Not quite the headline statement of the AAAA (Aerial Ag Phil) submission, nonetheless of substantial quality and still singing from the same hymn sheet, is the submission from ALGA (Australian Local Government Association). This submission also strongly backs up the AAA (who is also in alliance with the AAAA through TAAAF) submission
:
ALGA ASRR submission
5 Conclusion
The overwhelming majority of Australian airports are owned and operated by local councils for the regional and remote communities that they serve. For many regional communities, access to air services is essential for their social and economic wellbeing. These air services provide access to major cities and other major regional centres facilitating out-bound and in-bound tourism, personal and business travel, personal and business freight and importantly access to social and community services that are less readily available in regions, such as education and health services.
Australia’s agricultural production is also considerably enhanced by aerial agricultural services like crop dusting and mustering operated from regional and remote airports. Further, some regional airports also provide pilot training facilities which assists with sustaining the aviation industry. In addition, other regional and remote airports provide a valuable service in enabling fire-fighting to be undertaken in areas where road transport is not possible or is too slow.
The economic contribution of Australia’s regional and remote airports is significant, estimated (in 2011) at $329m with $216m in gross operating surplus (GOS) and $113m in wage payments accumulated from the activity generated from regional and remote airports, although this is conservative estimate of this sectors contribution, for reasons explained earlier in this submission.
However regional and remote airports face considerable challenges in maintaining, let alone growing, the service they provide to their local communities. Maintaining and developing the capacity of these airports is expensive. This situation is compounded by the fact that the costs of regulation at these airports are disproportionately greater than for capital city airports – often by a factor of three.
Therefore, there is a serious need to review and address safety, security, environmental controls, as well as development planning and control regulations which may not be fit for purpose. ALGA looks forward to working with the Commonwealth to address unnecessarily complex and inconsistent regulatory requirements which are not sufficiently sensitive and flexible to the challenging circumstances faced by our regional and remote airports
Found a ‘V’ in my alphabet soup??
While on the subject of airports it would appear that one of the VIPA WLR submission’s focal points, along with the CAO 48.1 debacle, revolves around Sydney Airport, Ben’s Article yesterday...
Virgin pilots highlight Sydney Airport’s serious problems
The association will make the congested airport’s problems a part of its submission to the federal government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review when it meets with its panel in Brisbane this Thursday.
VIPA is also calling for a restructure of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), measures to reduce pilot fatigue and other aviation regulation reforms.
The association’s president, Captain John Lyons, said “For pilots, the issue of a second Sydney airport is faster becoming an urgent debate about safety, rather than economics.”
Still on airports I heard a rumour..
..that the Archerfield’s tenancy group submission is as equally heavy hitting as the AAAA sub…hmm wonder if I can get a copy??…
