Bankstown, Charging for hanger resident aeroplanes
Thread Starter
Bankstown, Charging for hanger resident aeroplanes
The functionarys at Bankstown have decided that they should be able to charge a daily airport usage rate for aeroplanes parked inside hangers.
This would appear to be the same as the process applied in Canberra.
I would speculate that this will have a somewhat detrmental effect on GA in the Sydney basin.
What are your thoughts?
This would appear to be the same as the process applied in Canberra.
I would speculate that this will have a somewhat detrmental effect on GA in the Sydney basin.
What are your thoughts?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAL
From jul 2002 Keeping a med size twin parked outside has gone up from $2300 to $5600. The problem is every one who owns an aircraft in the sydney basin has no other option except Camden Hoxton and Bankstown, all these airports are owned by BAL .
Shouldnt parking your plane at Hoxton or Camden be cheaper then Bankstown??
I think we need to approach the ACCC about these matters and see if what they are doing is actually legal..
Shouldnt parking your plane at Hoxton or Camden be cheaper then Bankstown??
I think we need to approach the ACCC about these matters and see if what they are doing is actually legal..
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: S/E Australia
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it has something to do with being able to show a healthy bank balance and income sheet for when they come round to selling the airport.
It means they will get a higher bid for the airport come sale day!!
It stinks, and i reckon the ACCC should be made aware of it before the sale goes ahead. They are killing GA.
It means they will get a higher bid for the airport come sale day!!
It stinks, and i reckon the ACCC should be made aware of it before the sale goes ahead. They are killing GA.
What's new about that rip off?
The Federal Airports Corporation pioneered and perfected the rip of of charging for hangared aircraft years ago. And they weren't backwards in their hangar lease rates!
And as the charge would be the result of a private treaty ("You land here, you accept our terms and conditions in the fine print"), I doubt the ACCC would have any jurisdiction.
If you land/park at any private airports, take this advice: Touch toes, pinneaple inbound!
The Federal Airports Corporation pioneered and perfected the rip of of charging for hangared aircraft years ago. And they weren't backwards in their hangar lease rates!
And as the charge would be the result of a private treaty ("You land here, you accept our terms and conditions in the fine print"), I doubt the ACCC would have any jurisdiction.
If you land/park at any private airports, take this advice: Touch toes, pinneaple inbound!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Emerald City of Oz
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is every one who owns an aircraft in the sydney basin has no other option except Camden Hoxton and Bankstown, all these airports are owned by BAL .
Thread Starter
P Root,
Who are the folk taking legal advice and how can we contact them to help them.
Please reply private or public message as the more folk willing to contribute the better will be the result!
Who are the folk taking legal advice and how can we contact them to help them.
Please reply private or public message as the more folk willing to contribute the better will be the result!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also check out the AOPA Forum there is some good postings there by Roy Fox. If your not a member you can still view. If your not a member it is well worth the money.
Also you may want to check out Sydney Airport Message Board & Australian General Aviation Open Forum - Community They sometimes have some good topics going on there.
Also you may want to check out Sydney Airport Message Board & Australian General Aviation Open Forum - Community They sometimes have some good topics going on there.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney Australia
Age: 78
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
___________________________________________
Who are the folk taking legal advice and how can we contact them to help them.
Please reply private or public message as the more folk willing to contribute the better will be the result!
___________________________________________________
Absolutely agree. I am in a group of 4 hangars at Bankstown, and all 4 members are anxious to participate in any "class" action. Someone please let us know how we can collaborate.
The grapevine tells me that Ray Clamback is trying to get something organised, - anyone know any more?
Who are the folk taking legal advice and how can we contact them to help them.
Please reply private or public message as the more folk willing to contribute the better will be the result!
___________________________________________________
Absolutely agree. I am in a group of 4 hangars at Bankstown, and all 4 members are anxious to participate in any "class" action. Someone please let us know how we can collaborate.
The grapevine tells me that Ray Clamback is trying to get something organised, - anyone know any more?
Thread Starter
BAL
Using the telephone I was informed that it was all the aircraft owners fault.
The line taken was that some owners in open shelters complained to the ombudsman about this double charging. Their aeroplanes are visable at all times. BAL state that the ombudsman directed them to treat all clients equally.
So this is their justification though I would have thought that the implication would be to stop being parsimonious and leave the open shelters alone.
However it is hard to get information on an individual case from the ombudsman unless directly involved so are there any out there who were directly involved and can inform us really what happened and is BAL being a bit precious with the truth?
The line taken was that some owners in open shelters complained to the ombudsman about this double charging. Their aeroplanes are visable at all times. BAL state that the ombudsman directed them to treat all clients equally.
So this is their justification though I would have thought that the implication would be to stop being parsimonious and leave the open shelters alone.
However it is hard to get information on an individual case from the ombudsman unless directly involved so are there any out there who were directly involved and can inform us really what happened and is BAL being a bit precious with the truth?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing these guys will ever understand is when everyone talks with their feet. They just don't understand the meaning of diminishing returns.
Or do they really want everyone to go elsewhere? - Hand it to ASA though, they have showed the way. Piss people off enough and then a tower is not needed - and then the airfield owners can sell even more 'desperately needed' housing land around Sydney. There are some really easy building blocks at CN. But.... is it not the business of ASA to run Control Towers?
Let's face it BAL/CAL/HPAL are just great business people with a very clear vision of the company future! (and in case you had not realised, we aviators are not in it.) These 'firms' are just wonderful opportunities for Asset Strippers and so they have to make them as attractive as possible in that way.
PS I thought it was always the case you were supposed to pay for aircraft in hangars(?) We were just ripping them off if the doors were kept shut and they did not spot us...
Or do they really want everyone to go elsewhere? - Hand it to ASA though, they have showed the way. Piss people off enough and then a tower is not needed - and then the airfield owners can sell even more 'desperately needed' housing land around Sydney. There are some really easy building blocks at CN. But.... is it not the business of ASA to run Control Towers?
Let's face it BAL/CAL/HPAL are just great business people with a very clear vision of the company future! (and in case you had not realised, we aviators are not in it.) These 'firms' are just wonderful opportunities for Asset Strippers and so they have to make them as attractive as possible in that way.
PS I thought it was always the case you were supposed to pay for aircraft in hangars(?) We were just ripping them off if the doors were kept shut and they did not spot us...
Nothing new here, FAC were able to charge for aircraft in hangars when they controlled the system. The only "legal" way to avoid them was to have a letter certifying heavy maintenance, or keep the hangar doors locked when the Tarmac Security came driving round.
Cheapest option is to pay a year in advance, but even this has gone up substantially
Cheapest option is to pay a year in advance, but even this has gone up substantially
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
check out the new post on the AOPA forum @ http://www.aopa.com.au/forum/phpBB2/....php?p=127#127
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Utopia
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GOOD NEWS!!!!!
At this stage Bankstown Airport Ltd, Hoxton Park Airport Ltd & Camden Airport Ltd WILL NOT be imposing those charges.
One of the lease holders at Hoxton Park was advised by the Manager of BAL (Kim Ellis) this morning by telephone in a response to his letter of legal action that these charges will not be enforced and NO regos will be taken of aircraft whilst they are in hangars.
Ellis indicated that it was forced on them by the Ombudsman (see Scion's post) but they have now back flipped. He did not elaborate as to why the back flip but anyone could see there was a tremendous groundswell of opposition and letters of legal action threats.
HOWEVER, he also indicated that they are revising their 'Conditions of Usage'. I await with anticipation.
One of the lease holders at Hoxton Park was advised by the Manager of BAL (Kim Ellis) this morning by telephone in a response to his letter of legal action that these charges will not be enforced and NO regos will be taken of aircraft whilst they are in hangars.
Ellis indicated that it was forced on them by the Ombudsman (see Scion's post) but they have now back flipped. He did not elaborate as to why the back flip but anyone could see there was a tremendous groundswell of opposition and letters of legal action threats.
HOWEVER, he also indicated that they are revising their 'Conditions of Usage'. I await with anticipation.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out what it will cost Bankstown flying schools if it is implemented on 1st July 2003 @ http://www.clamback-hennessy.com.au/hotp.htm
Thread Starter
C182 Drover,
Thank you for alerting us to the C/H website and he is dead correct!
But the major thing I got from that was his cry of the heart that he was not supported in his previous barnies.
We should bond together and really act as one or Mr. Ellis or his cronies will pick us off one by one and sell it to "xyz Homes pty"
However looking at it from BAL point of view they have a pathetic return on investment and they need to improve this but because there is no aviation minded person there {so it seems} perhaps we should do it for them and secure the airport.
We should encourage regionals and medium traffic as soon as possible to make it impossible to sell off more to hardwear shops.
What can we do to hurry this along!
Thank you for alerting us to the C/H website and he is dead correct!
But the major thing I got from that was his cry of the heart that he was not supported in his previous barnies.
We should bond together and really act as one or Mr. Ellis or his cronies will pick us off one by one and sell it to "xyz Homes pty"
However looking at it from BAL point of view they have a pathetic return on investment and they need to improve this but because there is no aviation minded person there {so it seems} perhaps we should do it for them and secure the airport.
We should encourage regionals and medium traffic as soon as possible to make it impossible to sell off more to hardwear shops.
What can we do to hurry this along!
