Corporate Contrails

It is now time for the General Aviation sector in Australia to react positively after years of attack from all quarters. Business aviation is a very important part of the nation’s transport industry and it only remains for us to convince Governments that it should not concentrate all of its energies into the direction of the airlines.

Essendon Airport – The Future

ABAA members are major users of Australia’s only true business airport, Essendon, the ABAA welcomes the opportunity to participate in the current study of the airport needs of the Port Phillip area surrounding Melbourne being undertaken by the Department of Transport and Communications.

We are also impressed with the exciting and forward looking development plans that the FAG have for the airport. After years of living in surroundings of abject decay with buildings only fit for demolition, the ABAA sees the exciting property developments planned (refer Centreline this issue) as a positive way to overcome the deficit at the airport. F or too long the airport owners have sat on large acreages of prime land suitable for non aeronautical development and it is about time that this potential is realised. What we all need to see now isAction to restore confidence in the future of the airpor t, some realistic security of tenure and positive support for its retention from the FAC. The FAC is obliged under the terms of the Federal Airports Corporation Act to operate the airport profitably. It is about time that measures to achieve these objectives are implemented. Overseas it has already been demonstrated that the most commercially successful airports are those hosting diverse business activities and Essendon is ideally placed to support substantial commercial development as well as aviation activity.

The local councils around Essendon take the view that Essendon airport should be closed. Their motives are undoubtedly associated with wishing to create a greater number of constituents to support political muscle and improving rate revenues. The fact that Essendon airport supports a diverse number of successful businesses which trade internationally and contribute substantially to the local economy seems to be lost on the councils. They also choose to forget that access to Melbourne by air is substantially better than Sydney due to one simple fact, the limited runway resources in the Sydney basin are a significant restraint on the growth potential of Sydney. Although the local councils around Essendon may be short-sighted and selfish we hope that the State Government of Victoria is able to take a more far-sighted view. At this stage of the development of aviation, we should be developing more runway capacity not closing it down. It has, for some time, been recognised that airports are catalysts for significant economic growth and yet the councils continue to wear blinkers. Recent estimates by world aviation experts meeting in Moscow indicated that by the year 2015, air transport will require the building of the equivalent of 80 airports the size of Chicago O’Hare (which employs over 50,000 people), the world’s largest, and yet in Australia we have a situation where narrow-minded vested interests are attempting to close an airport. The ABAA will join other industry organisations in an attempt to bring some reality into the debate particularly if the councils are willing to listen.

The cynical view taken by some parts of our industry is that the current Port Phillip airport needs study is being used by F ederal Government to create an environment where it can support the closure of this important airport asset. ABAA members have already suffered from years of mismanagement of Essendon Airport. Every sector of the industry would be affected by the closure of Essendon Airport not least of which the all-pervasive airline industry. Would the airlines be happy with conditions at Melbourne Airport similar to those at Sydney with long periods of holding and disruption. Of course not and it is time for those who know nothing about the subject to get off their soapboxes and let the FAG get on with the task that they have been set, namely, to turn Essendon Airpor t into a thriving mixed use airport similar to those most successful and exciting ‘business airparks’ in the United States.

The Government would do well to also note that should its airport needs study contrive to manipulate the facts the ABAA, for one, will not hesitate to reveal flaws in its case. Much in the same way that successive Government Ministers hung onto pathetically incorrect notions about Badgery’s Creek and the KSA third runway only to be exposed by the industry. The same will surely occur with any ‘contrived’ solution over the future of Essendon.

Priority of Access to Our Airports.

This column has, since 1987, contained many hundreds of words on the subject of the existing discriminatory priority system for access to our airports. The ABAA conclude that despite being given advice a year ago by the Civil Aviation Authority to remove the existing system, the Government lacks the guts to address the issue.

It has, for some time, been accepted by all parties that the morale of Air Traffic Controllers is low particularly as they still have to administer outdated and outmoded policies of a Government that clearly does not understand the needs of our industry. The priority system is one such policy which, if removed, would bring about simplification in airspace management and more importantly the tasks of air traffic controllers. Equally it would remove a major portion of aggravation between pilots and air traffic controllers thus aiding overall safety. The system proposed by the ABAA, and endorsed by the CAA that access should be determined on performance only, is most equitable.

In dealing with this issue over four years the ABAA has had to deal with a succession of public servants mainly within the Department of Transport and Communications who, lacking any knowledge of the system, have to be taken up the learning curve. Unfortunately ttie industry is paying for such repetitive exercises and all to no avail because we see no result except a constant change of faces to deal with. It is about time that the Minister responsible for determining this issue directs his officers to implement the recommendations which have widespread support from the industry. There is no need for further consultation on the matter.

The ABAA has no choice but to advise its member companies, most of whom are leading corporations, that the Government is incapable of responding to the needs of the aviation industry. Although we and others have presented solutions to improve national efficiency, the Government sees fit to ignore such propositions

Effects of the 1989 Airline Dispute a Fair Go!

One of the ongoing effects of the 1989 domestic airline dispute in Australia will be the impact on revenue of both the CAA and FAC. The Government has adopted a double standard with regards to compensation. While it was willing to compensate the airlines who, it could be said, were able to manage their own destiny it made no such flow-on provisions for organisations such as the FAC or CAA impacted by the dispute by circumstances outside their control.

By November 1989 it was clear that the CAA was losing $18m per month and the FAC some $20m per month in revenue. These shortfalls are extremely damaging at a time when our airways and airports infrastructure are already deficient due to years of neglect by Government. At the time of writing it was clear that the non domestic airline sectors of the industry would, in future years, be expected to contribute additional funds to both the CAA and FAC by way of higher than expected user charges due to the airline dispute.

We are, therefore, faced with the prospect that as taxpayers we are expected to support a Government which will pay out compensation to the airlines. In addition as users of airports and airways systems, we are expected by the Government to pay additional ‘user fees’ to balance a period when the airlines were relieved of their ‘user pays’ charges. The ABAA deplores such a situation particularly when, over the past few years, we have seen draconian increases in user charges under a Government committed to the ‘user pays’ principle.

It seems that policy has now shifted to a position where some users pay while others do not. For instance the military in Australia do not pay user charges at airports or on airways although in many counties they do. During the airline dispute they did not pay despite the fact that they were carrying fare paying passengers for the airlines.

Is possible that we could expect a fair Government at some time in the future that does not indulge in such discriminatory practices.