Use of OOL by NSW residents to access NNSW

[justinbrett]

With NSW permitting regional travel from 01 June, northern NSW (Tweed Heads - Byron etc) is as close to a Queensland holiday as we can get for now.

While Ballina would be an option for Byron, OOL is much more suitable for the border region. As airports are federal land, and the airport actually sits in both states, it stands to reason that NSW should have access to the airport. However, as the terminal and road exit is on the Queensland side, this won’t be permitted without a border pass.

The federal government should challenge this - or maybe build a temporary exit to the NSW side?

 

[jakeseven7]

Federal government could do this yes, and take the cost out of Queensland’s GST allocation to pay for it, so other states are not disadvantaged

 

[Spongbob]

What ever happened to the "States rights" doctrine in Australia?

 

[Vic]

So many questions for this thought bubble:
Aren't all airports privately owned?
Why should the Federal Government do anything? This is an issue for the owner of the airport.
Why should the private owner attracted increased passenger numbers and hence fees on the back of government spending, and not their own money?
Why should queensland taxpayers paid to advantage NSW taxpayers, and to put money into the pockets of private airport owners?

 

[ja1]

Hilarious. I love listening to amusing ideas that won't actually happen in reality.

It's almost as if people have forgotten the reason we have social distancing and border closures. Anyone remember it's called a pandemic and ~100 people died so far (and ~300K have died worldwide) and having discussions about ways to circumvent policies - while interesting and amusing - isn't going to actually change them when you think about why they are in place..

It's likely to be only days if not weeks until governments reopen borders - assuming no further community transmission. At which point I'd imagine your scenario of using OOL (or in fact, flying into any airport in QLD) works just fine..

 

[ja1]

So many questions for this thought bubble:
Aren't all airports privately owned?
Why should the Federal Government do anything? This is an issue for the owner of the airport.
Why should the private owner attracted increased passenger numbers and hence fees on the back of government spending, and not their own money?
Why should queensland taxpayers paid to advantage NSW taxpayers, and to put money into the pockets of private airport owners?

The airport itself may be privately owned but the land may be federal land which is on a long term lease (e.g. 99 years or similar).

The federal government may not be 'required' to do anything but may 'want' to do something to encourage the economic activity to resume.

The original poster didn't suggest anything about taxpayers paying the private operator - simply that the federal government could (it couldn't!) create access to an airport bypassing state control - but making the state pay for it. I'm assuming the poster is also a fan of Donald Trumps 'we will build a wall and mexico will pay for it'..

 

[p--and--t]

Hilarious. I love listening to amusing ideas that won't actually happen in reality.

It's almost as if people have forgotten the reason we have social distancing and border closures. Anyone remember it's called a pandemic and ~100 people died so far (and ~300K have died worldwide) and having discussions about ways to circumvent policies - while interesting and amusing - isn't going to actually change them when you think about why they are in place..

It's likely to be only days if not weeks until governments reopen borders - assuming no further community transmission. At which point I'd imagine your scenario of using OOL (or in fact, flying into any airport in QLD) works just fine..

A semi-lockdown is the perfect fertile ground for idle minds not otherwise distracted to focus on circumnavigations (and conspiracies)

 

[Vic]

The airport itself may be privately owned but the land may be federal land which is on a long term lease (e.g. 99 years or similar).

The federal government may not be 'required' to do anything but may 'want' to do something to encourage the economic activity to resume.

The original poster didn't suggest anything about taxpayers paying the private operator - simply that the federal government could (it couldn't!) create access to an airport bypassing state control - but making the state pay for it. I'm assuming the poster is also a fan of Donald Trumps 'we will build a wall and mexico will pay for it'..

I didn't say anything about government paying the private owner either.

The OP suggested the federal government should build an exit (I assume this would cost money), presumably at federal government expense. Such an exit would then allow increase passenger numbers at the airport. The private owner charges a fee to the airline based on landings and passenger numbers. increased demand = increased fees collected by the airport.

A subsequent poster suggested the federal government paying for the exit from Queensland GST. So Queensland government paying for NSW taxpayers to holiday, and increasing the ability of the private airport to make money from larger passenger numbers.

I was simply reflecting on how the assumed champions of free market devotees like Donald Trump, don't seem to have a problem with government subsidies for private business when it suits.

In any case, I'm sure this would just be a means of spreading the 'Rona via 5G at cooloongatta...

 

[justinbrett]

Wow, that got out of hand quickly. Even my thoughts on US politics has been assumed!

The original poster didn't suggest anything about taxpayers paying the private operator - simply that the federal government could (it couldn't!) create access to an airport bypassing state control - but making the state pay for it. I'm assuming the poster is also a fan of Donald Trumps 'we will build a wall and mexico will pay for it'..

So I actually said the federal government should “challenge” it, being that it is a federal asset and the federal government is responsible for maintaining connections between the states (hence why it funds national highways). I actually meant it should force Queensland to allow access to the airport from NSW and permit those pax to transit from the airport to the border. Providing access to the NSW side could be done at short notice, there are crash gates, perimeter roads or if nothing else they can do it by shuttle bus. I’m not suggesting they build a new motorway.... But the sensible thing to do is just tell Queensland they can’t stop people using the airport to get to NSW.

 

[justinbrett]

So many questions for this thought bubble:
Aren't all airports privately owned??

They’re under the jurisdiction of the federal government and have an obligation as a national strategic asset

Why should the Federal Government do anything? This is an issue for the owner of the airport.

The operator of the airport is a significant stakeholder, yes, but the federal government is responsible for links between the states, including aviation. Imagine if NSW closed it’s borders to ACT and didn’t let freight through?

.
Why should the private owner attracted increased passenger numbers and hence fees on the back of government spending, and not their own money?

We’re not talking about increased passenger numbers. These areas rely on access to OOL. These areas are trying to get back in business as per the state regulations but will be hampered if they don’t have access to the airport as they normally do.

.
Why should queensland taxpayers paid to advantage NSW taxpayers, and to put money into the pockets of private airport owners?

The airport is in both states and is federal land. Why should Queensland be able to stop access to the airport just because the road happens to be on its side? The state does not control the airport.

 

[Forg]

Are you allowed to P in OOL?

 

[Spongbob]

The airport is in both states and is federal land. Why should Queensland be able to stop access to the airport just because the road happens to be on its side?

I think you have answered your own question.
The next logical step would be to suggest NSW build an access road from their side of the border.

 

[dajop]

I’ve got a feeling that it might be cheaper and easier to organise a shuttle service to Tweed Heads and the vicinity from BNK, one hour drive away, than the bureaucracy and time it would take to build access roads or implement passenger segregation + shuttles for arrivals and departures of “intrastate” pax at OOL.

 

[Vic]

They’re under the jurisdiction of the federal government and have an obligation as a national strategic asset

They're a privately owned business, jurisdiction doesn't create an obligation. What is this obligation as a national strategic asset? What national strategic value does your proposal address? Facilitating people having a holiday in Byron bay isn't a national strategic priority, last time I checked.

Imagine the list:
1. Chinese Neo Imperialism
2. Holidaying in Byron and watching the fire twirlers.
3. Australia's place in the Asia Pacific
...

The operator of the airport is a significant stakeholder, yes, but the federal government is responsible for links between the states, including aviation. Imagine if NSW closed it’s borders to ACT and didn’t let freight through?

I can think of anything that makes the federal government responsible for (creating) links between states. The constitution requires free trade/movement between states. that doesn't create an obligation for a government to actually look after linkages.

We’re not talking about increased passenger numbers. These areas rely on access to OOL. These areas are trying to get back in business as per the state regulations but will be hampered if they don’t have access to the airport as they normally do.

Actually you are talking about increased passenger numbers. People wanting to get to Northern NSW cannot use OOL if the border is closed. That equals no passengers. Make OOL accessible via your proposal then means there are a whole group of new passengers who can now use the airport while the border is closed.

The airport is in both states and is federal land. Why should Queensland be able to stop access to the airport just because the road happens to be on its side? The state does not control the airport.

The airport is in neither state if it is federal land. The airport is surrounded by NSW and QLD, The state controls it's roads, and borders. and correctly doesn't control the airport.

 

[kookaburra75]

Wow, that got out of hand quickly. Even my thoughts on US politics has been assumed!

This is AFF after all

 

[p--and--t]

Wow, that got out of hand quickly. Even my thoughts on US politics has been assumed!

Were you expecting something different

 

[justinbrett]

They're a privately owned business, jurisdiction doesn't create an obligation. What is this obligation as a national strategic asset? What national strategic value does your proposal address? Facilitating people having a holiday in Byron bay isn't a national strategic priority, last time I checked.

Imagine the list:
1. Chinese Neo Imperialism
2. Holidaying in Byron and watching the fire twirlers.
3. Australia's place in the Asia Pacific
...



I can think of anything that makes the federal government responsible for (creating) links between states. The constitution requires free trade/movement between states. that doesn't create an obligation for a government to actually look after linkages.



Actually you are talking about increased passenger numbers. People wanting to get to Northern NSW cannot use OOL if the border is closed. That equals no passengers. Make OOL accessible via your proposal then means there are a whole group of new passengers who can now use the airport while the border is closed.



The airport is in neither state if it is federal land. The airport is surrounded by NSW and QLD, The state controls it's roads, and borders. and correctly doesn't control the airport.

I don’t think you understand the role of the federal government with respects to aviation, and I’m not here to educate you,

 

[dajop]

Facilitating people having a holiday in Byron bay isn't a national strategic priority, last time I checked.

....


2. Holidaying in Byron and watching the fire twirlers.

Surely it’s not about Byron, it is already served without the complexity of crossing state borders by a 30min closer airport at Ballina.

I guess places like Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah are closer to OOL. But for Pete’s sake, it’s probably only a few more months and both are still only an hour from BNK, big chunks of Melbourne and Sydney, and most of country Victoria (including Ballarat, Shepparton and right now Bendigo and Geelong as well) survive being an hour or more from an airport.

 

[Spongbob]

In post #1 the OP mentioned "... OOL is much more suitable for the border region".
So all this fuss and feathers over something that would be more convenient than the alternatives noted by the OP.
Unless, of course, I have misunderstood the intention of post #1.

 

[justinbrett]

In post #1 the OP mentioned "... OOL is much more suitable for the border region".
So all this fuss and feathers over something that would be more convenient than the alternatives noted by the OP.
Unless, of course, I have misunderstood the intention of post #1.

Little fact that most of the jet flights go into OOL. So yes it could work if the airlines move to BNK but they won’t, too much risk in this enviornment. At least in OOL they can serve NSW destinations (leisure AND business) as well as essential travellers in SEQ.

NSW businesses are trying to get back into business and opening the airport up would help this region. It’s not just me, I’ve heard the local MPs already calling for it as well.