PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

500N 18th Feb 2014 04:08

Bos

Yes, agree totally.

You can see it when a disaster occurs, they all scramble for a 30 second sound bite and to get across as quickly as possible how to pay.

That's why that bloke Tim Costello did so well for whoever he was with, ? World Vision ?, the media always went to him.

CaptCaveman 18th Feb 2014 06:09

Is it really any surprise that many people question the ability of a particular side of politics to manage anything to do with investment or the economy in general?

A curfew, really? Why not limit the runway to only a natural surface with no tree removal, so the environment isn't damaged, or allow only electric or renewable energy powered aircraft(i.e. solar or wind turbine) to use the airport.

Labor's support for second airport curfew comes under fire

The Sydney morning Herald, Tuesday 18 Feb 2014 by James Robertson-

Labor's support for a curfew on a second airport at Badgerys Creek is coming under fire from experts and business groups who say it would undermine the project.

NSW Opposition Leader John Robertson announced shadow cabinet support for the long-mooted airport at the weekend, but only if it adopted the 11pm to 6am curfew in force at Sydney's existing airport, Kingsford Smith.

Labor's federal leader, Bill Shorten, then said he considered Badgerys Creek a ''live option'' but only "so long as they've got the propositions around not being 24 hours". (Mr Shorten's office said he was raising the matter of operating hours, not committing to a curfew.)

But an expert on aviation management, Rico Merkert from Sydney University's Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, said a curfew would limit the second airport's appeal before it was built.

"Why would you move there?" he said. "There wouldn't be much need for an international airline … if you had a curfew.

''Badgerys Creek would benefit a lot from [running 24 hours] - that's what airlines complain about [with] the current airport."

Dr Merkert said a curfew would lessen the airport's appeal among passengers and airlines from markets that find being forced to travel according to the Sydney Airport restrictions problematic, such as those from the Middle East and Asia.

"Every analysis shows that for the airport to be viable, it would need to be 24 hours," said Michelle Rowland, the federal MP for the western Sydney seat of Greenway. Ms Rowland is part of a group of western Sydney MPs in the federal Labor caucus who strongly oppose the airport but might back a curfew compromise.

Business groups say any curfew could negate the airport's benefits.

''If we want the jobs, the roads and the infrastructure, the reality is Badgerys Creek must be curfew-free,'' said the chief executive of the Transport and Tourism Forum, Ken Morrison, adding that industries such as freight needed night-time airport access.

The office of the federal Transport Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, declined to speak about how a second airport might operate until the federal cabinet considers the proposal to build at Badgerys Creek - which is expected within the next month.

But Mr Truss said late last year Sydney needed a 24-hour airport.

The office of opposition transport spokesman Anthony Albanese did not answer questions about the curfew on Monday after Mr Albanese voiced strong bipartisan support for Badgerys Creek on Sunday and promised that Labor would not capitalise politically in seats affected by noise.

Federal Labor is expected to wait until any announcement by the cabinet before making a decision.

But Badgerys Creek resident Pauline Rowe said a 24-hour airport would face strong opposition in the fast-growing suburbs that could fall beneath the path of round-the-clock flights. "There will be uproar.''

Mr Robertson said Badgerys Creek would primarily take the overflow from Kingsford Smith: ''The people of western Sydney must be given a fair deal - that's why it must operate with the same curfew as Kingsford Smith.''


Read more: Labor's support for second airport curfew comes under fire

Flying Binghi 18th Feb 2014 06:10

No brains left at Fairfax ?
 
Fairfax have been pushing the global warming nonsense and will not allow reality to interfere. Eventually reality will seep in, just as it has with the business...

"...Fairfax has shed some 2,000 jobs , announced the closure of its two biggest printing plants, shut down magazines, moved to a tabloid format and got rid of some its best-known writers..."

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian



Though, maybe Fairfax just dont want to face reality. My experience shows as much. Got me self banned from a politics thread at a Fairfax owned web site. The majority of the thread posts attack Murdoch owned media. I had a look-see at the ABC and got banned. The reason given...


Your account has been banned or locked. This is a permanent ban. If the Administrator has specified a reason for this ban, you will find it below.

Abusive posts. Trolling. Discussion of climate change despite bans.


And the post...


Hmmm... while we is on the ABC and false claims. Here's an example i see of just how corrupt is the ABC...

John Kerry calls climate change 'weapon of mass destruction' - Australia Network News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"...Despite evidence that human activities that emit carbon dioxide contribute to climate change, some sceptics believe a rise in global temperatures is due to natural variability or other non-human factors.
Others question whether temperatures are in fact rising.
The fact that temperatures have risen more slowly in the past 15 years despite rising greenhouse gas emissions has emboldened sceptics who challenge the evidence for man-made climate change and who question the need for urgent action..."


The extract i've given is from an article about US Secretary of State John Kerry and some comments he made... except he didn't say the quote.

"Despite evidence that human activities that emit carbon dioxide contribute to climate change..." Apparently not said by Kerry. Looks to be an ABC fabrication as there is no 'evidence' available to date - probably explains the increasing number of sceptics.

More ABC nonsense - "The fact that temperatures have risen more slowly in the past 15 years despite rising greenhouse gas emissions has emboldened sceptics who challenge the evidence..." Considering the only 'evidence' to support the global warming fear mungers were some computer models that showed escalating warming which hasn't happened it seems to me that any sane person can safely question the so-called 'evidence'. As for 'emboldening', well the worlds most well known global warming sceptics have been questioning the computer models since day one, before events showed up the models as garbage, no emboldening needed.

As usual the ABC treats its readers with contempt. Why do taxpayers keep paying for it ?








.

Andu 18th Feb 2014 07:04


Bill Shorten, then said he considered Badgerys Creek a ''live option'' but only "so long as they've got the propositions around not being 24 hours".
Just when you thought Labor could not sink any lower into imbecility, their leader comes up with a comment like that.

Badgery's Creek - if it goes ahead (a big 'if') - will be a huge waste of money because pressure groups - pressure groups who VOTE in marginal electorates - will insist upon a curfew, so the airport will be just another Mascot -a bloody disaster that will be just another cork in the arse of progress for Australian Aviation.

Because of its propensity for fog, it will need to be Cat III capable - and in this age of 'user pays', no user will want to foot the bill to maintain that, so it will be expensive to boot.

Before a dollar is spent on Mascot, the Federal Government simply has to bite the bullet and open YSSY to 24 hours a day operations. They can do so with restrictions, (although that won't stop the punters screaming in protest), but the noise levels of modern day jets are a pale shadow of the noise footprint of the 707s and DC9s of the Sixties.

90% of the time - maybe more - arrivals could be routed onto 34 over water through the entrance to Botany Bay, and maybe using a "top of the hour/bottom of the hour" system for arrivals and departures, departures could be to the south staying over water through Botany Bay.

Tony Abbott could really show some leadership on this, but I doubt he - or his Party - has the political will. Badgery's Creek now has too much housing close enough around it to make it too hot an issue for any politician to introduce 24 hour ops.

Andu 18th Feb 2014 07:07

I forgot to add that a friend attended a luncheon a few months ago where the CEO (? - that might not be the right title) of YSSY was the guest speaker. He said that YSSY is currently operating at around 60% of its capacity and that that capacity should be exploited before a penny is spent on Badgery's Creek.

500N 18th Feb 2014 07:21

The stupidity of AUstralia. Only her could we propose a 2nd airport with a curfew already implemented.

Takan Inchovit 18th Feb 2014 07:28

Who's going to pay for it?

Worrals in the wilds 18th Feb 2014 08:01


(Mr Shorten's office said he was raising the matter of operating hours, not committing to a curfew.)
The office of opposition transport spokesman Anthony Albanese did not answer questions about the curfew on Monday after Mr Albanese voiced strong bipartisan support for Badgerys Creek on Sunday and promised that Labor would not capitalise politically in seats affected by noise.
Weasel 101: Populist statements that mean nothing. Course convenor; B Shorten :}. Even Rudd couldn't get a curfew to stick, and he was MP for an electorate on finals.

Who's going to pay for it?
This is an interesting point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC all the major airports were built by the federal government's (now defucnt) Department of Civil Aviation. Since privatisation they've been run by private corporations or local councils, but I don't think the greenfield development question has been publically discussed. :confused:

Presumably the government will try and duckshove it to the private sector. However, would it be a viable project? Given the ten year build time (just a rough personal estimate based on the Brisbane Airport parallel runway project's estimated completion date; engineering types, feel free to do better :8), would it be worthwhile for a private company?

Also, what would happen with the land ownership? Current airports are leased to their operating companies as per the Airports' Act, but they remain Crown land. Would the theoretical private airport be operated under the same terms?

Additionally, the value of the formerly government managed airports was in the pre-existing infrastructure. The various corporations bought going concerns that already earned money, not a pile of paddocks or swamp that would need a couple of billion's worth of development before it could earn a dollar.

bosnich71 18th Feb 2014 08:16

From 1991 I worked on and off for a number of years at RAAF Richmond and Qantas Jet Base Sydney. The nuffers were prattling on about Badgerys Creek even then ...... it's going to be a long discussion.

bosnich71 18th Feb 2014 08:44

500N .. ref. Costello,(Tim), and the rest ... it's worth googling Haiti Earthquake.
The distribution, and non distribution, after 4 years,of the 9 billion promised in aid makes for interesting reading.

Takan Inchovit 18th Feb 2014 08:45

I can remember Badgerys being bandied about in the mid eighties. A few govts have had a shot at it but never committed.

500N 18th Feb 2014 08:53

Bos

I can well imagine.

Re the new Sydney airport, don't forget Syd Aiports has first option to run it !!!

Worrals in the wilds 18th Feb 2014 09:31


Re the new Sydney airport, don't forget Syd Aiports has first option to run it !!!
How come? :confused:

500N 18th Feb 2014 09:34

its written into the contract when syd was sold that they have first option.

Worrals in the wilds 18th Feb 2014 09:40

Cheers, thanks.

500N 18th Feb 2014 09:45

Worrals
I read it in the media at some point. I haven't cross referenced it
but believe it to be true as have seen it more than once.


Whoever wrote it in was a smart bugger, but then again,
Macquarie people normally are.

Worrals in the wilds 18th Feb 2014 09:57

Presumably it's in the Act or its regulations.
If anyone has an Act/section number which saves me having to read the entire Act (again :zzz:) I'd appreciate it. :8
Only for interest's sake though, nothing important. :)

500N 18th Feb 2014 10:03

"It is true that the Howard government did a mates deal when it sold Sydney Airport. Your antecedents in this not only purchase a monopoly, but a clause that gave them first dibs on a second Sydney Airport so that the entire city could be screwed over when Badgerys Creek eventually happened."

CaptCaveman 18th Feb 2014 11:44

Sydney Airport Corporation has

"As a condition of the sale of Sydney Airport in June 2002, SACL’s parent, Southern Cross Airports Corporation Pty Ltd, was given the first right of refusal by the Australian Government to build and operate any second major airport within 100 kilometres of Central Sydney. This right will remain valid for this planning period."

My bolding. This from the Sydney Airport website in a file called "The Statutory and Policy Framework", see the link below.

http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/corp...tframework.pdf

This would indicate to me that if, a big if, the current government decides to go ahead with Baggerys Creek, the Southern Cross Airport Corporation Pty Ltd(SAC) gets first right to the second Sydney airport but should they not decide to step up and build Baggerys Creek, within a nominated timeframe I'd suppose, then it's available to all comers. Considering that Sydney airport is a profitable enterprise, then this could be an attractive long term investment option to those with long term views, possibly using some of the very large pool of Australian Superannuation funds for example.

Given the statements in another article in todays Sydney Morning Herald about the new Sydney airport master plan then I'd doubt, IMHO, that they'd take up the option.

Jamie Freed, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 Feb 2014

"Sydney Airport’s latest master plan, which calls for combining domestic and international operations at shared terminals, has been approved by the federal government.

But federal Infrastructure and Regional Development Minister Warren Truss says his approval does not negate the need for a second airport in Sydney.

“While the plan sets out plans to use the airport’s limited growth potential to full effect, it does not change the underlying constraints on the site and it is clear the Sydney region will need another major airport to cope with soaring demand,” he said.

Sydney Airport on Tuesday said it welcomed approval of the 20-year master plan, which would meet the forecast demand of 74 million passengers in 2033, up from 38 million in 2013.

“The initiatives we outline in the Master Plan 2033 will meet the needs of our customers by delivering a superior passenger experience, improving the efficiency of the airport, enhancing safety and maximising capacity at Sydney Airport,” chief executive Kerrie Mather said.

The master plan for the next 20 years is based on no changes to the curfew, aircraft movement cap, noise sharing, access arrangements or flight paths.

However, it contains improved ground transport solutions developed in collaboration with the NSW government.

But it will allow the airport to combine domestic and international operations to help maximise capacity if it can reach agreement with the airlines.

To date, Virgin has opposed the prospect of moving its domestic and international operations to the current international terminal, which is located further away from the CBD.

Sydney Airport might also need to reach an agreement with Qantas on buying back the lease on Terminal 3 if it would like to combine domestic and international operations in the current domestic precinct before the lease expires in 2019.

In a draft version of its master plan, Sydney Airport said it had enough capacity for the airport to remain as the only major airport in Sydney through the period up to 2033 under discussion.

However, the government is expected to select Badgerys Creek as the site of a second Sydney airport later this year.

Sydney Airport will have the first right of refusal over the development.

Sydney Airport said it would finalise details of the master plan with the federal government before publishing the plan on the airport’s website within 50 business days as outlined by legislation."


Read more: Sydney Airport master plan for terminals approved by federal government

So, SAC thinks that terminal and ground transport rearrangements will solve all the problems without any other changes. Well, I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert in airport planning, after all I'm only a pilot who's used Sydney for over 30 years, but an increase of 36 million passengers with just a terminal rearrangement and changes to the car, bus and train system, I find that very difficult to believe.

Sounds very much like they're just trying to protect their investment, understandable but, again IMHO, this will just see Sydney without any realistic solution but to let YSSY operate like a proper airport(i.e. no curfew or noise sharing) in 20 years time with the attendant screaming by those inner city dwellers and with even less options regarding Baggerys Creek due to increased urbanization in the surrounding area and with increased costs to establish the airport, if they can do it at all.

Then, in 20 years time if they can build an airport there'd probably be calls for a curfew, as per the current NSW oppositions current position and the current Federal opposition leaders position/ non position. I know the answer but I can't help myself, "How did we get Leaders like this?"

Clare Prop 18th Feb 2014 12:24

WITW:
Additionally, the value of the formerly government managed airports was in the pre-existing infrastructure. The various corporations bought going concerns that already earned money, not a pile of paddocks or swamp that would need a couple of billion's worth of development before it could earn a dollar.

Although when Ascot Capital took over Jandakot Airport Holdings that is exactly what they said they were going to do...they thought they could shift "Jandakot" to another site, get freehold over the Jandakot "land bank" and develop the whole lot. Of course they couldn't do that, but they caused plenty of chaos among the tenants trying and we had a massive fight on our hands just to get the minister of the time (Mark Vaile?) to tell them to pull their heads in. :ugh:


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:28.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.