A Free Hit

And damning.

It warns that the need to select a second airport site, as part of a wider suite of measures to boost Sydney’s aviation capacity, is now “critical”.

In recommending Badgery’s Creek to Sydney’s west as the preferred site of a second airport, with Wilton, to the city’s southwest, as a second best option, the report has kicked off an utterly predictable political debate.

It is completely understandable that local politicians will be vocal proponents for their constituents’ desire to not have a major airport in their local area.

But in the noise of that debate the greater good gets lost – and there is no clear voice advocating for the national interest.

The joint study’s report points out, in plain English, the economic and social benefits of airports: “More than ever before, good access to aviation is essential for social and economic development. More and more people are choosing air travel for holidays or for catching up with family and friends.

“More and more businesses are heavily reliant on aviation for their links with markets, suppliers and other contacts.

This is nowhere more important than in Sydney, given its place as Australia’s prime international centre for business and finance, our major tourist destination and international gateway and a focus for the professional services sector. ” And in even plainer English, in language politicians best understand: “Airports generate jobs. ” The report does the aviation industry and community a huge service in advocating the need for and benefits of airports as critical pieces of national infrastructure.

National infrastructure needs national advocates. This can’t just be a debate for Sydney’s state and federal parliamentarians about aircraft noise. It needs instead to be a debate on infrastructure, economic development and the social benefits that travelling to visit friends and family and tourism bring.

The aviation industry, led by the airlines, needs to be advocating for a new airport, loudly, clearly and succinctly.

To his credit, federal Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese has been publicly prosecuting the case for a second airport, pointing to the economic benefits of this vital piece of infrastructure.

But this is the same Minister whose own electorate adjoins Sydney Airport – and who has rejected out of hand increasing the cap and easing the curfew restrictions at Sydney Airport.

In effect, he is externalising Sydney airport’s capacity issues earlier than they need to be, by artificially constraining the capacity of the airport.

And that’s almost as farcical as NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell’s assertion that Sydney’s aviation needs can be best served by expanding Canberra Airport and linking Canberra to Sydney via a very fast train. But Canberra is so far away from Sydney that Qantas schedules over 20 return flights between the two cities each weekday.

Surely, as the report points out, the Canberra option is too far and too costly – although as a Canberran, this would be a huge boon for the local economy, which would finally deliver some long-awaited international direct flights.

But with no clear political advocate or will for a second Sydney airport, you can see why the Regional Aviation Association of Australia is concerned that its member airlines will be forced out of Sydney Airport to Bankstown to free up capacity at Sydney for bigger jets.

With the ‘do nothing’ option seemingly preferred by default, that shifting of regional aviation looms as a fait accompli as does, despite the Minister’s rejection, increasing the current Sydney Airport movement cap from 80 to at the minimum 85 as advocated by the joint study’s report.

This is the easiest step that could be taken to ease some of Sydney’s aviation pain, albeit temporarily. Surely, given how much quieter today’s aircraft are compared to when the cap was introduced – A380s and 737NGs are much quieter than 747s and 727s – this deserves proper consideration.

On the other hand, Minister Albanese’s rejection of increasing the cap is perhaps doing the second Sydney airport debate a favour, by making the new airport an even more urgent requirement than it otherwise would be.

The joint study’s authors – Mike Mrdak, Sam Haddad, Les Wielinga, Warwick Smith, Jennifer Westacott, Warren Mundy and Christopher Brown – should be praised for their detailed, well-written report.

It’s a great basis on which the aviation industry and our political leaders can build upon in bringing their leadership and influence in advocating for the new airport.

The clock’s ticking.