CEOAAA,
If the AAC is being adversely affected by gossip then maybe they need to assess their PR and communications. For many years Brisbane has been a town that thrives on rumours and conspiracy theories :suspect:, but these are only fuelled by a lack of credible information from the corporation about their future plans for the airport.

In the past there has been a serious lack of investment in aviation infrastructure, particularly in regards to security. A few examples include students drag racing cars on the main runway, kids opening gates and wandering around taxiways, aircraft being grafittied and fuel being drained from aircraft tanks overnight. Despite all of this, the AAC failed to provide ample lighting, CCTV or increased security patrols. Additionally, the majority of the airfield apparently still floods and becomes unusable at the first sign of rain.

Archerfield is supposed to be the primary training and GA airport for Australia’s third biggest city, yet it still operates with 1960s infrastructure, little of which has been improved by the private lessees. It has substantial historical importance (Brisbane’s primary airport until WW2 and a heritage listed terminal) and superior facilities with its two sealed runways and multiple flying schools, and yet the common view here on PPruNe and in Brisbane aviation circles is that Redcliffe is the better training option. To quote Professor Julius Sumner, Why is this so?

You refer to your monthly bill to the AAC, which I assume is substantial. As a fellow former contributor to the AAC (in landing fees) I came to the conclusion that my money was not being well spent. Until this thread, for one reason or another I thought Archerfield was a private airport, but it isn’t (thanks 2B2! :ok:). Under the Airports Act and its Regulations, the AAC has an obligation to administer an airport on behalf of the Crown. That’s an airport, not an industrial park, housing estate or any other funky project involving Devine Limited or similar companies.

Sure, BAC runs a bunch of money making ventures at Brisbane Airport (check out the new butcher, ASIC discounts and fresh rabbits direct from the airfield to you :}) but they make damn sure they provide a viable airport to comply with their Crown lease. Does the AAC?

If the AAC is finally going to provide some aviation infrastructure and improve their facilities then full marks to them. If by doing so they encounter nothing but scepticism, then they only have themselves to blame.

Is this the end of Archerfield as we know it........

If so, what do we do, Caboolture is rumoured to be going, Caloundra IS going, Redcliffe is at MAX capacity now, so that leaves YBMC and YBCG......... aviation in and around Brisbane is finished:{

Can anything be done to save the situation...............

If we look at Bankstown and Jandakot they have the same issues as Archerfield, is aviation in Australia dying or is it already terminally ill and is about to be pronounced dead soon?

The minister has NO idea what he is doing, that’s what you get with a politician full of wind and no substance to that wind..........

It’s sad to say this, but we do know this, whilst we have the current political party in power it is RIP GA in Australia.

It does seem that General Aviation in Australia is a minority, and most of the general populous look at it with either disinterest or anger. It's a shame the average person only see's aircraft movements around Archerfield as bothersome noise pollution.

With the majority not giving a damn about the shape of aviation in Oz, it's more than likely aerodromes will have to keep closing or moving out of the towns that have grown up around them.

Archer should stay for now in some capacity, but the day WILL come where they close it for good.