Source: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=30&pid=10592
Timestamp: 2019-09-22 11:51:54
Document Index: 234437181

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 77', 'art 77', 'art 157', 'art 157', 'art 157', 'art 157', 'art 77', 'art 77', 'art 71', 'art 77', 'art 77', 'art 77', 'art 77', 'art 139', 'art 157', 'art 91']

(This post was last modified: 04-26-2019, 12:45 PM by Peetwo.)
Aviation Safety ownership (CAA NZ) vs No Care, No Responsibility (CASA) -
In the course of doing some AP research, into the CAA NZed Part 77 and associated legislative instruments/regulations for the effective oversight of navigable airspace outside of the airport perimeter, I came across a fascinating document that IMO perfectly highlights the bizarre dichotomy of a mature, world leading and ICAO compliant NAA (ie CAA NZ) versus our mob (CASA) who, on the overwhelming evidence, are completely disassociated from all reality when it comes to properly and proactively addressing/mitigating true aviation safety risk...
First to set the scene some references - ref 1: Non-compliance with ICAO Annex 14 - Part III.
(04-23-2019, 10:10 PM)Peetwo Wrote: ...This bizarre situation where the aviation safety regulator's oversight responsibilities apparently stop at the airport fence and airspace boundaries is perfectly highlighted in the recently publicly released consultation company AviPro's review of the proposed HLS for the new Tweed Heads hospital: ref - https://majorprojects.accelo.com/public/...iation.pdf
Quote: ...Currently within Australia, there are no set rules or regulations applicable to the design, construction or placement of HLS’...
...CASA, as the regulator of aviation in Australia, divested itself of direct responsibility in the early 1990s and currently provides only basic operating guidelines via Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 92-2 (2) Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Onshore Helicopter Landing Sites...
Ref - November 2009
Quote: Legislative Framework
R - 1 Authority to make Regulations: That the Civil Aviation Act is reviewed in the context of ensuring that CASA has the power to make regulations specifically concerning buildings, structures and objects that are located away from the vicinity of a certified or registered aerodrome...
Reference 2: The noble Art - Embuggerance post #174
[quote pid='10237' dateline='1556233603']
...All this bogus crap about the safety of Angel Flight and yet there the DFO still sits...
Keeping the above picture in mind the following is an extract from the now 22 year old, 28 page CAA NZ Part 77:
Quote: Ref - https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/ru...dation.pdf
(1) it is located within an instrument flight procedures area that is
specified in ICAO document 8168–OPS/611, including standard
arrival routes, initial, intermediate, final, visual and missed
approach segment areas, departure areas and standard instrument
departure routes, and would result in—
(i) the vertical distance between any point on the structure
and an established minimum instrument flight altitude
within that area or segment being less than obstacle
clearance required for the instrument flight procedure; or
(ii) additional or new ceiling or visibility restrictions or a
change in flight procedures applicable to departures
within that area; or...
Okay now the reference document which you'll note was promulgated over a decade ago -
https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/aerodromes/Guidance_Material_Aerodromes.pdf
Quote: Notice of Intention to Construct, Alter, Activate or Deactivate an
Civil Aviation Rule Part 157 requires that prior notice be given to the Director of Civil
Aviation whenever a person intends to construct, alter, activate or deactivate an aerodrome.
This notice will enable the Director to identify whether the use of the airspace associated
with the aerodrome proposal will be a hazard to other established airspace users. It will
also allow identification of problems to do with the safety of persons and property on the
It is also necessary to consider efficient use of airspace at an early stage. The Director,
after receiving such notice, will give advice on the effects the proposal would have on the
use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the safety of persons and property on the
ground. An aeronautical study will be undertaken and a determination on the proposal
The Part 157 rule requirements and Part 157 Advisory Circular are available on the CAA
web site www.caa.govt.nz
There is also a Part 157 information leaflet available from CAA or at:
http://www.caa.govt.nz/aerodromes/Aero_S...7_info.pdf
Civil Aviation Rule Part 77 prescribes rules for a person proposing to construct or alter a
structure that could constitute a hazard in navigable airspace; or use of a structure, lights,
lasers, weapons, or pyrotechnics, that could constitute a hazard in navigable airspace.
There are several areas that require a Part 77 application for a determination on such
objects and activities including:
• A structure that extends more than 60 m in height above the ground level at its site.
• A structure that exceeds the general tree height in the area by 18 m and is located in
an area of low level aerial activity or other low flying activity, or in a low flying
zone or low level route as prescribed under Part 71.
• A structure that is located below the approach or take-off surfaces of an aerodrome
as defined in Part 77.
• A structure that penetrates the obstacle limitation surface of an aerodrome.
A person proposing to use a structure that may discharge efflux at a velocity in
excess of 4.3 m per second through an obstacle limitation surface of an aerodrome
or higher than 60 metres above ground level.
• A person proposing to operate a light or a laser if the light or laser is liable to
endanger aircraft.
• A person or organisation that proposes to use a weapon that fires or launches a
projectile that has a trajectory higher than 45 m if within 4 km of an aerodrome
boundary, or 120 m if more than 4 km from an aerodrome boundary.
• A person who proposes to stage a pyrotechnics display that involves the firing or
launching of a projectile that has a trajectory higher than 45 m if within 4 km of an
aerodrome boundary or 120 m if more than 4 km from an aerodrome boundary.
A person proposing to construct or alter a structure must notify the Director of Civil
Aviation 90 days before the proposed date of commencement of construction or alteration.
The specific requirements are detailed in Civil Aviation Rule 77.13.
An aeronautical study will be undertaken and a determination on the proposal made.
Full details and information on Part 77 requirements are available in the Part 77 Rule
which can be accessed at the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz.
..Local Authority Zoning
The CAA encourage local authorities to protect aerodromes in their areas to ensure the
long term sustainability of the aerodrome, the safety of the aircraft operations, and the
safety of persons and property. In addition to the required obstacle limitation surfaces other
areas can be specifically zoned to assure that future uses of the land are compatible with
airport operations and to protect persons and property. Zoning solely to obstacle limitation
surface is insufficient to prevent the construction of incompatible uses such as housing or
uses that attract congregations of people in the approach areas.
In the United States a runway protection zone (RPZ) is used by many local authorities for
the protection of people and property on the ground. Compatible land use within the RPZ
is generally restricted to such land uses as agricultural, golf course, and similar uses which
do not involve congregations of people or construction of buildings or other improvements
that may be obstructions. Land uses prohibited from the RPZ are residences and places of
public assembly including churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings and shopping
Aerodromes have an important role in aviation safety in particular the safety of aircraft and
passengers. In New Zealand the Civil Aviation Authority oversees aviation safety based
upon international aviation requirements. It is important that persons wanting to alter land
use near an aerodrome do so in consultation with the aerodrome operator, the relevant local
authority and, where necessary, the Civil Aviation Authority.
It is important that land use changes near aerodromes are also compliant with any Civil
Aviation Rule requirements.
The Aeronautical Services Unit of the CAA has responsibilities for the oversight of the
services supporting the New Zealand aviation system. The unit is responsible for
certification and surveillance of aerodromes and heliports, and air traffic,
telecommunications, navigation, meteorological and aeronautical information services.
The unit also has responsibilities regarding airspace and Part 77 determinations for objects
affecting navigable airspace, such as structures, fireworks, unmanned balloons, kites and
model aircraft. They can offer advice on matters relating to Part 139 certificated
aerodromes and Part 157 aerodrome determinations.
They can be contacted by phoning the CAA on 04 560 9400 or through specific contact
details on the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz
To follow that refreshing, informative and totally transparent regulatory guidance document - that highlights so clearly the difference between the CAA NZ ownership/effective oversight of anything affecting air navigation and public safety from air navigation outside of a Federally leased airport perimeter fence vs our self-serving, self-preserving, draconian Big-R regulator - the following is a link for the way the CAA NZ conduct their CAR 157 aeronautical studies and final determinations:
Quote: The Determination will be issued to the proponent, appropriate local authorities, and those who made submissions. The Determination will also be published on the Civil Aviation Authority website at www.caa.govt.nz
Meanwhile in Dunceunda land AIOS reaches epidemic proportions... ref - AIOS - & the 21st Century??
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2019, 01:27 PM by Peetwo.)
(04-25-2019, 08:31 PM)P7_TOM Wrote: Dear Politicians
(04-26-2019, 12:44 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Aviation Safety ownership (CAA NZ) vs No Care, No Responsibility (CASA) -
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2019, 11:51 AM by Peetwo.)
Tyabb Airport bunfight update -
Cap'n Wannabe forwarded this MR from the Mornington Council:
https://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/About-Us/...UMRW17aO-Q
Quote: Wrote: Media statement regarding the Tyabb Airfield
And yesterday from the LMH:
Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...dABth4j.99
(This post was last modified: 06-18-2019, 09:33 PM by Peetwo.)
From the MP News..
There was also a bit on ACA, unfortunately you need to sign up to actually watch it. For those willing to do that, it starts at 16:30 or thereabouts.
EDIT: Found the video on farcebook..
Quote: Talks to clear air over Tyabb
AN uneasy truce was in place over the Tyabb Airfield dispute last week in the lead-up to a meeting between the Mornington Peninsula Shire CEO John Baker and Peninsula Aero Club president Jack Vevers.
The meeting, scheduled for yesterday (Monday 17 June), comes after the warring parties sought common ground in their row over missing or non-existent permits and contentious flying hours.
The mayor Cr David Gill said on Friday that there could be issues such as workers’ compensation insurance if businesses were operating at the airfield without permits.
The aero club was stunned when the council issued a stop-work order, Monday 3 June, saying it was unable to find permits issued subsequent to the original 1965 permit which gave the 55-year-old club the right to operate. (“Shire’s order grounds airfield” The News 12/6/19).
Mr Vevers slammed the ban saying it put 100 jobs and vital emergency services at risk and grounded the club’s 550 members.
Early last week the council in a statement said it acknowledged that over the years the level of activity at the airfield had increased and the surrounding population grown.
The council said it had “attempted to work with the … Peninsula Aero Club for more than a decade to modernise the relevant planning approvals that exist on the site”.
It said it had “advised the club and other landowners and businesses in the precinct that there aren’t any existing planning approvals and there is a need to follow due process and comply with the planning scheme”.
“We encourage and will work with all businesses across the shire to ensure they comply with the planning scheme so they can operate legally and successfully,” the statement said.
“Council are ultimately seeking the preparation and approval of an agreed airfield master plan and noise management plan covering all aspects of the current and future operations, and linked to updated planning permit approvals for the precinct.”
Mr Vevers said on Thursday the shire’s Mr Baker had “reached out to start discussions”.
“I am really pleased about that. It’s what should have happened in the first place. There are no egos in this. We want to get people back to work.”
The meeting comes as a shire-appointed Queen’s Counsel conducts a “full legal review, in order to provide clear information … regarding the conditions of all current planning permits currently applying to the Tyabb Airfield”. The report has a 30 June deadline.
Missing permits ground holiday destination airport
The church is now a cafe and has been for 28 years, but in ­response to lobbying from residents, council sought to add a condition to the airfield extending the curfew from dusk on Saturday to 9am on Sunday.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Mayor David Gill said that was when they discovered permits did not exist for businesses such as the Peninsula Aero Club flying school. In response “cease and desist” notices were distributed to various landholders on the airfield site, instructing them to stop work until appropriate permits were found.
“It so happens we don’t have anything in the workshop at the moment but it will affect our ­future,” Mr English said. “We have another workshop in Hobart so that’s always an option (to relocate work there) but that would be ­disruptive to a lot of people.” Mr Vevers said the airfield was of vital importance to the Mornington Peninsula, which had a population of 164,000 but received seven million visitors a year.
“A lot of things hang off the success of the airport; it’s really having a significant impact on the town,” Mr Vevers said. “People want to trust their council but it’s frightening to think a council has the power to not be looking after people but destroying their livelihoods in such an ­abrupt way without discussion.”
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2019, 09:11 PM by P7_TOM.)
We’d better all move to Houston Texas where there are no zoning rules and hence zero permits to worry about. This also means that property pricing is far more a product of a free market without our artificial land use restrictions. Restrictions in accordance with politicians and a horde of expensive so called “planners.”
The system of government restricting private property land use, laughingly dubbed “planning,” was progressively implemented largely in the 70s and property prices have rollicked along ever since. Councils grow fat on “planning” fees and employ many “planners” to prevent, restrict, restrain and slow the otherwise legitimate aspirations of land owners.
You can’t do that I hear some say. Well, Before Planning (BP) was really biting we reached a point where we could buy USD$1.50 for every $1.00 Aussie. BP property was available anywhere and affordable for newcomers as well established citizens. No so now, no wonder unrest between the have and have nots. BP people were not saddled with huge mortgage loads and had money and land to build homes and businesses upon. BP the four major banks weren’t bloated with mortgage loan books. BP you could live in the most appropriate density housing in the area that suited best, probably much closer to your work thus saving travel expenses.
BP we were more efficient and we had virtually no unemployment. Yes other factors too, but looking over to Houston again, over the last twenty-five years or thereabouts, its grown from four million to six million and residential property prices are half or less compared to Melbourne or Sydney. Internet search that if you wish and drool at what’s available to them. No wonder very strong growth and prosperity in Houston. If Texans were looking at our Tyabb saga they would be wondering if we had lost our marbles.
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2019, 08:29 PM by Sandy Reith.)
Furthermore, Quote as reported:-
“Mr Gill denied the council was being manipulated by a vocal minority. “Council’s not influenced by who makes the loudest noise,” he said.
The perfect example of the ultimate threat to our freedoms and prosperity, the derisive, supercilious and derogatory answer to a reasonable question. One question, who is driving this extraordinary action? Another, why is this happening, and happening now? If not a vocal minority then some other party or parties must be behind this. It could be the “planners,” along with a compliant council, showing their muscle or some other body that stands to benefit.
In my opinion all of the affected airport people should carry on with their normal business and defy the council orders. Who does this Council they think they are? They only exist by virtue of an Act of State Parliament, a compliant animal of the Andrews government, perhaps the orders have come from Dan.
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2019, 08:37 PM by thorn bird.)
Allegedly the council wants the aero club to stump up for a development plan.
Ie. the development sharks have an eye on the land.
To price aviation off the airport to facilitate non aviation development
I wonder when the next council elections are? I expect significant donations to re-election funds.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2019, 10:38 AM by Peetwo.)
Cobden sets precedent in non-aviation development proposals around airports??
Nearly missed this ( ) but in the area of airports we actually have a good news story for a change...
First via the Warrnambool Standard:
Quote: JUNE 5 2019 - 3:30PM
Victory: Pilots and community supporters praise tribunal decision to reject the construction of wind turbines to the north of the airport. Pictured in 2017 protesting at the Cobden Airport. Picture: Rob Gunstone
Turbines: Alinta Energy may appeal the tribunal's decision. Photo: Sitthixay Ditthavong
Shutdown fears: Warren Ponting showing off where the wind turbines would be in relation to the airport. Picture: Morgan Hancock
READ more: St Patrick's Day fires highlight importance of Cobden airport amid wind farm fears
And via the LMH:
Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...0yiPWWU.99
See what can happen when a community unites...
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2019, 08:02 AM by Kharon.)
Well done all; let’s hope that is an end to an arrogant proposal which simply expected the local council, aerodrome and operators to like it or lump it. Seems no one, from the Mayor down thought much of this and took the company on. That is worth a round of well deserved applause for the Council and mayor, motivation (cost of building a new airport) aside.
“[amid] concerns the Corangamite Shire Council-owned site facing closure if the development went ahead.
“Corangamite Shire Council mayor Neil Trotter applauded the decision, but said the dispute was drawn out and costly for the council.”
Strange business is politics though; Richard Riordan; local member for Polwarth (Libs) failed to comment, let alone grab a photo opportunity. But the Vic, planning minister gets a mention for a job well done. Even the “Shadow Minister' for Aviation Gordon Rich-Phillips welcomed the news” and yet, not a peep out of McDonaught – but, the best bit:-
"CASA advises that the proposed wind farm will create an unacceptable risk to the safety of aircraft operations at Cobden Aerodrome," the aviation authority said in a statement to VCAT.
Well done CASA, a most refreshing and welcome line of common sense which would carry a lot of weight in any sane hearing of the matter. Thank you.
Just my obs – FWIW; nice to know Cobden is still on the map and active.
Quote: Essendon Airport plans to narrow runways with stroke of a pen
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2019, 11:27 AM by thorn bird.)
Err, scuse me, what about utility and viability for aviation? Perhaps scrutiny of the 99 year Commonwealth leases and the clauses pertaining to the prohibition of reducing utility, and not maintaining the airport in it's original condition.
A so called master plan is just a convenient way of circumventing the intention of the lease.
No it's not, MONEY is the number one priority.
Thats what happens when airports are given to development sharks to manage.
"Public submissions on the airport's master plan close on Tuesday. The plan and any submissions received will then be sent to the federal Transport Minister for approval".
For approval, read rubber stamp, could be nice little political donation to follow.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2019, 06:10 PM by Peetwo.)
(07-02-2019, 09:42 AM)Cap\n Wannabe Wrote:
(07-02-2019, 11:27 AM)thorn bird Wrote: Quote:
Good catch CW...
Funny how these things work but here is some relevant parallels with the Addison Texas BE350i accident which tragically killed 10 people:
(07-02-2019, 11:16 AM)Peetwo Wrote: Choppagirl: Dallas and Essendon - sound similar?
(07-02-2019, 06:04 AM)Choppagirl Wrote: https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/07/01/addi...e-unknown/
UPDATED: July 1, 2019 2:04 PM
https://cbsloc.al/2Npf3VO
ADDISON (CBSDFW.COM) – John Paul II High School in Plano confirmed two students were among those killed in a plane crash at the Addison Municipal Airport.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators returned to the scene early Monday morning.
& also via CBS news national:
Quote: "I've never seen anything like that": Witness describes deadly Texas plane crash
And the official NTSB update:
Obviously way to early to speculate but like Choppagirl I can see the similarities with the YMEN DFO accident. However I can also see some stark differences i.e Multi-crew aircraft, possibly operating under Part 91 etc..etc
There is also a notable difference in the professionalism and clinical handling of the initial phases of the AAI (reference the NTSB presser above).
IMO there are in fact more similarities to the Wichita B200 accident: see - The HVH YMEN DFO faery tale grows
Also it should be noted neither of the buildings were built alongside the active runways, nor were the buildings a massive shopping complex with the potential for on ground casualties in their thousands:
Quote: Essendon Airport Pty Ltd (EAPL) has prepared a preliminary version of its draft Master Plan 2019. Public consultation commences Tuesday 2 April 2019 for a period of 60 business days.
The preliminary draft Master Plan can be downloaded free of charge throughout the consultation period from the links below:
ESSENDON FIELDS AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 2019 PRELIMINARY DRAFT (INCLUDING APPENDICES) (36MB)
ESSENDON FIELDS AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 2019 PRELIMINARY DRAFT (MAIN DOCUMENT EXCLUDING APPENDICES) (21MB)
APPENDIX A: PRESCRIBED AIRSPACE CHARTS (7MB)
APPENDIX B: VACANT PARCELS OF AIRPORT LAND (446KB)
APPENDIX C: LAND USE PLAN (5MB)
APPENDIX D: ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY 2019 – 2027 (2MB)
Knowing our bunch of numpties overseeing aviation safety the Addison prang probably won't even cause a whimper of interest. But it should, because if nothing else it highlights how potentially reducing internationally recognised public and aviation safety margins around airports is fraught with danger.
When we get some more details from the Addison accident we will overlay on the YMEN runways 17/35 and 08/26 to see where the same accident would have impacted.
Great to see the ‘Public Interest’ being served by this new proposal at Essendon. Lots more opportunity for shopping. Lots more opportunity for residential development. Lots more opportunity for short term real estate development with a good ROI. Bugger aviation and the critical role it plays in our economy. They can fly from somewhere else.
(07-02-2019, 07:33 PM)DicDoc Wrote: Great to see the ‘Public Interest’ being served by this new proposal at Essendon. Lots more opportunity for shopping. Lots more opportunity for residential development. Lots more opportunity for short term real estate development with a good ROI. Bugger aviation and the critical role it plays in our economy. They can fly from somewhere else.
Update: Via the AFAP
Quote: Link: https://10daily.com.au/shows/10-news-fir...79Kn2B6js8
Essendon Airport Propose Runway Changes To Develop To New Shopping Centre
The high profile owners of Essendon Airport want to narrow the runways, to develop a new shopping district opposite the current DFO. "It would set a very worrying precedent for our other federal airports around the country," says #YourAFAP.
July 2 at 4:30 PM ·
Essendon Airport's operators want to narrow its runways in order to put new commercial buildings around the airfield. It's a masterplan which a peak pilots' body has warned would compromise safety.
#Pilots have slammed moves by the owners of Essendon Fields Airport to narrow runways in a bid to make room for a giant shopping complex and offices. Essendon #airport is owned by Lindsay Fox and Max Beck and both men want more bang for their buck. Pilots don’t want the proposal to get off the ground, saying it would compromise #safety. Public submissions on the master plan close today. (AFAP Safety & Technical Manager) Marcus Diamond said he was “baffled” to learn about the plan, particularly given a report investigating how the Essendon DFO was approved still hadn’t been released.
Pilots angered by bold new plans for Essendon airport
Pilots have slammed moves by the owners of Essendon Fields Airport to narrow runways in a bid to make room for a giant shopping complex and offices.
Essendon airport is owned by Lindsay Fox and Max Beck and both men want more bang for their buck.
But the Airline Pilots’ Association says the only bang they’ll get under this plan is a potential crash.
The Age is reporting the master plan is virtually a mirror image of DFO, which sits next to the Tullamarine Freeway.
It also involves painting new lines on the runways, effectively narrowing them to make room for the development.
Pilots don’t want the proposal to get off the ground, saying it would compromise safety.
Public submissions on the master plan close today.
Marcus Diamond, from the Australian Air Pilots Federation, told 3AW it was a recipe for disaster.
He said he was “baffled” to learn about the plan, particularly given a report investigating how the Essendon DFO was approved still hadn’t been released.
A plane crashed into that DFO building in 2017, killing five people.
“You really shouldn’t be making any changes to this airport until that ATSB report comes out,” Mr Diamond said.
https://omny.fm/shows/mornings-with-neil...ation-of-a
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2019, 10:15 AM by Peetwo.)
Are the Reds coming to New England?
Hi all, a month ago I resigned from The Australian after 15 years. I had, and have, serious misgivings about the direction that is now being taken. Australia faces unprecedented external threats. To do otherwise, I felt, would be treasonous. DM me with any and all leads. Thanks
Having jumped from the Newscorp ship the Klanman is now back and opening up with a rip snorter, via michaelwest.com.au -
Quote: Mayday: two shadowy Chinese corporations behind Virgin’s plan to control Australian airbase
They warn the proposal appears to be a re-run of the highly controversial 2015 dealwhereby the Chinese Communist Party-linked Landbridge Group was granted a 99-year lease over the Port of Darwin, a move which drew an angry rebuke from then US President Barrack Obama.
Quote: Cagey Chinese raider HNA needs eye of FIRB
Lockheed Martin will train RAAF pilots from a base in Sale, Victoria. BAE Systems will cease training RAAF pilots in Tamworth by October 31. A September 2015 [color=#b52727]ABC article about BAE Systems losing its ADF contract underscored the specialised military nature of the Tamworth facility.
Have a tip-off or story idea? Email anthonyklan@protonmail.com
Anthony.klan@twitter Mob: 0403 873 899 WhatsApp / Signal / Telegram. Awards.
Quote: When it comes to tax, it’s Virgin by name and Virgin by nature
Oh well P2,
very interesting article, makes a change from stories about property development sharks building DFO's next to runways. The way it's going with the Australian selloff, one wonders if Mandarin should be taught as a compulsory language subject in our schools.
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2019, 07:26 PM by Peetwo.)
Alphabets led by A4ANZ challenge Airport monopolies -
Via the A4ANZ: http://www.a4anz.com/documents/A4ANZ_MR-...lition.pdf
Quote: Airport Users Call on Government to Adopt ACCC Recommendations on Monopoly Airports
Retailers, operators of rental cars, commercial passenger vehicles, off-airport car parking, and ride-share drivers, have
joined with major airlines in warning that the Government’s productivity agenda will be held back if they don’t act on
the important issue of monopoly airports.
Leading the call was Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ) Chairman, Professor Graeme Samuel AC, who
said today that it was well understood that Australia’s monopoly airports were now the only privatised infrastructure
assets in Australia not appropriately regulated for the protection of consumers.
Professor Samuel, a former Chairman of the ACCC, said, “For decades now, Australian travellers have felt the impact
of monopoly pricing at our airports, and the ACCC has repeatedly said that we have a problem. But while other
sectors have caught up with regulatory regimes that better reflect consumer interests and expectations, the
Productivity Commission (PC) – inexplicably – seems intent on retaining the status quo for airports.”
“In practice, this means inefficient, protracted negotiations, disputes that end up in court, costing millions of dollars,
and creating uncertainty over investment. The system has passed its use-by date; it’s neither efficient nor effective.”
The impact of this is not only felt by the airlines; it follows passengers at every stage of their journey. On-airport
retailers are another group seeking a fairer deal. Russell Zimmerman, Executive Director of the Australian Retailers
Association, said “With current economic conditions and retail spending, it is hardly the time for the government to
endorse the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that permits airports to continue to charge monopoly rents
unchecked. Compared to traditional shopping centres, there is a lack of transparency on lease terms at some airports,
and airport rents are much higher. But there is no scope for negotiation on terms and conditions, and many airport
lease clauses prohibit retailers from speaking out. There needs to be a system to hold the monopolists to account,
just like there is in other sectors.”
The Australian Finance Industry Association (AFIA), who represent rental car operators, also supports sensible,
evidence-based reforms to encourage better negotiations and resolve disputes. AFIA CEO, Helen Gordon said,
“Consumers bear the brunt of high airport charges, with a significant proportion of the cost for a car rental
representing passed-on costs charged by the airports to the operator. While the rental car operators provided the
Productivity Commission with compelling evidence, including the fact that it is more expensive for them to operate at
Australian airports than LAX, Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle, it is unclear how this was taken into account by the
Other ground transport operators have also pointed to the significant imbalance in negotiating power they face when
trying to strike a deal with a monopoly airport operator over landside area access fees. President of the Commercial
Passenger Vehicle Association of Australia, Mr André Baruch, said that the solution to this was not complex nor
unreasonable, and had worked in other sectors. “All we’re asking for is for the same to apply to airports: an open,
transparent and inclusive process.”
Ride Share Drivers Association of Australia’s President Ms Rosalina Kariotakis agreed that the current system does not
support ground transport operators to bargain efficiently or effectively with monopoly airports. “Drivers have simply
been forced to accept airport access fee increases – in some cases over 200% in 4 years – which in turn pushes the
prices up for passengers.”
Also expressing concern was the International Air Transport Association (IATA). “It is a fact that the current lighthanded regime of economic regulation is ineffective in protecting the interests of airlines, passengers, and the people and businesses accessing the terminal precinct. With the aviation industry being an important economic contributor, supporting over 700,000 Australian jobs, and contributing $69 billion or 5.5% of the country’s GDP, the Australian Government needs to put in place policies that support the sustainable development of the industry and its contributions to the Australian economy,” said Conrad Clifford, IATA’s Regional Vice President for Asia-Pacific.
“What is needed – and what has been proposed by the ACCC – isn’t complex. Access to arbitration when negotiations break down should be provided for all airports with monopoly characteristics. This is standard, commercial practice - why should airports be treated differently to other important infrastructure?”
Lead contact: A4ANZ Chairman Graeme Samuel on 0408 335 555
Plus AOPA Oz throw in behind A4ANZ:
A4ANZ CHAIRMAN PROF GRAEME SAMUEL AC
Appreciated the opportunity today, to discuss general aviation industry concerns regarding privatised airport monopolies with Airlines for Australia and New Zealand (A4ANZ) Chairman, Prof Graeme Samuel AC.
AOPA Australia and our GA alliance partners are looking forward to working closely with A4ANZ to strengthen communication and awareness of the negative impacts on general aviation, building a stronger industry alliance and drive for critical change.
Plus very much related AOPA Oz take on Redcliffe Airport leaseholders cause:
Quote: REDCLIFFE AIRPORT COMMUNITY REJECT 400% INCREASES IN LEASEHOLD RATES
Aircraft owners, pilots, aviation business and airport leaseholders have come together to reject unsustainable property leasehold rate increases demanded by Moreton Bay Regional Council airport, that would expose the community to increases of up to 400% and beyond.
Hmm...luv the yellow shoes -