Thanks for reply
I guess a coupe of things come to my mind in respect of the below.
The particular building i have in mind to below does not - and even before the lease was granted - did not get used for aircraft as it is about 100m from airside and I am simply drawing a comparison to what the rest of the non aviation economy pays. The costs of that building to a hangar are comparable. With respect you are not competing.... you are just not paying your own way.... which is the deal.... which is why we need the income from other uses.
I think the parking cost is a fair comparison as the sunk costs to provide the pavement, lighting, security are reasonably similar.
We leased and operate the airfield in accordance with the Airports Act which allows for land not needed for airfield operations to be put to other uses.
The Airports Act has been supported by both major parties - I can't see it changing.
Originally Posted by
Left 270
Firstly at an airport why is there non aviation buildings 100m away? I shouldn't need to compete against that because it's an airport and it should be there for use of aircraft.
I put it to you like this, you get access to cheap commonwealth land through a government lease, land that is in commonwealth hands because it is sole purpose and then slowly turn it into anything apart from its original purpose
I do give you credit for posting here as you could have easily kept quiet, and since we can't go backwards we will need to work out a way to move forward.