A ray of hope for GA airports
Editorial Opinion, Paul Phelan
It’s almost as if Bankstown Airport Limited (BAL) was deliberately thumbing its corporate nose at both Minister Albanese and aircraft operators with its seemingly unbridled anti-aviation activity.
The Minister has warned all airport lessee companies (ALC) that the government now believes there are a range of activities approved or sought by ALCs that “may be incompatible with the aviation operations of airports.” The list of such activities is almost a catalogue of the various uses implemented or proposed by ALCs in the recent past.
They include residential aged or community care facilities, nursing homes, child care facilities, hospitals and schools. Thus far they don’t include turning an aerodrome a TV film set but that may hopefully also change.
The Minister has written to BAL’s CEO Kim Ellis warning him that:
As has been clearly indicated in the Green Paper and other statements, the Government has a clear view that airport sites are first and foremost for aviation users.”
The government is now being pressed not only by airport tenants, but by communities and local councils who are outraged at the amount of non-aviation development that has already taken place without any effective consultation, creating traffic and noise situations over which local government has no effective control because the airfields are Commonwealth-owned.
Knowing that a number of ALCs are currently pursuing on-airport developments that are inconsistent with government policy, Minister Albanese has now warned BAL that he plans to initiate regulations requiring that ALCs launching such projects must prepare a “major development plan” for approval. He expects that process will expose each project to public and local government scrutiny similar to off-airport development projects.
Meanwhile Sydney Basin flying school operators are outraged at the now-frequent closure by NOTAM of Camden airport’s main runway 06/24 for filming of TV motoring show Top Gear. They share our problem in understanding why easy-to read provisions of the Act are not being applied. For example, the Act says an airport-operator company for an airport “must not carry on substantial trading or financial activities other than:
a) activities relating to the operation and/or development of the airport; or
b) activities incidental to the operation and/or development of the airport; or
c) activities that, under the regulations, are treated as activities incidental to the operation and/or development of the airport; or
d) activities that are consistent with the airport lease for the airport and the final master plan for the airport.”
Is there a loophole in there somewhere? As far as we know BAL hasn’t yet been asked to explain how stopping two of seven days flight training to accommodate the filming of a petrolhead TV show is in any way compliant with the Act.
But that appears to be the situation that pilot training schools are facing.
The future of GA participants in is now in the hands of a small number of corporations, whose focus appears to be not on the development and administration of safe and efficient general aviation facilities, but on other pursuits, generally related to real estate development, exploiting the vast real estate holdings which are associated with any airport facility.
One of the best examples of this is Bankstown Airport, where developments have included chain take-away food outlets, private schools and a retail shopping centre.
The fact remains that the airports are public land, and these non aviation uses are purported to become valid purposes by the simple adoption of a plan which sanctions such uses.
The pursuit of these non aviation activities in reality highlights and illustrates the time and direction in which the current crop of airport proprietors direct their energy and resources. It can be said these energies and resources are not directed to maintaining and developing general aviation or the ancillary pursuits which have a legitimate connection to aviation or the sincere pursuit of best practices in the safe and efficient administration of an airport as an aviation facility.
These observations are not restricted to Bankstown Airport but could most likely apply to all designated secondary airports throughout Australia.
The common link is, however, that the airport land remains Federal land, and as such is public land having been acquired by the Commonwealth years before and which has subsequently been leased to the various operators subject to the provisions of the Airports Act.
Extensive consideration has now given to these concerns, the validity of the actions of the Commonwealth in condoning such pursuits, and to the airport operators in pursuing the use of public airport land for purposes not related to aviation.
Queensland airport tenants have spent enormous amounts of time and effort in gathering material and advice in this regard with reference to actions taken by the operator of Archerfield Airport. This exercise was influenced, amongst other things, by the airport operators dispossessing the “Boy Scouts” from their headquarters which where formerly situated on airport land.
Another example of this was when the proprietors of Sydney Airport proposed plans for a large retail complex near the end of the third runway at that airport. The concern was championed by Sydney City but was apparently shared by other councils and the State government. These concerns have been the subject of articles well circulated in publications.
There is now a strong line of advice based on what may be considered compelling authority to support an argument that;
(i) operators of airports that occupy airport land pursuant to the provisions of the Airports Act have no power to use the airport land for purposes, retail or otherwise, that are unrelated to its activities as an airport, and
(ii) the relevant Federal Minister does not have the power to assent to or sanction such activities through “master plans” or any such similar instrument.
It should be clarified that this line of advice is contrary to a decision of a single judge in the Federal Court but does support a strong and coherent challenge to the current conduct of many of the current airport proprietors that may be instituted and pursued in the High Court.
The relationship between the activities which were in issue in the circumstances of Sydney Airport are far more graphic at airports such as Bankstown. The true connection between the development activities of the airport proprietor and use of the land as a general aviation facility, or the lack of connection is far more obvious at Bankstown Airport. Consequently the arguments should be more readily sustainable against operators such as those at Bankstown Airport.
This is not only a matter of survival for the general aviation industry in as much as the fate of that industry is now in the hands of parties who have little or no knowledge of the industry or its history within this country and who display even less empathy for people in it. It is also a strong matter of principal which should be highlighted for all citizens concerned with the use of these airports for non public purposes, which were acquired by the Commonwealth as public land and which remain public land.
Ed.
Ed,
Your comment “…. in the hands of parties who have little or no knowledge of the industry or its history…” in the last paragraph, would be a good summation of Federal Aviation /Transport Ministers over the last 30 years.
Quoting from the article above – the Act says an airport-operator company for an airport “must not carry on substantial trading or financial activities other than:
a) or (b) or (c) or (d) activities that are consistent with the airport lease for the airport AND THE FINAL MASTER PLAN for the airport.” There is no “loophole” just explicit (intentional) wording which allows the MasterPlan to override all.
Every 5 years a “new” masterplan has to be submitted for approval. At YMMB such plan is in the process now of final approval and again it allows for further degradation of Air-side area in favor of Commercial Development sites. At YMMB it is not the MAC which carries out the “development” this is done by another entity Goodman Holdings which presumably holds a sub lease with its sister entity the MAC. All quite legal and intentional no doubt.
It would be interesting to compare the “sub” tenancy conditions offered to Goodman with those offered to the Aviation Industry. For one Goodman’s wouldn’t have the aviation only restriction. Who in fact is the Airport-Operator Responsible entity?
Due to the development $$$s already spent the Minister should consider selling off the Commercial Freehold to the existing lessees and the dedicated aviation sites to the respective aviation tenants. The air-side movement areas and runways would be controlled by an airport trust run by the Industry. Remember most of these sites were selected as “all-over” fields in the DH82a days. The establishment of runways created a lot of open space (often flood basins)
It is likely the complexity of selling off of declared public facilities, led to the “99″ year leases or could it have been influenced by “developers” for whom a one-off up front payment was far more attractive than paying 100 times as much for outright purchase in the first place?
An initial local GA. industry offer for YMMB was based on the intended interpretation of the Airports Act. No wonder it missed out to the accepted bid which knew it had a more open$$$/floating interpretation.
BAL or Sydney Metro Airport, as it now calls itself, not only hires Camden’s sealed runway out to Top Gear but to any company who cares to promote its business other than aviation.
Since 1.1.09 the runway was closed on 13 occasions for either a half day or a full day, thus actively preventing flight training schools from carrying on their business. When questioned about it, GM Aviation, Mario Bayndrian’s response was:
“… this filming activity and others will continue to occur on Camden airport as they do at many other airports around the Australia. We see it as supplementing Aeronautical revenue to maintain the asset to standard.
… We also understand you have business(es) to run and this (is)why we try and give as much notice as possible and we frame our Notams as they are… ”
In other words, leave it or lump it! He clearly seems to think that flight training should be conducted to fit in with BAL’s interests and has no concept training organisation’s obligations to CASA and our students!
In my view, BAL also contravenes the Trade Practices Act with their bulying actions.