Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Vic Govt legislates on landing fees

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Vic Govt legislates on landing fees

Old 5th Sep 2003, 09:50
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
To those writing letters, thanks. AOPA is sending (has sent) an e-amil to all Vic members asking them to get stuck into this.

Franga.

We pay fuel tax. It goes to CASA. I would rather it went to a centralised fund to provide infrastructure because CASA has never really done anything for me.

But fair aiport charges are fair. They should relate to the service you get and take into account the business you might generate in a town you visit.

If a council MUST maintain 2000m of bitumen for a twice weekly RPT it isn't fair to hit the PA28 owner for that upkeep. I still say $5 a tonne, paid directly (to avoid the AVDATA ripoff) is fair.

Then owners can make up their minds if they refual there or go somewhere without fees! (I do).

But charging for airspace and approaches, now they have gone too far!!!

Keep writing Guys and Guyettes.

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2003, 20:24
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Darwin
Posts: 17
You blokes should come to the winterless north. Nos such problem with ******** pollies up here. Suppose once the locals hear about it we will be charged for practice approaches into the swamp. Bloody unbelievable. There can't be any justification for charging someone for use of airspace. Even the Bracks goverment dosen't own the air we breath. Or maybe they think they do and will tax us for brearthing air within 30miles of a parliament??

If you do your approaches above the highest level for that airfield how will they determine your liability when you don't have to make calls as you are not in the " zone "??? They are bloody idiots. You should all vote with your feet (aircraft) and don't pay. If you can post some addresses I would be happy to wite in support of you poor Mexicans.

Bracksy for PM????



Hiball is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2003, 20:47
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 964
My advice is similar legislation is already in place in some other states... and this is bringing Vic into line... Anyone know more?

Nevertheless, charging for use of the airspace is not on and letters should be written.
triadic is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2003, 18:59
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 42
triadic

NSW intoduce similar leg on behalf of their (rip-off merchant) avdata mates. But they didn't mention airspace.

I understand Avdata take over 50% of the fees they charge. No wonder landings costs so much!!

Oh, and a 1000 thanks to AOPA for fighting this )*(*&&%^!!!

Pat
paddopat is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2003, 19:58
  #25 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
How does the Victorian Govt figure they have a right to charge for the use of a system that is owned and maintained by the US DoD and its free use gifted to the world via the US Govt.

(Reasonable)landing fees I have no argument with, Avdata are another thing entirely, but when our 'elected' representatives try to sting us for flying around the sky on top of the fuel taxes we pay then that is rediculous.

Will some AOPA fellas please post a list of addresses...or has this been snuck through in a time frame which makes it, effectively, a done deal.

There should be a data base of these places so that we can avoid them at all costs. f anyone sends me a bill for a GPS NPA, practise or otherwise, it will be binned.

Chuck.

Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 6th Sep 2003 at 20:10.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2003, 06:58
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Courtesy of AOPA office.

Leader of the Opposition (Premier Bracks's counterpart), is:

Doyle, Mr Robert Keith Bennett

Leader of the Opposition

Malvern LP
Parliament House, Melbourne 3002
Tel: 9651 8512
Fax: 9651 8426

Electorate Office -
271 Glenferrie Rd, Malvern 3144
Tel: 9576 1850
Fax: 9576 1849
Email: [email protected]


Counterpart of Mr John Brumby (Treasurer, Minister for Innovation and Minister for State and Regional Development),who introduced the Bill, would
appear to be the shadow minister for Rural and Regional Development, Mr Napthine,(who is looking for data from us already to help him fight this bill).


Napthine, The Honourable Denis Vincent

South-West Coast LP
104 Percy St, Portland 3305
(PO Box 293, Portland 3305)
Tel: 5523 4366
Fax: 5523 3563
Email: [email protected]

Opposition Leader in the Legislative Council is:-

Davis, The Honourable Philip Rivers

Leader of the Opposition (Council)
Gippsland (a)
LP
60 Cunninghame St, Sale 3850
(PO BOX 9210, SALE 3853)
(5143-1038 Facs 5143-1057

Email [email protected]
snarek is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2003, 10:38
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 138
Fair Go, Mate..

Dear Islander and others,

the issue I have with the concept of charging aircraft owners to recoup the expenses of airfield upkeep is split between two concerns.

1. We've already paid for them. The government or council has established an airfield in order to permit the sort of growth that is necessary to enable the community to survive. It is a public facility, like train stations, the roads, bus stations, etc. It would be much less expensive to maintain an airfield than build one, although the inefficiency of councils and government departments is legendary. Furthermore, we continue to pay for them through our council rates, state taxes, and federal goverment taxes.

2. Do you really think that the paltry amount of money collected from landing charges comes anywhere near the stated cost of airfields? And just how much of the "cost of airfields" is actually attributed to the field, and how much is contributing to the bureaucracy? The local councillor at Bankstown reckons that something like 60% of the rate take just keeps the council doors open. DO you think that it's possible that the beancounters are padding the figures for the field to reduce the figures associated with the bureaucracy?

We pay, whether we pay directly or indirectly, don't worry, we pay. By the way, I don't own an aircraft, and have rarely paid a landing fee, but I don't think that it's right or fair.

Just what are these people doing with all the money that they collect from us through rates and taxes? I suspect that most is wasted and then they use public resentment toward the supposed "rich" aircraft owners to justify ripping them off.

You would think that someone like Kerry Packer should pay millions in personal income tax. But, just how much do you think that his businesses contribute to the tax take through indirect taxation? Is it fair to expect him to contribute more than he already is?

You want fairness for the poor or underpriveleged? Good, but you shouldn't stop with them, in fact you must not. Fairness must be universal or it just isn't fair.

Another issue is that the actual facilities necessary for most aircraft is nothing more than a flat paddock. Snarek covered this point quite well previously so I won't repeat his words.

I reiterate, seeking to elevate yourself by dragging others down is an invalid concept. Even if they are rich barsteds.

Life's a bitch, then you fly.
Manwell is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2003, 21:30
  #28 (permalink)  

I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,015
Manwell,

we shall have to agree to disagree upon whether landing fees should be charged. I could raise a whole host of analogies to rebuff your points of view but I tend to think the whole argument to be academic. Whether or not we like it, airports are privately owned either by corporation or shire representing their ratepayers. As such they are entitled to draw a reasonable remuneration if not to fully compensate then at least to offset their provision and upkeep.
Islander Jock is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2003, 23:50
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,691
HiBall

The precedent to all this was set a couple of years ago when a certain group decided to try and charge aircraft for flying above a gorge about 15nm NE of Tindal...

It never succeeded.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2003, 12:58
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Manwell.

I don't like landing fees, but the evil Howard Govt conned the coucils into taking the unprofitable airports and sold the profitable ones to their mates. So someone has to pay the council for the upkeep. ur (AOPA's) job is to lobby to keep that fee fair and stop others trying to get you to pay for thier scheduled services, navaids and 3000m runways!

If you feel the money you spend visiting the town nullifies the fee put that to them.

But this thread is about charging for approaches. That is not on!!! Please guys, hassle the pollies, all of them. Write phone and e-mail. At least twice a week!

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 10:38
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
Yeah there is another thread here A and here B

Well worth the read
C182 Drover is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.