Essendon Airport DFO plane crash This AM

What have you heard?
Gonsky
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 197
Joined: May 2016

Re: Essendon Airport DFO plane crash This AM

Postby Gonsky » Thu Feb 23 2017, 11:27

Almost every airport in Australia is run at a state level now and is costing that local govt huge $$. In most cases the local govt wants to pass the ownership structure off to private and then the issue is that companies that have been subsidized for 20+ yrs where they have had hanger space and runways for nothing now they have to pay.

One could say inefficient business have survived only because they have been subsidized

There is very few local airports that actually make money, I have done the numbers and spoke with multiple councils and the those I have spoken to have lost serious $$ and would be very happy to sign them over. These are not huge regional airports but small airfields.

My group is trying to buy an airport outright and remove manned airframes and cannot. We have to provide facilities to the manned market, considering a high % want to take us up on our offers it shows the direction. Others have bought airports and then tried to make adjustments to the pricing structures only to be dragged thought the court system and be owed money for yrs as locals don't want to pay.

Just more state assets that everyone wants to use for more or less nothing? We would pay considerable amounts P/A for an asset which in most cases is 5 to 10x what the local council is getting currently and zero headaches.

It seems that everyone believes they should have access to a multi million dollar asset for nothing.

Regards,
User avatar
FerrariFlyer
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1366
Joined: Aug 2006

Re: Essendon Airport DFO plane crash This AM

Postby FerrariFlyer » Thu Feb 23 2017, 19:57

Gonsky wrote: There is very few local airports that actually make money, I have done the numbers and spoke with multiple councils and the those I have spoken to have lost serious $$ and would be very happy to sign them over.

My group is trying to buy an airport outright and remove manned airframes and cannot. We have to provide facilities to the manned market, considering a high % want to take us up on our offers it shows the direction. Others have bought airports and then tried to make $$ adjustments to the pricing structures only to be dragged thought the court system and be owed $$ for yrs as local don't want to pay.

It seems that everyone believes they should have access to a multi million dollar asset for ????????


Gregory,

Not every government-owned asset is going to make money and nor should the prime objective be to do so.

Hospitals, schools and local parks for example don't make a profit so should we therefore sell up to a private group and turn the sites into a mix of residential and commercial developments?

Airports regardless of location should be seen as vital pieces of community infrastructure and not some easily expendable asset that a private party can at exploit community expense.

Further, I don't believe 'locals' at most airports around the country have an issue paying their way however they likely take exception to rent hikes that are unreasonable and unjustifiable.
Gonsky
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 197
Joined: May 2016

Re: Essendon Airport DFO plane crash This AM

Postby Gonsky » Thu Feb 23 2017, 20:24

The assets don't make money and then the govt sells them off, sound familiar?

Every state/fed owned asset is looked at when the coffers run dry. Everything is being privatised in one way or another. Right or wrong that is a fact.

Companies are now being brought in at different levels to manage state assets, just another form of privatisation. This includes hospitals, schools and local parks.

The councils cannot afford them, a % of the locals don't want to pay rates to support them and in most cases they are only vital to a very small group when you are talking about small regional airfields. When that asset is transferred and the new owners wish to make money well someone is going to suffer. I am not sure how many individuals run businesses that do not want make money.

Higher costs to GA could mean less maintenance and substandard airfields, or on the other hand the local councils go under.

Regards,
Heliduck
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 247
Joined: Jan 2008

Re: Essendon Airport DFO plane crash This AM

Postby Heliduck » Thu Feb 23 2017, 22:35

Gonsky wrote: and in most cases they are only vital to a very small group when you are talking about small regional airfields,


Good point, I wonder how many of the people living within 5Nm of Essendon airport use the airport or its services. I'm sure that the ambulance, fire, freight & training services currently at Essendon would function just as well from an airport on the fringe of the developed area but the cost of relocating could break them. Who pays for the relocation, the developer(& passed on the the purchaser/renter) the tax payer or the rates payer? This new airport would also get built out eventually & would also need to be moved, where to then? Eventually we'd end up in the mountains, but by then we'll all be in George jetson cars anyway. How long until badgery's creek needs to be moved? Legacy airfields/airports all over the country have been surrounded by development, why do we insist that once an airport is built it must stay there indefinitely? Like it or not, safety costs money. I don't hear of many aircraft falling out the sky at major airports in Australia so can GA afford to upgrade in order to match the safety standards of RPT? King airs operate RPT all over the world so that shoots that idea down. That could reduce the risk assessment score, but I doubt the customers of GA would pay for that therefore GA would go broke. Personally I'd rather have "no development" buffers around airports & not have them way out in the bush but as an aviation nut I'm in the minority in Australia. I don't have the answer, just lots of questions that highlight how difficult this problem is to solve but until it's solved aviators & the public will need to accept that an engine is most likely to fail on take off & people will inevitably die if the pilot has no safe options to choose from. Maybe accepting that fact is the answer.
On a similar example I often wonder how golf courses manage to resist buyout offers from developers. A lot more people play golf than fly GA aircraft.
"Plan twice...Fly once"

Return to “I heard...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest