paper released by the previous government in 2009 [PDF: 3796 KB] ….
…besides a lifetime membership to the 3DGALosers clubwhere does that leave all the DIPs (Directly interested parties), besides at the mercy of yet another dept instigated clusterf*#k??
Well I would have thought that it would come back to the laws governing such things as airport development and also the terms of each individual airport lease. So for us uninitiated knuckle draggers what laws are there??
While trolling through the (yawn) dept website I came across the FOI disclosure log and in there I noticed there are several references to this dept instigated, feel good advisory group (that has little to no power as its advice can be vetoed by the Minister) called the NASAG, which is constantly referred to in Senate Estimate hearings (link: Dept FOI DL check entries for 09/05/13).
In those docs there is one reference which keeps cropping up called the Principles for a national land use planning regime near airports, military airfields and flight paths.
This document was drafted after the GWEP was released:
Again, much like the NASAG, this doc has no head of power (i.e. it is just another feel good dept guidance reference). However it does list the laws around airport development and the associated protected airspace at paragraph 3:
Hmm..starting to get into this…more to follow Sarcs (K2)!
ps Wonder who FOI'ed the NASAG docs??
pps for 4dogs benefit: Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988. Wonder how many FF NCN/RCAs have been issued under these regs...?? My guess is not many!
Addendum - Ben's rant on former PM KRUDD:Failed ex PM Rudd switches tack to destroy Brisbane Airport
Could this possibly be renamed, from the Sale of the Century to the battle of the century. If Fawcett and his masters (who's edicts he must bear in mind), property developers and airport owners are to be persuaded that the development of aviation must take precedence over town houses, green houses, carpet factories and McDonalds outlets on airports; they will need a lot more encouragement from aviation than they are presently getting. Even then, the chances of success are slim against so many other, more profitable vested interests.
…besides a lifetime membership to the 3DGALosers clubwhere does that leave all the DIPs (Directly interested parties), besides at the mercy of yet another dept instigated clusterf*#k??
Well I would have thought that it would come back to the laws governing such things as airport development and also the terms of each individual airport lease. So for us uninitiated knuckle draggers what laws are there??
While trolling through the (yawn
) dept website I came across the FOI disclosure log and in there I noticed there are several references to this dept instigated, feel good advisory group (that has little to no power as its advice can be vetoed by the Minister) called the NASAG, which is constantly referred to in Senate Estimate hearings (link: Dept FOI DL check entries for 09/05/13). In those docs there is one reference which keeps cropping up called the Principles for a national land use planning regime near airports, military airfields and flight paths.
This document was drafted after the GWEP was released:
The following Principles for a national land use planning regime near airports and flight paths (the Principles) are designed to give effect to the initiatives in the Australian Government’s December 2009 Aviation White Paper for developing a national framework to safeguard both communities and airports from inappropriate off-airport developments.
At the Commonwealth level, airspace protection provisions exist in the following legislation:
(a) the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1962 establish a system for the protection of airspace around the leased federal airports in the interests of the safety, efficiency and regularity of existing or future air transport operations into and out of airports;
(b) the Defence (Area Control) Regulations 1989 protect airspace around the identified Defence airfields; and
(c) Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1983 requires airport operators to monitor the airport and land in their vicinity for structures and activities that may infringe protected airspace.
(a) the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1962 establish a system for the protection of airspace around the leased federal airports in the interests of the safety, efficiency and regularity of existing or future air transport operations into and out of airports;
(b) the Defence (Area Control) Regulations 1989 protect airspace around the identified Defence airfields; and
(c) Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1983 requires airport operators to monitor the airport and land in their vicinity for structures and activities that may infringe protected airspace.
ps Wonder who FOI'ed the NASAG docs??
pps for 4dogs benefit: Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988. Wonder how many FF NCN/RCAs have been issued under these regs...?? My guess is not many!
Addendum - Ben's rant on former PM KRUDD:Failed ex PM Rudd switches tack to destroy Brisbane Airport
Last edited by Sarcs; 10th Nov 2013 at 02:03. Reason: week of addendums
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of the rules?
I often wonder why these things never mention the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988, which remain current, are administered by CASA (cough, cough...
) and affect building in the vicinity of Sydney KSA, Bankstown, Melbourne, Moorabbin, Essendon and Adelaide airports...
Stay Alive,
) and affect building in the vicinity of Sydney KSA, Bankstown, Melbourne, Moorabbin, Essendon and Adelaide airports...Stay Alive,
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 a side- verbal pin-pong.
Fawcett: Mr Mrdak, can I take you back to the ANAO audit that looked at airport leases. One of the recommendations was that your department should develop a comprehensive framework and procedures to monitor and ensure lessee compliance with leases. etc. My bold
Mr Mrdak: Certainly, I am very happy to. I would come back to the fact that, yes, the department has put in place lease monitoring arrangements, including annual lease reviews and a system of ensuring that specific terms of both the leases and the act are being complied with. My bold
Sort of puts it in perspective; two teams of lawyers and 20 years through the courts to define and clarify each and every word. While you are waiting, the wide boys have stolen the march done what they like; and then, to remove their financial graffiti, you guessed it; another 20 years in court under the threat of huge compensation. Meanwhile lawyers get fat and the culprits have hors d'oeuvres served up on the fan tail of a floating gin palace in some tax free haven. We are definitely on the wrong team Toto. (Wonder where we sign up)....
Offtrack PNR - ANAO (wet lettuce) audit, via Brisvegas to Harbour City.
In case the de-coders amongst us were wondering where “K” extracted that Hansard passage and what audit recommendation DF was referring to here you go…ANAO recommendation first (2007):
The Hansard passage was from the last Estimates in May, to put it in context here are the bits that “K” left out :
Kind of allows the thread to drift back to topic (minus Albo), then if we use links to recent articles on the subjects of YBBN and YSSY from Planetalking…
Failed ex PM Rudd switches tack to destroy Brisbane Airport
Richmond option for new Sydney Airport ruled out
Lobby group makes 1st Sydney Airport more important than 2nd
Second Sydney Airport delivers integrity lesson to TTF lobby
Note: Interestingly enough, on the matter of audits, it looks like Kingcrat & co will be getting a knock on the door very soon from the ANAO…hmm will be interesting to see how he obfuscates the auditors this time??:
“Yes Minister, according to current government policy, the books (including the floating trough fund) are all in order!”
where “K” extracted that Hansard passage and what audit recommendation DF was referring to here you go…ANAO recommendation first (2007):
Management of Airport Leases: Follow up
ANAO recommends that DOTARS improve its management of the Airport Leases by developing and implementing reliable systems for the scheduling and conducting of annual lease review meetings, and reporting on its performance in conducting these reviews.
ANAO recommends that DOTARS enhance its conduct of lease review meetings by, at the conclusion of each review:
(a) documenting review outcomes, including the Department’s assessment of the degree to which the lessee complies with the sale documentation requirements; and
(b) providing a written response to the lessee specifying outstanding issues that are to be addressed.
An audit would examine the Department of Infrastructure and Transport's administration of the airport planning requirements, including the extent to which the Commonwealth's interests have been protected.
ANAO recommends that DOTARS improve its management of the Airport Leases by developing and implementing reliable systems for the scheduling and conducting of annual lease review meetings, and reporting on its performance in conducting these reviews.
ANAO recommends that DOTARS enhance its conduct of lease review meetings by, at the conclusion of each review:
(a) documenting review outcomes, including the Department’s assessment of the degree to which the lessee complies with the sale documentation requirements; and
(b) providing a written response to the lessee specifying outstanding issues that are to be addressed.
An audit would examine the Department of Infrastructure and Transport's administration of the airport planning requirements, including the extent to which the Commonwealth's interests have been protected.
:
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, can I take you back to the ANAO audit that looked at airport leases. One of the recommendations was that your department should develop a comprehensive framework and procedures to monitor and ensure lessee compliance with leases. Subsequently, in a review, you advised that the department recognised said findings and had established a comprehensive framework to discharge its obligations. In a subsequent committee report the committee commented that it is important to acknowledge the Commonwealth has a significant residual interest in federal airports now leased to private companies and consortiums and the government, through DOTARS, must ensure that these leases are managed properly and in accordance with the lease agreements. They made that comment in relation to concerns that had emerged post your comment that a system was in place.
With that background, I draw your attention to a number of recent media articles around the Brisbane Airport highlighting the issue of the parallel runway and the fact that back as far as 1998 the airport corporation said that the runway was only eight to 10 years away and then in 1999 they were warning that we would hit capacity by 2007. In 2003, targeting 2012 for the runway, et cetera. It rolled on through a number of master plans that the Commonwealth had signed off on, yet no action has actually occurred.
The terms of the lease say in section 12.1, 'Throughout the term of the lease, the lessee must develop the airport site at its own cost and expense consistent with a major international airport, having regard to the actual anticipated future growth and pattern of traffic demand for the airport site, quality standards reasonably expected of such an airport and good business practice.' The committee members have received a great deal of feedback by people who are concerned that the Commonwealth is in fact not enforcing its duty as the owner of the airport by making sure that the leaseholder does in fact make those investments in a timely manner. Would you care to make some general comments around that before I ask a few more specific questions?
Mr Mrdak: Certainly, I am very happy to. I would come back to the fact that, yes, the department has put in place lease monitoring arrangements, including annual lease reviews and a system of ensuring that specific terms of both the leases and the act are being complied with.
In relation to the Brisbane runway, I would differ from your assessment that nothing has happened; quite the reverse. Over the last few years, the major development plan for the project has been lodged and approved, the various environmental assessment processes completed and works are actually underway on the development. The issue that is attracting attention is the funding mechanism by which the Brisbane Airport Corporation seeks to recover the cost of work and the surety that they are seeking from their customers in relation to the prefunding of the work.
It is a unique project, as you know, because of the dredging and settlement requirements for the work. But the pre works and all of the clearing of the site have been done. So, over the last few years all of the stages that are set out in the MDP, major development plan, approval process have been met to the satisfaction of the Commonwealth and on my understanding the next trigger threshold point, which is the letting of the dredging contracts, is being scheduled by the airport and will be in place by later this year to enable the runway project to proceed in accordance with the environmental approvals.
So, in relation to that project, while there remains a source of difference between the airlines and the airports on the funding, the work is proceeding and I think the Brisbane Airport Corporation has made that very clear. In relation to that specific example, I would disagree with your comment that nothing has happened. In fact, there has been work undertaken and will continue to do that to meet the current timetable for the runway.
In relation to the overall monitoring of the leases, we do oversight and manage those relationships to ensure that growth is being met and the airports are recognising that commercial decisions have to be made.
With that background, I draw your attention to a number of recent media articles around the Brisbane Airport highlighting the issue of the parallel runway and the fact that back as far as 1998 the airport corporation said that the runway was only eight to 10 years away and then in 1999 they were warning that we would hit capacity by 2007. In 2003, targeting 2012 for the runway, et cetera. It rolled on through a number of master plans that the Commonwealth had signed off on, yet no action has actually occurred.
The terms of the lease say in section 12.1, 'Throughout the term of the lease, the lessee must develop the airport site at its own cost and expense consistent with a major international airport, having regard to the actual anticipated future growth and pattern of traffic demand for the airport site, quality standards reasonably expected of such an airport and good business practice.' The committee members have received a great deal of feedback by people who are concerned that the Commonwealth is in fact not enforcing its duty as the owner of the airport by making sure that the leaseholder does in fact make those investments in a timely manner. Would you care to make some general comments around that before I ask a few more specific questions?
Mr Mrdak: Certainly, I am very happy to. I would come back to the fact that, yes, the department has put in place lease monitoring arrangements, including annual lease reviews and a system of ensuring that specific terms of both the leases and the act are being complied with.
In relation to the Brisbane runway, I would differ from your assessment that nothing has happened; quite the reverse. Over the last few years, the major development plan for the project has been lodged and approved, the various environmental assessment processes completed and works are actually underway on the development. The issue that is attracting attention is the funding mechanism by which the Brisbane Airport Corporation seeks to recover the cost of work and the surety that they are seeking from their customers in relation to the prefunding of the work.
It is a unique project, as you know, because of the dredging and settlement requirements for the work. But the pre works and all of the clearing of the site have been done. So, over the last few years all of the stages that are set out in the MDP, major development plan, approval process have been met to the satisfaction of the Commonwealth and on my understanding the next trigger threshold point, which is the letting of the dredging contracts, is being scheduled by the airport and will be in place by later this year to enable the runway project to proceed in accordance with the environmental approvals.
So, in relation to that project, while there remains a source of difference between the airlines and the airports on the funding, the work is proceeding and I think the Brisbane Airport Corporation has made that very clear. In relation to that specific example, I would disagree with your comment that nothing has happened. In fact, there has been work undertaken and will continue to do that to meet the current timetable for the runway.
In relation to the overall monitoring of the leases, we do oversight and manage those relationships to ensure that growth is being met and the airports are recognising that commercial decisions have to be made.
), then if we use links to recent articles on the subjects of YBBN and YSSY from Planetalking…Failed ex PM Rudd switches tack to destroy Brisbane Airport
Richmond option for new Sydney Airport ruled out
Lobby group makes 1st Sydney Airport more important than 2nd
Second Sydney Airport delivers integrity lesson to TTF lobby
Note: Interestingly enough, on the matter of audits, it looks like Kingcrat & co will be getting a knock on the door very soon from the ANAO…hmm will be interesting to see how he obfuscates the auditors this time??
:
Administration of Airport Planning Requirements for the Leased Federal Airports
All leased federal airports (except for Tennant Creek and Mount Isa) are subject to a planning framework outlined in the Airports Act 1996. As part of the planning framework, those airports are required to prepare: a 20-year strategic vision for the airport site which is renewed every five years (referred to as the airport master plan); a plan for major airport developments on the airport site; and a strategy to manage environmental issues. Following amendments to the Airports Act 1996, new arrangements in relation to planning requirements have recently been implemented, with airports to progressively submit their master plans incorporating the new arrangements.
All leased federal airports (except for Tennant Creek and Mount Isa) are subject to a planning framework outlined in the Airports Act 1996. As part of the planning framework, those airports are required to prepare: a 20-year strategic vision for the airport site which is renewed every five years (referred to as the airport master plan); a plan for major airport developments on the airport site; and a strategy to manage environmental issues. Following amendments to the Airports Act 1996, new arrangements in relation to planning requirements have recently been implemented, with airports to progressively submit their master plans incorporating the new arrangements.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAC, CASA, troughs and conflicts of interest?
This is only a question out of curiosity, but is it a conflict of interest that David Gray hold a board position at both CASA and BAC?
Now obviously both organisations have troughs overflowing with sweetness, and I would also like to be a piggy and oink oink sit at either of those troughs, but I am just curious whether a conflict of interest is present here?
Former
Non-Executive Director, Member of Human Resources / Remuneration Committee and Member of New Parallel Runway Project Committee
BAC Holdings Limited
2010-Present
Non-Executive Director, Chairman of Human Resources & Remuneration Committee and Member of New Parallel Runway Project Committee
Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Ltd
Present - David Gray
Deputy Chair CASA
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Biographies of CASA Board members
Now obviously both organisations have troughs overflowing with sweetness, and I would also like to be a piggy and oink oink sit at either of those troughs, but I am just curious whether a conflict of interest is present here?
Former
Non-Executive Director, Member of Human Resources / Remuneration Committee and Member of New Parallel Runway Project Committee
BAC Holdings Limited
2010-Present
Non-Executive Director, Chairman of Human Resources & Remuneration Committee and Member of New Parallel Runway Project Committee
Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Ltd
Present - David Gray
Deputy Chair CASA
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Biographies of CASA Board members
From pages 72 to 73 of the proof Hansard of the House of Representatives 13 November 2013:
“The facts are these. Sydney Airport is a privately run airport that has made substantial returns. I note it is yet to pay a single dollar in tax since it was privatised.”
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:14): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: I refer to an article on 10 August in a page 1 splash in the Daily Telegraph headlined 'Albo's Air Farce: Minister accused of helping MPs break curfew'. It was alleged by Sydney Airport chief Max Moore-Wilton that my office 'allowed 10 flights after the curfew between 11 pm and 11.30 pm the other night' and he is reported as saying, 'I suspect there were a few politicians on these planes.'
The facts are these. Mr Moore-Wilton would know full well that decisions about the curfew's operation are made by the delegate of the secretary of my former department. Neither I nor my office made decisions on curfew dispensations on that evening. Further, there were no planes which took off or landed after the curfew. Further again, there were no politicians on those non-existent planes.
I seek to make a further explanation. I can do them all in a job lot if you like, in order of the Daily Telegraph's coverage.
The SPEAKER: I think that is a good idea.
Mr ALBANESE: On the same day in an article headlined on page 3, 'Green light to break curfew', Mr Moore-Wilton alleged that I had written to Qatar Airways advising them not to fly to Sydney. The fact is this. Qatar is permitted right now to fly to Sydney seven times a week. Instead they choose to fly seven times a week to Melbourne and seven times a week to Perth, a fact that was relayed to the Daily Telegraph.
I have been further misrepresented in the same article. Mr Moore-Wilton is quoted as saying:
Really he is the minister for no noise over Marrickville. He will never spend a dollar on Sydney Airport because the No Aircraft Noise Party and the Greens will tear him limb from limb.
The facts are these. Sydney Airport is a privately run airport that has made substantial returns. I note it is yet to pay a single dollar in tax since it was privatised.
Further, on 19 August in a front-page splash, 'Albanese blows billions on airport curfew', John Lyman claimed:
The Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's restrictive management of the Sydney Airport curfew has cost Australia $3.5 billion in lost tourism and nearly 8,000 jobs.
The facts, which were also conveyed to the Daily Telegraph at the time, are these. The curfew was introduced after a private member's bill from the then member for Bennelong, John Howard. As minister, I made no changes to the act or the operation of the curfew. Between 5 am and 6 am the act did allow for limited exemptions for arrivals at Sydney Airport—ironically because of curfews which operate at both Heathrow and Frankfurt airports. By extension of the methods Sydney Airport used—that 11 flights a week deliver almost 8,000 jobs—this logic suggests that Sydney Airport itself is responsible for 4,195,800 jobs.
The SPEAKER: We are getting into argument there. Just show where you have been misrepresented.
Mr ALBANESE: Further, on 19 August, in an article by John Lyman on page 4 of the Daily Telegraph headlined, 'Wimpish personal politics put ahead of the national interest', Mr Lyman argued that I had let my 'fear of aircraft blind him'—meaning me—'to the enormous economic benefits in job opportunities he is denying the people of Sydney'. The fact is this. The regulation limiting flights arriving in Sydney between 5 am and 6 am each week to 24 has not been changed by any minister, including me, since it was introduced in 1995. During my time as minister I received no applications for flights outside curfew from curfew constrained destinations.
Further, on 21 August in an article in the Daily Telegraph headed 'Too few flights cater for Chinese', John Lyman accused me of undermining the Chinese tourism boom by failing to strike a deal to allow more flights in. The facts are these. Right now, more than 5,500 unused weekly sites are available to Chinese carriers flying to major Australian airports and further seats are available for flights to airports other than the gateway airports. As minister, I in fact signed off on agreements which tripled capacity with China.
The last agreements were signed just last year and we announced new flights to Cairns with China Southern during the recent election campaign.
The SPEAKER: Is this next one the last one? Good.
Mr ALBANESE: The Daily Telegraph was busy during the campaign. On 4 September in a Daily Telegraph article Andrew Clennell stated that I had 'Failed to turn a single sod on a string of major Sydney projects.' The facts are these. All major infrastructure projects have significant lead times. They require extensive consultation, planning and expenditure before commencement of construction. The work I commissioned on projects such as the second Sydney airport was essential prior work that now facilitates early decisions on the merit of these projects.
The SPEAKER: The member is now getting into argument. He said you had not turned a sod.
Mr ALBANESE: The fact is that in six years the government committed more than $5.5 billion to transport projects servicing Sydney, including $840 million for the northern Sydney freight line upgrade, which was commenced with a sod turned by me and the New South Wales Premier, Barry O'Farrell; $800 million for the Moorebank Intermodal; $980 million for the southern Sydney freight line, which was concluded and opened while I was the minister; $405 million for the F3 to M2 missing link; $300 million for the Great Western Highway, work that is almost concluded; $172 million for Port Botany rail improvements; $93 million to widen the F5 at Campbelltown, which was announced, funded, built and opened on my watch; $75 million for the upgrade of the Port Botany rail line; $40 million for the Port Botany upgrade program; and $1.8 billion to deliver the M4 and M5 extension, in partnership with the New South Wales government and the private sector. The former government's contribution is 5.5 times greater than the total infrastructure investment in Sydney by the Howard government during their 12 long years.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:14): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr ALBANESE: I refer to an article on 10 August in a page 1 splash in the Daily Telegraph headlined 'Albo's Air Farce: Minister accused of helping MPs break curfew'. It was alleged by Sydney Airport chief Max Moore-Wilton that my office 'allowed 10 flights after the curfew between 11 pm and 11.30 pm the other night' and he is reported as saying, 'I suspect there were a few politicians on these planes.'
The facts are these. Mr Moore-Wilton would know full well that decisions about the curfew's operation are made by the delegate of the secretary of my former department. Neither I nor my office made decisions on curfew dispensations on that evening. Further, there were no planes which took off or landed after the curfew. Further again, there were no politicians on those non-existent planes.
I seek to make a further explanation. I can do them all in a job lot if you like, in order of the Daily Telegraph's coverage.
The SPEAKER: I think that is a good idea.
Mr ALBANESE: On the same day in an article headlined on page 3, 'Green light to break curfew', Mr Moore-Wilton alleged that I had written to Qatar Airways advising them not to fly to Sydney. The fact is this. Qatar is permitted right now to fly to Sydney seven times a week. Instead they choose to fly seven times a week to Melbourne and seven times a week to Perth, a fact that was relayed to the Daily Telegraph.
I have been further misrepresented in the same article. Mr Moore-Wilton is quoted as saying:
Really he is the minister for no noise over Marrickville. He will never spend a dollar on Sydney Airport because the No Aircraft Noise Party and the Greens will tear him limb from limb.
The facts are these. Sydney Airport is a privately run airport that has made substantial returns. I note it is yet to pay a single dollar in tax since it was privatised.
Further, on 19 August in a front-page splash, 'Albanese blows billions on airport curfew', John Lyman claimed:
The Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's restrictive management of the Sydney Airport curfew has cost Australia $3.5 billion in lost tourism and nearly 8,000 jobs.
The facts, which were also conveyed to the Daily Telegraph at the time, are these. The curfew was introduced after a private member's bill from the then member for Bennelong, John Howard. As minister, I made no changes to the act or the operation of the curfew. Between 5 am and 6 am the act did allow for limited exemptions for arrivals at Sydney Airport—ironically because of curfews which operate at both Heathrow and Frankfurt airports. By extension of the methods Sydney Airport used—that 11 flights a week deliver almost 8,000 jobs—this logic suggests that Sydney Airport itself is responsible for 4,195,800 jobs.
The SPEAKER: We are getting into argument there. Just show where you have been misrepresented.
Mr ALBANESE: Further, on 19 August, in an article by John Lyman on page 4 of the Daily Telegraph headlined, 'Wimpish personal politics put ahead of the national interest', Mr Lyman argued that I had let my 'fear of aircraft blind him'—meaning me—'to the enormous economic benefits in job opportunities he is denying the people of Sydney'. The fact is this. The regulation limiting flights arriving in Sydney between 5 am and 6 am each week to 24 has not been changed by any minister, including me, since it was introduced in 1995. During my time as minister I received no applications for flights outside curfew from curfew constrained destinations.
Further, on 21 August in an article in the Daily Telegraph headed 'Too few flights cater for Chinese', John Lyman accused me of undermining the Chinese tourism boom by failing to strike a deal to allow more flights in. The facts are these. Right now, more than 5,500 unused weekly sites are available to Chinese carriers flying to major Australian airports and further seats are available for flights to airports other than the gateway airports. As minister, I in fact signed off on agreements which tripled capacity with China.
The last agreements were signed just last year and we announced new flights to Cairns with China Southern during the recent election campaign.
The SPEAKER: Is this next one the last one? Good.
Mr ALBANESE: The Daily Telegraph was busy during the campaign. On 4 September in a Daily Telegraph article Andrew Clennell stated that I had 'Failed to turn a single sod on a string of major Sydney projects.' The facts are these. All major infrastructure projects have significant lead times. They require extensive consultation, planning and expenditure before commencement of construction. The work I commissioned on projects such as the second Sydney airport was essential prior work that now facilitates early decisions on the merit of these projects.
The SPEAKER: The member is now getting into argument. He said you had not turned a sod.
Mr ALBANESE: The fact is that in six years the government committed more than $5.5 billion to transport projects servicing Sydney, including $840 million for the northern Sydney freight line upgrade, which was commenced with a sod turned by me and the New South Wales Premier, Barry O'Farrell; $800 million for the Moorebank Intermodal; $980 million for the southern Sydney freight line, which was concluded and opened while I was the minister; $405 million for the F3 to M2 missing link; $300 million for the Great Western Highway, work that is almost concluded; $172 million for Port Botany rail improvements; $93 million to widen the F5 at Campbelltown, which was announced, funded, built and opened on my watch; $75 million for the upgrade of the Port Botany rail line; $40 million for the Port Botany upgrade program; and $1.8 billion to deliver the M4 and M5 extension, in partnership with the New South Wales government and the private sector. The former government's contribution is 5.5 times greater than the total infrastructure investment in Sydney by the Howard government during their 12 long years.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the return has been around a billion dollars a year creamie, and where does the company in the bahama's fit in the picture? Are directors bonuses tax deductable??
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money for jam. Billions in profit yet pay no tax? No wonder these knobs have lifted the Australian debt ceiling. They don't receive enough tax revenue because they allow big business to not pay tax!
And as for Albo's response, pity he couldn't put that much effort into replying to senate inquiry questions.
And as for Albo's response, pity he couldn't put that much effort into replying to senate inquiry questions.
