Originally Posted by
Aero developer
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.
And here's the problem.
By what rationale does a civil aviation airport have to "pay its way"?
It's a piece of public infrastructure, built up over many decades, primarily from the taxpayer's wallet.
It may not have been a commercially viable operation when your company took it over. It didn't have to be.
Your company knew the situation when they took it on. They didn't have to take it on. They chose to take it on.
So, after going in with eyes wide open they find that they can't make a buck without compromising safety. Too bad too sad. Hand the lease back, and don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.