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

ATTN: All AF Based pilots

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 31st Jul 2004, 06:23
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: brisbane
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink ATTN: All AF Based pilots

Can someone please explain to me when the idiot running the airfield will wake up to himself and realise that if the landing charges keep rising, he will have no one operating at the field.

If there is a way to kill GA all together this little prick is going about it the right way! Enough is enough, I find it extremely hard to see the small and medium operators at the field alive within 12-18months.

Does this head not realise the value of customers and keeping them in business!

Unhappy GA business operator!
nesbit is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2004, 08:07
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,561
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Nesbit Mate. That is exactly what he wants you to do. Ever since the days of Kev Hooper there has been a vested interest wanting that field closed and sud-divided.

A lot of funds have been expended on satellite fields around BN. My suggestion would be to move to YRED (similar travel time from CBD and non-controlled.) Get in with the locals and make damn sure that little foreman (hopefully ex-) doesn't get HIS way and have YRED removed so his house value can go up.

Mark
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2004, 20:06
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Spoke with a well-known AF identity a little while back. According to him, the owner's plan for AF is not to operate it as an airfield long term. He has no real interest in keeping his existing customers happy and makes that clear through actions and (allegedly) his words in private to those in the know.

12-18 months is probably a bit pessimistic, but AF will be but a distant memory one day.
logie_bear is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2004, 00:06
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: between 800HP
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Danger

Interesting! I'm told that parafield airport are proposing to pu their landing charges up to $100,that will most cirtainly drive away the little dribble that is still there,Cathay pacific wont mind that much with BAE there they will probably just buy the joint,or move which will kill the whole place for ever....Time will tell but it is a sad road we are going down.
RWS888
rearwhelsteer888 is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2004, 04:05
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: brisbane
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks guys, I understand all your points of view, yet I struggle to understand how the state and federal transport minister can let this happen. If AF's landing fees go up to around $100 then I would have to say that will be the end of it. Does anybody know if the little prick has got DA approvals on his little kingdom yet?

I would be very suprised if he has, there would be way to may objections to his application to get it passed through council!

Where do you think is the most suitable field to relocate to if/when this all happens.
nesbit is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2004, 06:59
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nesbit , are you sure there'd be so many objections to a DA? I think you'd be surprised at the surrounding communities' opinions on having AF in their backyard.

Is anyone sure that landing fees will be going up to the reported ~$100? I know Airservices have done an analysis, but is it a done deal?

By the way, what sort of operations are you involved in?
logie_bear is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2004, 10:34
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,561
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
About the only thing that would save AF is if someone found a considerable amount of contamination on the site that would preclude any development unless there was a considerable and expensive clean-up by the owner. But then, we do live in a dreamland.

Regards

Mark
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2004, 22:28
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: All over the shop..
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good old privatisation.... and from what I heard he got it for a real song.

For a long time now there's been talk of getting rid of the 04/22 grass complex - fair enough - the money spent maintaining that part of the field could be better spent elsewhere, considering amount of time each year it's u/s due sws anyway.
the Duke is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2004, 02:35
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: brisbane
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the replies guys, just makes you wonder why the prick got it in the first place and not other bidders that actually had an iterest in keeping the field alive.

I think there will be many downsides to taking south-east qld GA to the big sky above!
nesbit is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2004, 05:27
  #10 (permalink)  

Not enough $$$ ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think you'll find there may be a GA airfield out Ipswich way in the not too distant future. They're pretty keen to get as much industry as they can to move out there, and Boeing and others are interested in supporting things as well.

With the new aerospace syllabus in schools, there is a push from the state government for more aviation-related funding also. Perhaps if they could be shown some of this information, there would be some awareness of the need to keep a place like AF alive.
wishtobflying is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2004, 10:20
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,561
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
nesbit Found an interesting site from a couple of years ago. It still is an interesting read to see what the State Governmnet thinks of GA (fairly favourably)

Here is the link
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/P...on%20Needs.pdf

A fairly large article but it is interesting to note your mate gives the indication of keeping the field operational. SO I stand corrected

Regards

Mark

Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 4th Aug 2004 at 04:54.
OZBUSDRIVER 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



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.