December 30, 2009

Suddenly and without warning, another important east coast airfield has joined the endangered list. Australian Pilot Editor, Brian Bigg, went along with about 200 others to let the local council know Kempsey Airport shall not go quietly into the night.

The first anyone knew there was a problem was when the papers were printed for the Kempsey Shire Council meeting on October 13. There, on page 14, was the heading “Reporting on the investigations into the long term viability of the Kempsey Airport under a number of development scenarios.”

It was a seven page report by the council’s new General Manager.

The report outlined ways in which the council could somehow turn a profit from the airport. It starts innocently enough.

“Council has for a number of years been looking at the potential for attracting business to the airport as a mechanism for minimising the cost of retaining the asset to the community and as a potential driver of economic development.

“While there has been work done on layouts and discussions on possible users, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the costs and the benefits of the proposal.”

For the local aircraft community what followed was a big shock. A six page report which explained in no uncertain terms why no one in their right mind would ever, ever, want to come to Kempsey Airport for any reason, neither for fun, nor profit. It explained why there was absolutely no chance, ever, the airport could ever be anything more than a useless drain on the otherwise valuable resources of the council. It outlined a proposed four stage upgrade of the airport, which it claimed would cost almost $4.5 million. It doesn’t explain who asked for the upgrade.

The $4.5 million dollar cost of the upgrade glares at the casual reader like a cancerous lump.

Then there is the big ah ha! moment, and you should pay attention if your council starts to talk like this.

The tell tale sign in any discussion about an airport, that the council has come under the influence of those shark like devourers of open land, the real estate agents.

The report talks about the value of the airport in terms of a valuation per square metre. That’s real estate agent speak. It’s a way for them to demonstrate how valuable a block of land COULD be, if only it wasn’t being wasted by those millionaire playboy light aeroplane pilots.

It can be a persuasive argument for a council employee trying to balance the books and seeing the airfield as a burden. How much more income the council could earn from ratepayers if the land was redeveloped into a higher value property.

But can you judge the value of a park on how much per square metre the council earns from it, or golf course or a tennis court or a bowling green. Few of these things are worth more per square metre to a council than a block of high rise apartments or a new luxury sub-division. When you see that phrase in a council report about your airport, jump up and bark because somewhere a real estate agent has his eyes on your landing strip.

At the end of the Kempsey report when all possible alternatives for the council to make any money from the airstrip are thrown up and shot down, there is the sentence which made every pilot in the local shire sit up and take notice.

“Recommendation – that council undertake a staged withdrawal from providing an airport and develop a business case for development of the land that will allow for future economic development activities.”

Excuse me? This airport is not the council’s to destroy. It was built with federal money on behalf of the community, like the road or the rail lines.

As outlined in the previous edition of Australian Pilot, the problem started when the Federal Government decided it wanted to get out of the airport business and just rang up councils and declared “Congratulations, you’ve won an airport!”

Few councils have the expertise, the knowledge or the interest in running a successful airfield. Unless you have a monopoly on a major city airport, its almost impossible to make serious money from one. Councils, which have been strapped for cash ever since they began to fatten up with permanent managerial staff, have neither the manpower or the willpower to find a way to make the local airstrip more cost effective.

Those councils which have done so, such as Tamworth and Temora to name but two, have found they can generate good money for the town, but you need to invest in both people and ideas.

Some councils have introduced parking fees. Others have introduced landing charges. Some clever councils have actually offered cheap rent to attract aviation related business to their hangars knowing that other related businesses will follow.

Kempsey Shire Council explored none of these.

At the bottom of each of these arguments is the clause in every agreement between the Federal Government airport managers that the facility is to be maintained as an airport.

If only the Federal Government would enforce its own clause. It might stop all the nibbling at the edges by airport managers around the country. And what happens if a local council just says “We don’t want it, we can’t pay for it, we won’t pay for it”. What then?

One sided case

There are several other things not done in the Kempsey case.

The report which recommended the council dump the airstrip and turn it into a subdivision was never compiled in consultation with either the users of the airport or with any person who might have an expertise in making an airfield more productive. It used figures plucked from Bankstown Airports Corporation website. Setting aside the suitability of Bankstown Airport Corporation as a role model for these sorts of issues (you hearing me Mr Clamback or Ms Hennessy?) to base an important decision on what appears to be such scanty research invites serious criticism.

The figures quoted in the Kempsey report were either overly pessimistic (realistic?) in the potential for income or wrong in the case of how much a year council was being forced to pay (although I’m told the local Mayor has now admitted as much and promised to change his tune).

It failed to explore the obvious path being explored by other councils – that of developing excess airport land for industrial or other complimentary development as a way of subsidising the so-called loss making areas . And most critically, it failed to look past the profit and loss of the next few years to a time when the town has grown and developed and will undoubtedly need a good airport to attract business and jobs to the region.

Five cents profit for today’s council will not be remembered in a favorable light in 50 years from now when the council of that time is faced with trying to find space for an airport it will so obviously need.

A public meeting

On Saturday December 5, a group of two hundred people flew or drove in to Kempsey to express strong disapproval at the council’s moves. The council apparently tried to stop the meeting going ahead (on the grounds that the insurance coverage wasn’t enough – sad attempt really). In attendance was AOPA’s President Phillip Reiss and immediate Past President Col Rodgers.

Phillip was scathing in his criticism.

“I can only conclude the council has a hidden agenda,” he said. “I understand from speaking to Kempsey Airport tenants that the council has refused to allow development of more hangars because of the cost involved in building additional taxiways.

“The potential for an airpark development should be explored with some realistic cost analysis (not inflated council figures). The potential to make the airport profitable is not being explored.

“My view is that there is no need to spend $4.5 million in the foreseeable future, unless RPT services are envisaged.

“For the present use the runway and taxiway is perfectly adequate. Taking a proactive approach by encouraging flying training and engineering facilities and an airpark is a viable option.

“The loss of Kempsey Airport will rob the local community of a valuable transport infrastructure facility. The loss to the community is immeasurable, the emergency services benefits alone justify retaining this airport – flood relief, fire services, medivac, RFDS etc, these are tangible benefits which simply cannot be quantified in dollar terms.

“Australia is a vast country and a viable aviation industry is vital to enable business and community development. An airport can provide jobs and technology training for the youth of Kempsey.

“I find it hard to believe in a town with high unemployment, that a council cares so little for the future of the young people.”

Guest speaker at the meeting and a big hit with the crowd was former CASA Chairman and aviation adventurer Dick Smith. He was more sanguine about the attempt by Kempsey Shire Council to kill its airfield.

“I think the council was trying it on,” said Dick. “To see if they could get rid of the cost of the airfield.

“I think they were going to try and get away with using Port Macquarie aerodrome. But the level of flack they received should mean they should not be able to go through with it. I think they were astonished by the reaction”

“It’s a disappointing attitude from the council.”

“I was impressed by strong AOPA presence at the meeting, with both Phillip and Col there and with the size of the crowd.”

For Dick the next battle will be the threat to Warnervale, the last airstrip for light aircraft between Sydney and Newcastle. (Australian Pilot will feature this in our continuing series on Our Disappearing Airports).

Another public meeting

Three days after the protest fly in, the council called a public meeting to discuss the future of the airfield.

Local Kempsey councillor, Alan Snowsill, thinks senior council figures might have expected a few people to turn up, but not the crowd of more than a hundred who packed the Council Chambers .

“It was a terrible meeting, “says Alan. “The Mayor John Bowell, just lost control. There were people with children present and his language was not appropriate. He lost the plot.”

The big revelation was from the person who wrote the report which started the whole debate, the council’s General Manager, David Rawling.

He was asked directly…. “Did you have outside developers show interest in re-developing the airport?”

“Yes”, he admitted after thinking about his answer for a few seconds.

“I’ve had two approaches, one locally, one from an international company.”

“But”, he insisted, “no further negotiations have so far been entered into.”

The fight for Kempsey Airport is not over yet.

Is your airfield under threat? Email editor@aopa.com.au and let AOPA help you fight the good fight.