Comments on: A ray of hope for GA airports

By: Denise Hennessy

Denise Hennessy — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:09:14 +0000

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.

By: Stan van de Wiel

Stan van de Wiel — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:10:04 +0000

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.

By: Stan van de Wiel

Stan van de Wiel — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:56:02 +0000

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?

By: PWM

PWM — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:54:41 +0000

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.