Landing fees
Guest
Posts: n/a
Landing fees
Am I alone (as a private pilot) in thinking it's reasonable to pay landing fees in the UK? Last week I flew into 4 airfields in the West country and got great service and assistance. It wasn't cheap, but who else should pay for the services we need?
I was able to get fuel at an airfield where I was the only visitor that day, and when I had a puncture on the runway at Bristol I couldn't have had better help.
I was able to get fuel at an airfield where I was the only visitor that day, and when I had a puncture on the runway at Bristol I couldn't have had better help.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You may not be alone, but I for one do not agree with you.
I object to paying a landing fee when I am just calling into an airfield to spend money with them on buying fuel, sometimes oil, and helping to support their cafe. The AVGAS at airfields that charge a landing fee is usually sold at a good profit and often is more expensive than at airfields that don't charge a landing fee.
I have no objection to paying for overnight parking, or even all day parking if I am using the airfield as a convenience to visit something else.
At the end of the day, AVGAS is sold at a profit and the margin isn't small.
Landing fees seem to be increasing way beyond inflation and I can't believe they make much of an annual contribution to the running cost of many airfields. They do, however, deter visitors.
In the past few days (with the good weather) I have visited seven airfields without paying a landing fee:
Four have reciprocal arrangements with our club for free landings, one is always free, one had a fly-in and hence no fee, and one was a free voucher from "Flyer Magazine".
I kept buying fuel though !
Sorry to disagree with you, but in my opinion landing fees should be phased out at small GA airfields. If you want to add a penny a litre to the fuel instead, then thats fine by me.
I object to paying a landing fee when I am just calling into an airfield to spend money with them on buying fuel, sometimes oil, and helping to support their cafe. The AVGAS at airfields that charge a landing fee is usually sold at a good profit and often is more expensive than at airfields that don't charge a landing fee.
I have no objection to paying for overnight parking, or even all day parking if I am using the airfield as a convenience to visit something else.
At the end of the day, AVGAS is sold at a profit and the margin isn't small.
Landing fees seem to be increasing way beyond inflation and I can't believe they make much of an annual contribution to the running cost of many airfields. They do, however, deter visitors.
In the past few days (with the good weather) I have visited seven airfields without paying a landing fee:
Four have reciprocal arrangements with our club for free landings, one is always free, one had a fly-in and hence no fee, and one was a free voucher from "Flyer Magazine".
I kept buying fuel though !
Sorry to disagree with you, but in my opinion landing fees should be phased out at small GA airfields. If you want to add a penny a litre to the fuel instead, then thats fine by me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can see both sides here, fuel sales alone will not keep a club going but why isn't the 'take on fuel and we'll ignore the fee' thing a bit more common?
The whole thing seems to be in a downward spiral of charging versus diminishing business. I have rarely experienced genuine good value for money at a flying club in terms of facilities, quality of cafe or general friendliness.
Sorry, but that seems to be the way it is out there - marginalised as a hobby and a publically acceptable way of spending ones leisure time.
The whole thing seems to be in a downward spiral of charging versus diminishing business. I have rarely experienced genuine good value for money at a flying club in terms of facilities, quality of cafe or general friendliness.
Sorry, but that seems to be the way it is out there - marginalised as a hobby and a publically acceptable way of spending ones leisure time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Landing fees at most GA fields are in the range £5 to £15, which is hardly a lot. I would be surprised if fuel sales alone would cover the fire truck, the runway maintenance, rates etc. Golfers pay green fees, don't they? (all I know about golf courses is that some of the fairways look handy for forced landings: better shove a tie in my flying bag so I can get a drink in the clubhouse after I've piled into the water hazard)
Guest
Posts: n/a
M14P is right.
Although there is a profit margin on AVGAS sales, in the volume that you sell to GA it doesn't go anywhere near meeting the costs of running a licensed airfield. In a country where GA is regulated to the point of extinction and receives no subsidy from the taxpayer, landing fees are the only way the GA Airfields can survive.
QNH1013
You'll need to buy a hell of a lot of fuel/ oil and eat all the cakes in the cafe to pay the salaries of the Controller who cleared you to land, the 2 fireman who would have rescued you in an accident, the guy who served your fuel, and the lady in the cafe who made your tea!
Most GA airfields are small businesses with very small margins, we certainly don't need anymore disappearing under new housing development!
Although there is a profit margin on AVGAS sales, in the volume that you sell to GA it doesn't go anywhere near meeting the costs of running a licensed airfield. In a country where GA is regulated to the point of extinction and receives no subsidy from the taxpayer, landing fees are the only way the GA Airfields can survive.
QNH1013
You'll need to buy a hell of a lot of fuel/ oil and eat all the cakes in the cafe to pay the salaries of the Controller who cleared you to land, the 2 fireman who would have rescued you in an accident, the guy who served your fuel, and the lady in the cafe who made your tea!
Most GA airfields are small businesses with very small margins, we certainly don't need anymore disappearing under new housing development!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps I could have explained more fully...
Matspart3, you are quite correct that the profit on fuel doesn't go anywhere near the cost of maintaining fire cover and running everything else on a licenced airfield. However, I don't think any airfield operator ever intended it to. The reason small GA airfields are licensed is so that flying training can take place there. It is the flying training that covers (more or less) the cost of running the airfield.
Yes, its nice to have fire cover, but this is usually withdrawn when training finishes for the day and the field becomes unlicenced. I haven't seen any waiving of the landing fee because the fire cover has finished for the day.
You will only get a landing clearance at an airfield with a full air traffic service, and even flying training isn't going to cover the cost of that as controllers (quite rightly) are professionals who require an appropriate salary. I don't know of any GA- only airfields with full air traffic service.
The point I'm trying to make (and I perhaps haven't made it very well) is that the base costs of many (most?) GA airfields are covered by the flying training that takes place there. I'm not saying that this a good thing or not a good thing, but that is how it is at present in the UK. Additional business (i.e. the GA visitor flying in for fuel) adds to the bottom line profit of the operation and should be encouraged not discouraged.
If you want to top up the tanks en-route to give you more options in the event of worsening weather, or any number of other in-flight hazards, it really depresses me to have to pay a landing fee to just buy fuel. In some cases it has doubled the cost of the fuel, just so that I have a bigger reserve.
It hits particularly hard at those of us who make longish flights, all year round, in pfa aircraft with limited endurance.
AVGAS is expensive enough (I hope we can all agree on that) and no airfield that I know of sells it at a loss. To discourage additional sales at most GA airfields makes no sense whatever to me.
Matspart3, you are quite correct that the profit on fuel doesn't go anywhere near the cost of maintaining fire cover and running everything else on a licenced airfield. However, I don't think any airfield operator ever intended it to. The reason small GA airfields are licensed is so that flying training can take place there. It is the flying training that covers (more or less) the cost of running the airfield.
Yes, its nice to have fire cover, but this is usually withdrawn when training finishes for the day and the field becomes unlicenced. I haven't seen any waiving of the landing fee because the fire cover has finished for the day.
You will only get a landing clearance at an airfield with a full air traffic service, and even flying training isn't going to cover the cost of that as controllers (quite rightly) are professionals who require an appropriate salary. I don't know of any GA- only airfields with full air traffic service.
The point I'm trying to make (and I perhaps haven't made it very well) is that the base costs of many (most?) GA airfields are covered by the flying training that takes place there. I'm not saying that this a good thing or not a good thing, but that is how it is at present in the UK. Additional business (i.e. the GA visitor flying in for fuel) adds to the bottom line profit of the operation and should be encouraged not discouraged.
If you want to top up the tanks en-route to give you more options in the event of worsening weather, or any number of other in-flight hazards, it really depresses me to have to pay a landing fee to just buy fuel. In some cases it has doubled the cost of the fuel, just so that I have a bigger reserve.
It hits particularly hard at those of us who make longish flights, all year round, in pfa aircraft with limited endurance.
AVGAS is expensive enough (I hope we can all agree on that) and no airfield that I know of sells it at a loss. To discourage additional sales at most GA airfields makes no sense whatever to me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The duty on AVGAS should be hypothecated and at least a part of it invested back into airfields. That way we could remove landing fees without compromising airfield safety and regulation. The rest could go to provide decent LARS coverage.
But then greedy Gordon would have less cash to spend on big white tents on the Thames (or whatever the latest feeble-minded scheme is).
But then greedy Gordon would have less cash to spend on big white tents on the Thames (or whatever the latest feeble-minded scheme is).
Guest
Posts: n/a
If some people think landing fees a high at the moment wait until the airline consortium gets its hands on NATS. 
I for one think that landing fees will go up and us in GA will be made to pay for the FIS we use to get around safely.
What do others out there think (or even know) will happen?
PK
I for one think that landing fees will go up and us in GA will be made to pay for the FIS we use to get around safely.
What do others out there think (or even know) will happen?
PK
Guest
Posts: n/a
QNH 1013
Fair comment(s), I can see your point of view but I think at the end of the day it all boils down to cash....nobody in any walk of life wants to give anything away for free these days!
My point of view is based on airfields such as Gloucester, Biggin Hill, Redhill, Shoreham, Cranfield, Oxford etc. all of whom are pretty much GA only (but all with full ATC incidently). It's these sort of airfields who are actively encouraging GA these days, while the rest of the regionals encourage you to bugger off so they can squeeze another 757 with 200 bucket-and-spaders in!
Your PFA type landing fee will only cost you a tenner at my place, you'll be cleared to land (by ATC) on any one of our six runways and we can sell you fuel, oil, hangarage and a number of other services. We'll order you a taxi, sort out a hotel or hire car, tell you where the good restaurants are, give you all the met. and NOTAMS you need at no extra cost and what's more we'll greet you with a smile!....Why the five star service?...because you are a customer and without your business we'd be unemployed! We need your support because if the books don't balance, we'll close and the whole place will become a housing estate faster than you can say Green Belt!
An retired colleague of mine once described it jokingly as "Five star service for two star aeroplanes"...he wasn't far from the truth!
Puffin Killer
I don't think the Airline Group will have much influence on landing fees as they are really just a service provider to the Airport operators where they provide ATC...ie all the majors and Luton, Cardiff, Southampton and some others. I think the real problem for GA will be access to the airspace around these airfields but thats another thread.
Hopefully we're still some way away from
"G-ABCD, pass your message and credit card details"
Fair comment(s), I can see your point of view but I think at the end of the day it all boils down to cash....nobody in any walk of life wants to give anything away for free these days!
My point of view is based on airfields such as Gloucester, Biggin Hill, Redhill, Shoreham, Cranfield, Oxford etc. all of whom are pretty much GA only (but all with full ATC incidently). It's these sort of airfields who are actively encouraging GA these days, while the rest of the regionals encourage you to bugger off so they can squeeze another 757 with 200 bucket-and-spaders in!
Your PFA type landing fee will only cost you a tenner at my place, you'll be cleared to land (by ATC) on any one of our six runways and we can sell you fuel, oil, hangarage and a number of other services. We'll order you a taxi, sort out a hotel or hire car, tell you where the good restaurants are, give you all the met. and NOTAMS you need at no extra cost and what's more we'll greet you with a smile!....Why the five star service?...because you are a customer and without your business we'd be unemployed! We need your support because if the books don't balance, we'll close and the whole place will become a housing estate faster than you can say Green Belt!
An retired colleague of mine once described it jokingly as "Five star service for two star aeroplanes"...he wasn't far from the truth!
Puffin Killer
I don't think the Airline Group will have much influence on landing fees as they are really just a service provider to the Airport operators where they provide ATC...ie all the majors and Luton, Cardiff, Southampton and some others. I think the real problem for GA will be access to the airspace around these airfields but thats another thread.
Hopefully we're still some way away from
"G-ABCD, pass your message and credit card details"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reciprocal landing fee arrangements are the way forward for flying clubs that have their own airfields.
One major benefit of my membership subs to my flying club is the reciprocal free landing arrangements we have with many other airfields in the UK and Ireland.
If anyone wishes to arrange or persuade their own committee into a reciprocal landing arrangement with my flying club contact the Chairman (Mr Andrew Mate) of Sherburn Aero Club.
He will be more than willing to oblige as it adds value to our subscription fees, encourages/increases membership numbers and brings in income to the club via fuel/cafe etc.
One major benefit of my membership subs to my flying club is the reciprocal free landing arrangements we have with many other airfields in the UK and Ireland.
If anyone wishes to arrange or persuade their own committee into a reciprocal landing arrangement with my flying club contact the Chairman (Mr Andrew Mate) of Sherburn Aero Club.
He will be more than willing to oblige as it adds value to our subscription fees, encourages/increases membership numbers and brings in income to the club via fuel/cafe etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I view the whole NATS PPP initiative with caution. Bearing in mind that controlled airspace was conceived as a way of protecting arriving and departing commercial transports, and ensuring separation of traffic, how long will it be before the consortia members decide that "Green Issues" and being Community aware and Environmentaly friendly is a way to greater profits. Let me illustrate this by posing this thought. An Airbus A300 will typically burn about 5000 kg per hour; Now, that calculates out at 81.8 kg/minute. Per Aeroplane, per sector, per airline per day etc.......One aircraft saving two minutes over an average 8 sector day will save 1309kg of fuel. Now multiply by number of aircraft x number days x number of operators......
Need I say more,. the advantages to the airlines in realigning airspace in their favour needs no further explanations....So, Perhaps you will see controlled airspace reduced from a floor of FL55+ at South Coast to 2,500amsl? Bigger bits of Class A/Class B
For bad to succeed good need only to do nothing. Suggest you all bite the bullet and join AOPA!
Blue skies (While we still have some left!)
Tailwinds
Need I say more,. the advantages to the airlines in realigning airspace in their favour needs no further explanations....So, Perhaps you will see controlled airspace reduced from a floor of FL55+ at South Coast to 2,500amsl? Bigger bits of Class A/Class B
For bad to succeed good need only to do nothing. Suggest you all bite the bullet and join AOPA!
Blue skies (While we still have some left!)
Tailwinds
Guest
Posts: n/a
With modern aircraft performing better than they did years ago, what would be the point of lowering the base of CAS from FL55 to 2500 feet? No sensible ATCO or pilot is going to want to have jets flogging around at 2500 feet over the south coast.
As someone who works on both sides of the fence, I do however fear the possibility of charging for ATC service for A/C under 2000kgs. But if this charge were to be at a reasonable level, say a one-off charge per flight such as a landing fee, then would most sensible people object? After all you are getting a service, and how many of those are free these days?
The point is it has to be at a sensible level, not like it is now with Eurocontrol charges which are higher than the cost of the fuel for the trip.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
As someone who works on both sides of the fence, I do however fear the possibility of charging for ATC service for A/C under 2000kgs. But if this charge were to be at a reasonable level, say a one-off charge per flight such as a landing fee, then would most sensible people object? After all you are getting a service, and how many of those are free these days?
The point is it has to be at a sensible level, not like it is now with Eurocontrol charges which are higher than the cost of the fuel for the trip.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Guest
Posts: n/a
eyeinthesky
perhaps I didnt express my self very well. Yes, I know that to reduce CAS floor to 2500amsl would not work, for any number of reasons; (Not least the environmental noise impact!) I was trying to illustrate a point -that in an effort to optimise the routeing structure, we may see expansions of CAS which would be of benefit to the Air Transport industry, but perhaps to the detriment of GA/Private flying. My exaggerated lowering of the South Coast floor of TMA was to stimulate awareness of what could happen.
With regard to the spectre of navigation fees, then I can only guess at the impact on GA. I see it as twofold. Firstly, would the average PPL communicate as readily with the nearest ATSU if he/she was going to get billed for a RIS/RAS? Would this have an impact on flight safety? Secondly, if the said pilot DID pay up and look big, would he/she be able to afford to fly as often? Would the implied lack of recurrency further imapir flight safety?
I dont profess to be any kind of expert, but it does seem to me that Apathy rules OK, (Who Cares!)I am not a rabble rouser, but I have come to the conclusion that if we dont wish to see our creaking GA infrastructure totally collapse, then we all need to join AOPA or the PFA or GAPAN etc. Otherwise when we go to the site of our airfield all we will find is a cinemaplex, or shopping mall.
Tailwinds!
perhaps I didnt express my self very well. Yes, I know that to reduce CAS floor to 2500amsl would not work, for any number of reasons; (Not least the environmental noise impact!) I was trying to illustrate a point -that in an effort to optimise the routeing structure, we may see expansions of CAS which would be of benefit to the Air Transport industry, but perhaps to the detriment of GA/Private flying. My exaggerated lowering of the South Coast floor of TMA was to stimulate awareness of what could happen.
With regard to the spectre of navigation fees, then I can only guess at the impact on GA. I see it as twofold. Firstly, would the average PPL communicate as readily with the nearest ATSU if he/she was going to get billed for a RIS/RAS? Would this have an impact on flight safety? Secondly, if the said pilot DID pay up and look big, would he/she be able to afford to fly as often? Would the implied lack of recurrency further imapir flight safety?
I dont profess to be any kind of expert, but it does seem to me that Apathy rules OK, (Who Cares!)I am not a rabble rouser, but I have come to the conclusion that if we dont wish to see our creaking GA infrastructure totally collapse, then we all need to join AOPA or the PFA or GAPAN etc. Otherwise when we go to the site of our airfield all we will find is a cinemaplex, or shopping mall.
Tailwinds!
