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.
Mrdak: "it is looking to make sure that the primary planning focus is allowing for aviation growth.
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 ?
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.