I'm not sure you've understood the points being made, if you still think that an itinerant GA user of an aerodrome is "heavily subsidised".
Whatever the case, it all seems to me to circle back to the point that if Australia was indeed an "innovation nation" and any government an "infrastructure government", there would be a lot more government investment in aerodrome infrastructure.
Everyone seems to be overlooking one key aspect of the 'loser pays' principle and the selling off or 'divestment' of aerodrome infrastructure. Suddenly a whole lot of highly paid 'executives' and 'managers' had to be funded off the back of these assets. After all, but for their brilliance (with the corresponding price tag), how would it be possible to run an aerodrome so efficiently?
It's just the good ol' Australian game of cost-shifting between the levels of government, which game has, surprisingly,
nothing to do with any objective principle of efficient provision of services or infrastructure and everything to do with political expedience.
As for the security requirements, I've come to realise that it's a stroke of genius to create a system that, in practice, has no coherent or consistent connection with the objective threats, but the flaws in which us losers have no interest in highlighting in case the jobsworths redouble their efforts to reinforce the facade, to our inconvenience and no one else's. Any bad guys who try to use logic to penetrate the aviation 'security' system would be
completely bamboozled. The lunatics are going to ignore the 'system' in any event. I therefore dips me lid to OTS.
