Bankstown Lack of Ethics

[Dick Smith]

Staff in my office are trying to finalise the Lease on my hangar at Bankstown Airport. There is one quite amazing sticking point – talk about a lack of ethics. The Lease says that Bankstown Airport Limited has a right to alter the airport and that we have to acknowledge that the airport is being redeveloped and there may be a loss of amenity as a result. We have agreed with this but we have asked that we have guaranteed access to the taxiway which leads to our hangar. Amazingly, they have refused to agree with this! Can you imagine? We sign an expensive Lease for a hangar to house my aircraft, however they won’t guarantee that we will have continued access to the taxiway that leads to that hangar! Has anyone had a similar situation in relation to re-leasing an existing hangar at Bankstown Airport?

[YPJT]

Sadly Dick, just another sad chapter in the pure bastardry regularly practiced by those that the government has handed our airports over to.

Bankstown is not unique in this regard.

[Snakecharma]

It is interesting how many organisations these days want it all their own way.

If you did the deal without specific mention of guaranteed access to taxiways from your hanger they could (and maybe would) run a dozer through the taxiway one night and plonk another non aviation related building in the land. If you then said thank you very much my hanger is now a warehouse which I don't need here is your lease back they would undoubtedly try and sue you for breach of lease. Never mind that the whole purpose of a hanger on an airport is to store Aeroplanes that need taxiways and runways to operate!

You have to wonder why they are not prepared to contractually commit to ongoing taxiway access. Makes one suspicious!

You wouldn't mind a bit of give and take as long as there was some give and not all take.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Forgive my asking. Regardless of developments, isn't the head agreement between the lessee and the commonwealth the lessee MUST operate the property as an aerodrome?

If this be the wording of the lease then methinks Dick has firm grounds to go to the transport minister and ask for an explanation why the lessee is able to vary the agreement with the commonwealth.

Dick, in answer to your previous post. Why would any new aviation business want to open at BK if there is no guarantee of service?...why would any existing business want to stay there?...If this I the intent of the airport manager, then, Minister Truss needs to be made very aware of the wording.

[601]

head agreement between the lessee and the commonwealth the lessee MUST operate the property as an aerodrome?

Maybe so, but we need someone with the b@lls to enforce it.:ugh:

[Clare Prop]

Dick do you have a copy of the head lease and a lawyer who specialises in this area?

This "BAL have the right to alter the airport" clause doesn't sound right to me.

What they are probably trying to do is work it so that you lose your lease and then have to rent your hangar (I'm presuming you own the hangar?) back from them on ridiculous terms.

Dick, this is an area where you could really help GA if you could really get together with the rest of us who have been battling these developers and their lack of ethics for years and years, before it is too late.

All we tenants have ever asked for is due process and that the terms of the head leases be observed but as 601 says, there is nobody in government prepared to stand up to the developers who are, after all, no more than tenants themselves.

[red_dirt]

Dick,

The nerve of you!!!!

How dare you ask for taxiway access for your aircraft. I mean really? What gives you the right to think your aircraft can ever be moved from the hanger and into the air?

[LeadSled]

Oz,
From memory, you are referring to para. 9.2 of the head lease, which says words to the effect that the aerodrome, including taxiways and runways, must be maintained in at least the condition they were in at the time of buying the lease.

Didn't do much to preserve RW 18/36 at YSBK, did it??

As we know, because the then General Manager of YSBK told us so, in a community meeting, that closing 18/36 was a condition of the consortium buying the lease in the first place.

Officially, this is called "light handed regulation", which, in my opinion, probably means five times light fingered, based on observed results.

Tootle pip!!

PS 1: To justify the answers to questions on notice in the Senate, the Department's position seem to be that S 9.2 only applies if there is RPT, which is NOT what the Airport Act, or Airport Regulations, or the Airport Transitions Act or the lease says.

PS 2: The museum (AAMB) was promised continued access to the runway/taxiway system, now it is marooned.

[dhavillandpilot]

Try having a commercial disagreement over parking charges that BAL then get their lawyer to sort out

Then BAL bill you for THEIR legal fees even though no court action.

[Dick Smith]

OZBUSDRIVER
Thanks for your post (#5). Unfortunately goIng to Warren Truss would be a complete waste of time. In the ten years Mr Truss has been either Minister for Aviation or in the shadow portfolio, I haven’t seen one thing he has done that is pro-general aviation. In fact, I don’t believe I have ever heard him express an opinion one way or the other about anything.

Imagine becoming the Deputy Prime Minister of this country and not having even one view on some change you would like to make to improve the situation of the people who work in the industry that is covered by your portfolio.

There is no doubt that the head agreement shows that the lessee must operate the airport as an aerodrome, but I presume there is nothing in the “fine print” that says they have to give aeroplanes access to hangars. This negotiation has gone backwards-and-forwards for a month now and they have not budged on our requirement that we have access to a taxiway to get aircraft in and out of our hangar.

And yes, I did build the hangar over twenty years ago and I presume I still own the hangar as it is just a site lease for the land.

And CLARE PROP – you say “this is an area where you could really help GA”. As you have probably noticed from my posts on this site, I am spending a lot of time at the moment doing everything I can to try and assist the GA industry in Australia. Fighting Bankstown Airport Limited in Court would be a huge misallocation of my finite time and resources. Right from the Minister’s office down there seems to be a deficiency of basic ethics and this means hundreds-of-thousands, if not millions, of dollars could be spent in Court action and still get absolutely nowhere.

It’s so sad to see so many hangars locked up with chains and when you peer in through gaps you see they are being used to store junk.

And while this is happening the Minister’s Aviation Advisor, the Head of the Department, Mr Mrdak and Mr Truss all think they are doing a great job. Even Sir Angus Houston is quoted in The Australian as saying that the introduction of ADS-B years ahead of other leading aviation countries is wonderful for Australia.

I despair.

[TBM-Legend]

After some years of planning and approvals there will be a GA airport NOT controlled by a corporation or council 45 minutes drive from Brisbane. This is a freehold development. You own the land and your building. Body corporate fees set to cover costs only. [$2500/yr] Prices start @ around $150K per lot...

1250m sealed, 100 x 2000m2 lots [serviced]. No landing fees for tenants ...
plus 750m paralel grass strip. Outside controlled airspace with highway access.

[roundsounds]

I'd suggest BAL is manoeuvring to redevelop the airport as a business park and have taxpayers foot the bill to relocate operators to Badgerys Creek. If you overlay an airspace model on Badgerys of similar dimensions to YSSY, there will be no room for YSBK. I acknowledge other countries have airports in close proximity to one another, but they also have runways without converging QDMs and Airservices Aust couldn't possibly consider reducing controlled airspace dimensions!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

We pruners have seen this before!

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/245378-ascots-plans-shut-down-jandakot-murray-shire-minutes.html

Dick, you need to contact Gary Gaunt.

Minister Vale had a hand. However, I believe Minister Garrett finally drove the last nail into ensuring Ascott honoured the lease. Precedent!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

...and another post!

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/230625-sth-africans-try-relocate-ypjt-massive-profit-yes-no-lets-hear.html

Could this be the "enough is enough" moment?

[Clare Prop]

Dick I didn't mean fighting it in court. A good lawyer would be able to negotiate the lease on your behalf.

All that is required is for the minister to do his job as landlord in enforcing the Airports Act and the leases and not rubber stamping master plans that are inappropriate development. The threat of a writ of mandamus was enough to get a certain minister to sit up and take notice before.

Someone like yourself with a high profile just backing up those of us that have been fighting for the "quiet enjoyment" we are entitled to for many years might help, that's all I meant, now that you are getting a taste of what it has been like for so many tenants. :ok:

[cattletruck]

A by-product of ridiculously expensive housing perhaps.

Maybe CASA has been infiltrated by property developers and wannabe real-estate agents. Would explain the lack of ethics.

Going...going...sold.

[The name is Porter]

Can't stand going into these overpriced excuses for an aerodrome. I feel for our Sydney brethren, with the loss of Hoxton & Schofields you really don't have a lot of choice anymore. Having made the move to a regional aerodrome, 40 minutes from the city (the same as Moorabbin) things couldn't be better.

I know of two councils crawling over themselves to get their respective aerodromes moving again. One council has employed a person specifically to ensure the aerodrome becomes accessible to more users, happy days, in some parts at least!

[ramble on]

The whole Australian infrastructure scene is just a disgusting profit grab.

World class roads, rail links and airports are built at mine sites in a heartbeat.

Bankstown is on the way out, it will then be Essendon, Archerfield, Jandakot.......

We had beautiful cities once that were nice places to live but they are not any more. Failing to build for the future and failing to protect the things that made our cities functional, beautiful and unique - parks, open land, playing fields, airports, racetracks together with the mindless "growth and development" and population push are turning them into rat runs.

These things need protecting at any cost - they should be there for future generations and not turned into high density housing.

I want a government that owns and runs the countries Airports, Rail systems and Roads - that builds and manages the peoples infrastructure. I would rather see my tolls and fees going back via government investment into future infrastructure than to the bottom line of some profiteer.

Run for government Dick on that platform and you will get my vote.

[thorn bird]

Dick

check your bill from BAL
If its the same as one I saw, you will find a charge for Council Rates.

A check with Bankstown council indicated that they do not charge BAL rates, so why are BAL charging tenants? One could not help wondering is that not fraud? same with electricity charges.

Then again their excuse will probably be "its commonwealth land so we can do what we like", like dumping contaminated fill on a flood plain by producing their own EPA approval.

They were cleaning up asbestos contamination recently, dust blowing everywhere, saw a group of workers sitting eating their lunch watching proceeding from behind their factories. Was anyone informed breathing that dust may not be a good idea?

But its Commonwealth land we can do whatever we like.

[Clare Prop]

The rates issue is one that has been challenged by Perth and Jandakot and failed.

It is the remnants of an ex-gratia annual payment the Commonwealth government made to the shires when they first took the land for the airports to compensate them for not having ratepayers there. When the Airports Act came through that was still in there and now the tenants get lumbered with this "annual fee" for the councils. The councils provide no services whatsoever except to empty the bins, which we have to pay separately for. :mad:

[Clare Prop]

Mark Vaile was the one who finally told Ascot Capital that they had to honour their lease but he didn't do it willingly. That was nearly ten years and three prime ministers ago now.

Peter Garrett was the one who signed off on all the clearing of the pristine bush wildlife sanctuary at Jandakot which was not originally intended for development. Amazing what you can do with a "minor variation" to a master plan and enough incentive to turn your back on all your principles.

[Dick Smith]

After months of going “to and from” we have suddenly been contacted by Bankstown Airport Limited who have said that they have just worked out that the Lease conditions they provided were for land-side buildings rather than air-side buildings.

Now that they have realised this they are going to agree with the condition!

I wonder if this would have ever been resolved except for the fact that the issue has been discussed here?

Thanks, everyone!

[Clare Prop]

I bet they would love for all the buildings to be "land side".

Pretty incompetent of them not to realise before now, ahem.

Well done, anyway!

[Pinky the pilot]

Dick; When reading the earlier posts on this thread I had a momentary vision of two or three rather solidly built Gentlemen wearing expensive suits with a conspicious bulge under their left armpits and wrap around mirror sunglasses making an unannounced and unscheduled visit to the BAL offices for some frank and open discussions.:eek::eek::E:E

I know, I`ve been reading too many Raymond Chandler paperbacks but sometimes I wonder.......:ooh:

Anyway, thankfully this time the Aviation community won one.:ok:

[thorn bird]

"Anyway, thankfully this time the Aviation community won one"

Agree, a win!! well done Dick

"a momentary vision of two or three rather solidly built Gentlemen wearing expensive suits with a conspicious bulge under their left armpits and wrap around mirror sunglasses"

Funny, saw a couple that fitted that description, though I would have said
"men of middle eastern appearance" haranguing a tenant holder about their drains the other day.

I always imagined the "types" you describe were only seen at the back of the room taking names wherever a certain angry man was appearing.

[jas24zzk]

quoting Capt'n Dick.

After months of going “to and from” we have suddenly been contacted by Bankstown Airport Limited who have said that they have just worked out that the Lease conditions they provided were for land-side buildings rather than air-side buildings.

I'm no legal eagle, but have a little experience in commercial leases..as the lessee...fighting to keep my own intact, fight to get keys to the new locks, fighting charges i don't have to pay. I learnt a lot..aided and abetted by a Lawyer who specialises in Commercial Tennancy....his charges for advice and direction to me were definatley proportional to the number of trophies his car won...but i digress...............

I read the above quote as being pretty much verbatim of the response from BAL. The part that I have bolded is what picked up my eyebrows.

It stands to reason, that BAL has 2 types of tennant, Air Related, and Non Air.
The needs of the 2 different types of tennant are so many worlds apart, that a single standard lease document couldn't be used to serve both tennant types without a lot of cross out sections.
The documents would be immediately identifiable to even the dumbest in our gene section at first glance.

I call PUSS! BAL tried to pull a shifty on Dick and give themselves room to remove his taxiway with no recourse.

I see no reason for BAL or any other operator to generate individual specific leases for each client. They would all be generic, with the only changeable factor being the dates and amounts.