Airstrip sell-off warning
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: WestQLD
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airstrip sell-off warning
Raise your hands - who doesn't want aviation to continue........???
Airstrip sell-off warning - National Rural News - Agribusiness and General - Finance - The Land
With all the discussion recently with increased fuel costs, you would think that aviation would be the logical choice to economical travel. No? that's right - airports have the best scenery - need to put a house there!
Airstrip sell-off warning - National Rural News - Agribusiness and General - Finance - The Land
With all the discussion recently with increased fuel costs, you would think that aviation would be the logical choice to economical travel. No? that's right - airports have the best scenery - need to put a house there!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has happened around the country for some time now. Funny thing is you own them now, and once sold, will need to buy them back in the form of increased fees. Progress???????????
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is important
We cannot expect to have unlimited funds available for airfields without contributing something ourselves and looking at airfields in a different way.
In France and England I saw small airfields which double as wheat fields with a couple of runways running through the middle of them. The control tower was not a huge, government run structure, but a small one that appeared to be part of, or associated with the aero club. One actually had sheep grazing on the field, with a shepherd and his dog sitting on a stool with them.
One of the main problems with aviation in Australia is that it has grown up with government funding, and too many are expecting that to continue for ever. Aero clubs and flying schools cannot expect free landings for ever. Someone has to pay. In fact, I believe "not for profit" organisations should not be issued with AOC's. AOC's are for operations that are for "hire and reward". Non commercial organisations distort the market.
The major airlines should contribute to flying schools, or run their own, as they are huge beneficiaries of the training operations. In fact, the major airlines like to have a huge pool of unemployed pilots waiting for them to recruit, and this causes great harm to the small aircraft industry. Some of the flying schools benefit from the furphy that "there are lots of high paying pilot jobs out there", but professional GA pilots have suffered badly because of this. Even now, with supposed "pilot shortage" (the first time in 35 years) some airline pilots are sent to work for overseas airlines because they are not needed here.
Our regulator also seems to regulate in favour of the "big aeroplane operators" and often stipulate big expensive airfield requirements that are not realistic. Some more realistic regulation could breath life into the small operators so they could afford to pay realistic landing fees and so support the airfield operators. But it appears they do not want that. Providers of essentail aviation services are having to compete with operators that raise money from the public, so our government saves money. These things destroy the economics of GA.
There is also military value in general aviation, as they fly all over the country and see what is happening in the outback. a job the military would have to do if there was no GA. You could hide thousands of poeple out there. Customs and ASIO benefit too.
Some of our city airports are approaching saturation(and also some of our cities.) and the small jets are not far away. GA is getting to be even more important in our sparsely populated country.
So, we need to look further than just saying we want more government money to prop us up. We have to pay our share, and we will be able to do it if we get a fair go. The governments and our society benefit greatly from GA, but it is mainly in the outback and most australians do not see it. Most think GA consists of the local flying school and the hobby aircraft of a few silvertails.
In France and England I saw small airfields which double as wheat fields with a couple of runways running through the middle of them. The control tower was not a huge, government run structure, but a small one that appeared to be part of, or associated with the aero club. One actually had sheep grazing on the field, with a shepherd and his dog sitting on a stool with them.
One of the main problems with aviation in Australia is that it has grown up with government funding, and too many are expecting that to continue for ever. Aero clubs and flying schools cannot expect free landings for ever. Someone has to pay. In fact, I believe "not for profit" organisations should not be issued with AOC's. AOC's are for operations that are for "hire and reward". Non commercial organisations distort the market.
The major airlines should contribute to flying schools, or run their own, as they are huge beneficiaries of the training operations. In fact, the major airlines like to have a huge pool of unemployed pilots waiting for them to recruit, and this causes great harm to the small aircraft industry. Some of the flying schools benefit from the furphy that "there are lots of high paying pilot jobs out there", but professional GA pilots have suffered badly because of this. Even now, with supposed "pilot shortage" (the first time in 35 years) some airline pilots are sent to work for overseas airlines because they are not needed here.
Our regulator also seems to regulate in favour of the "big aeroplane operators" and often stipulate big expensive airfield requirements that are not realistic. Some more realistic regulation could breath life into the small operators so they could afford to pay realistic landing fees and so support the airfield operators. But it appears they do not want that. Providers of essentail aviation services are having to compete with operators that raise money from the public, so our government saves money. These things destroy the economics of GA.
There is also military value in general aviation, as they fly all over the country and see what is happening in the outback. a job the military would have to do if there was no GA. You could hide thousands of poeple out there. Customs and ASIO benefit too.
Some of our city airports are approaching saturation(and also some of our cities.) and the small jets are not far away. GA is getting to be even more important in our sparsely populated country.
So, we need to look further than just saying we want more government money to prop us up. We have to pay our share, and we will be able to do it if we get a fair go. The governments and our society benefit greatly from GA, but it is mainly in the outback and most australians do not see it. Most think GA consists of the local flying school and the hobby aircraft of a few silvertails.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy
Cobblers mate. How does selling an airport to private enterprise, who need to make a profit, help the country?
Running Costs + Profit = Higher Fees.
The taxpayer owns the airports, let them pay for maintenance and improvements, naturally. However then making a profit for investors, in addition, taxes the user/operator/passenger more.
France is not a good example either as the country is the size of my backyard, with a large population.
The selling off of assets, which you already own, reminds me of a wise old man who said - "Don't p!ss on my back, and tell me it is raining".
Have a nice day
Running Costs + Profit = Higher Fees.
The taxpayer owns the airports, let them pay for maintenance and improvements, naturally. However then making a profit for investors, in addition, taxes the user/operator/passenger more.
France is not a good example either as the country is the size of my backyard, with a large population.
The selling off of assets, which you already own, reminds me of a wise old man who said - "Don't p!ss on my back, and tell me it is raining".
Have a nice day
Bushy, aren't you being a bit selective? Look at my old field of YRED. It started off life as tidal mudflat attached to a farm purchased by a local businessman. He made the aerodrome himself. Over the years, small improvements were made like surplus buildings for an aeroclub. a few small hangars and a maintainence facility. The only utility was a couple of phone lines. Power was supplied by the businessman's company generator. There was no water, the aerodrome was serviced by a dirt road that was prone to seasonal flooding. In the seventies, enterprising club members and aerodrome operators lobby the DOT to get funding for the aerodrome. Successful, the aerodrome is promptly closed and extensive earthworks are undertaken to push up a levy bank and bitumen surface the runway and taxiways and apron. A new aerodrome compliments of the DOT aerodromes and navigation department (I think thats what it was called back then) Fast forward to the last couple of decades. The feds divest their responsibility for YRED to the Redcliffe City Council. After a very short time, the Council cries poor, citing insuarance costs are just too exhorbitant to keep the aerodrome open. A Mr Poiet (hopes thats how its spelt) pointed out to the council they are paying premiums for an aerodrome that is serviced by jet RPT. Money saved and aerodrome is saved. Recently there is noise that the Council would once again wish to turn all that land into Industrial estate. So far not happened.
Anyway, the point of all this. If it wasn't for Norm Thurecht, there would not have been a redcliffe aerodrome. It had nothing to do with fed money or council largess. The council inherited a viable fully maintained aerodrome on the proviso that it is maintained as such. If the council pushed to close then the aerodrome should return to the original owners, the Thurecht family.
Money grubbing Councils populated by self serving land developers are thus covetous of former federally protected land. The question is, who really got these aerodromes up and running before the money started flowing out of the DCA?
Anyway, the point of all this. If it wasn't for Norm Thurecht, there would not have been a redcliffe aerodrome. It had nothing to do with fed money or council largess. The council inherited a viable fully maintained aerodrome on the proviso that it is maintained as such. If the council pushed to close then the aerodrome should return to the original owners, the Thurecht family.
Money grubbing Councils populated by self serving land developers are thus covetous of former federally protected land. The question is, who really got these aerodromes up and running before the money started flowing out of the DCA?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tio540
The taxpayer owns the airports, let them pay for maintenance and improvements, naturally. However then making a profit for investors, in addition, taxes the user/operator/passenger more.
Offer a vote next council election if people want the aerodrome sold off in return for lower rates and higher usage fees.
I know where I'd place my money on the outcome.
ElPerro.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy Bulldust.
Smaller Airports in Australia will always have difficulties in operating 'profitably' because of the low population base and getting to that critical mass required for profitability.
Why don't you apply the same criterion to any public facility Bushy like parks and sports facilities which only a small number of the population use?
The doctrine of 'user pays' is so much ideological crap in many areas of community 'good' and national infrastructure. This ideological claptrap is carried forward by Governments and others that sell off the peoples hard earn t assets to make their atrocious financial management look good on their 'cooked' balance sheets. The people that buy these assets (like Macquarie) then mercilessly screw the users so that they can pay the obscene renumeration packages they do, whilst the Governments sit back and wash their blood stained hands of all responsibility. These sort of economic rationalistic policies are ruining this country.
Go and get yourself a copy of 'ONE SIX RIGHT' and watch it 3 times a day before food until you are cured.
BP
Why don't you apply the same criterion to any public facility Bushy like parks and sports facilities which only a small number of the population use?
The doctrine of 'user pays' is so much ideological crap in many areas of community 'good' and national infrastructure. This ideological claptrap is carried forward by Governments and others that sell off the peoples hard earn t assets to make their atrocious financial management look good on their 'cooked' balance sheets. The people that buy these assets (like Macquarie) then mercilessly screw the users so that they can pay the obscene renumeration packages they do, whilst the Governments sit back and wash their blood stained hands of all responsibility. These sort of economic rationalistic policies are ruining this country.
Go and get yourself a copy of 'ONE SIX RIGHT' and watch it 3 times a day before food until you are cured.
BP
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that we own the airports NOW. Don't sell them off, and let the government spend the money on propping up foreign owned Toyota etc.
Re the single mother, I pay for her health care card, child support and rental assistance. Holiday's are her own business, not mine.
AIRPORTS Naturally there is a cost with maintaining them. which we must all bear.
We simply don't need to buy the airport back, when we already own it.
Have a nice day.
Re the single mother, I pay for her health care card, child support and rental assistance. Holiday's are her own business, not mine.
AIRPORTS Naturally there is a cost with maintaining them. which we must all bear.
We simply don't need to buy the airport back, when we already own it.
Have a nice day.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doing this one again are we?
I've said before, airports are victims of their own success. In the past, land was allocated for airport use, largely because it was considered suitable for little (if anything) else. As the airport and surrounding infrastructure become increasing important to the community serviced, the land values increase to the point that the airport itself is considered a poor utilisation of the resource (land), property values increase, the developers move in, the airport is gone.
Only sensible thing for us to do is return to amphibious/water-borne operations, where our industry started -before some bastard forces us to do so.
I've said before, airports are victims of their own success. In the past, land was allocated for airport use, largely because it was considered suitable for little (if anything) else. As the airport and surrounding infrastructure become increasing important to the community serviced, the land values increase to the point that the airport itself is considered a poor utilisation of the resource (land), property values increase, the developers move in, the airport is gone.
Only sensible thing for us to do is return to amphibious/water-borne operations, where our industry started -before some bastard forces us to do so.
