Sorry, that's not correct. I am in the industry at a non RPT airport. I see the rates bills from council and the EGLT (ex gratia land tax) payments we pay to Dept of Infra. All non avation sub leases (so a sub lease from our head lease from the commonwealth) are subject to EGLT at the same scales as the relevant state scheme.

http://www.essendonairport.com.au/general/our-history

There is an interactive timeline on the above site. Tap on the point of interest to get some detail.

DFO was constructed in 2005.

Warren Truss is looking very pleased in the image from 2015

This was 1963:

Who pays?
 

what happened Tuesday is a tragedy and I have followed some of the technical discussion amongst you with interest. I am not a pilot but involved with one of the Airport Operators and the type of developments you have been talking about.

No I am not going to tell you which airport but many of you would have and continue to use it.

I see the figures across the whole business. Operations, landing charges, power, water, maintenance, upgrades to runways, rent from your business and the non aviation occupiers. By the way, we do pay council rates and non avaiation tenants also get levied a land tax...

The truth is we loose money operating the airfield. A lot of money. We make money with the non aviation tenants and that income subsidies the airfield operations.

So who pays? Do you want your landing and parking charges to double. (Still won't get us to break even by the way - I've run the model)

No government is going to resume our (or any other) airport lease.

Happy to discuss.

I believe it was aviation related infrastructure.

DF.

If you go to Google Earth, you can step back to 2000 (bottom left hand cnr, select the photo date, and a slider bar appears on top left cnr and you can pick the marked bars between 2000 and most recent), and as DF says, there was definitely 'something' there, slide up to 2005 and you can clearly see the new DFO and carparking.

From memory it was a group of groundsman's sheds for mowers, etc plus maintenance sheds. Essentially aviation related working buildings, very low key and certainly not intrusive to the extent of the DFO.

Spot on John.

DCA Hangar, Essendon

Essendon Airport 2007

Before DFO
 

To the best of my recollection :

The buildings that were there before were operated by the old Department against Aviation as technical workshops supporting the southeast region navaids etc.

Had been there since the war.

Wiki is not Yoda
 

The reason why DFO and others set up at airports is that they get access to broad acre land that permits retail sales (so equivalent to state zones B1 - Business) for less than what GPT, Lend Lease, Stockland, Westfield/SCentre and Gandal are willing to charge.

This large scale land is simply not available elsewhere as these other businesses have it locked up and work ferociously hard against any large scale rezoneing of other land as it would prove competition to them - a bit like federally leased airports where developments are outline in Airport Master Plans.

KeepItRolling - actually the Department of Civil Aviation's (and later Federal Airports Corporation) maintenance workshops and storage area from what I was told.

DF.

Aero Developer..

I couldn't give a toss about the intricacies of the economics of your airport or any of the 20 or so facilities that are leased from the Commonwealth Government.. Many airports in this country are making an absolute killing!

You signed up for it.. Your problem.

Just like the accident at Essendon is a real problem for that specific operator... Essendon Fields..

To justify overdevelopment..because the economics of simply running a safe airport are unworkable..is unjustifiable..

Ok Aero I'll bite.

Why would you take on the lease from the government in the first place if using your models you were in your own words "going to loose a lot of money" unless there was an intention to cash in by selling out the aviation industry?

The government made no one take these leases and they would not have been leased without interest from the private sector.

Can't recall the years precisely but, apart from airport buildings, Citylink had an office just in and around to the left ... used to drop in and pay some money into the kitty there from time to time.

John Anderson has a heck of a lot to answer for!

Kaz

That was in what is now the retail area to the west of the access road into DFO; always was part of the development, just east of and very close to the 35 threshold.

That rings a bell .. all a tad long ago for the old memory cells to fire up 100%

OLD AKRO
Only guys who didn't know Max would ask dopey questions like this

No buddy, I didn't know Max, but I'd love you to tell me why asking about the pilot's training history (which the ATSB will investigate in every incident) is as you call it, a dopey question.


You know as well as I do that the pilot's training history is very, very relevant. And if he has never trained in a simulator for engine failures then he is up against it. My first few engine failures in a Kingair sim came after 31 years of flying - and they were a bloody handful. I now have the technique tuned, but I needed to be exposed to it. Pulling a throttle back in flight to simulate an engine failure does NOT replicate a full V1 cut in the sim, it never will.


I'm sorry if Max was a mate of yours and I know mates will always want to defend their buddies. But its the system that is at fault. There is not the requirement under the regs to do sim training in order for you to fly fare paying passengers in a B200. So one's first exposure to the real forces and the aggression required on the controls to keep it straight and fly away will be in the machine itself, and I don't think that is satisfactory.


Yes. I concur, the full story is not out there yet. I am playing the ball (the system), not the man. I am playing the training system. I hope you will play the ball back at me and tell me why you consider asking the question of any simulator training history is a dopey question. If not, will you also be contacting the ATSB when they look at his training history and tell them that it is a dopey line of enquiry?


I lost a very close mate who flew a military fast jet into the ground and died. He was a great mate, but unfortunately, it was his error. I couldn't defend his error - pilots make mistakes, cock up, whatever - and so do mates.

Mr Andrews the Premier says there were sheds there before the DFO, and the DFO made no difference. So it must be true, then.

Not biting - asking
 

So the government wanted out.... we and others took on the leases as we saw an opportunity that requires risk. Govementment don't like or can't take on these risks.

Many airport Master Plans forecast an increase in movements. We are leasing your businesses hangers and 1/3rd the rate of similar spaces to non aviation business 100m away from yours. Your parking rate is half the daily rate charged by our local council to park a car in their car park. You don't pay land tax (unlike the DFO's of the world on airports)

I am genuinely asking you - how are we selling you out?

Yes we make money from the other developments. Their location is in accorandqnce with Master Plans that the Dept of Infra (well minister) approves and that CASA, ASA, Dept of Infra, local council, avation operators, State Planning Dept all get to comment on.


The building approval is by a Dept of Infra Building Controller.

We spend money - the risk- make a profit and in turn your operations get subsidised.

How are we selling you out? I am genuinely asking you. What is the alternative in an economy where both sides of politics expect infrastructure assets to be self funding.