Jump to content

Ramp and Other Fees AGAIN!


Recommended Posts

So I'm headed to NY this weekend.  If I take the Mooney I expect today fees, its New York.  I go to a big-city airport I expect some fees and I don't even mind.

So Saturday I flew into KTDZ.  Little airport on the fringes of Toledo Ohio.  No big whip.  Not only do they have a landing fee, but its the most obnoxious amount I've encountered ($16.01).  They did wave it for me, and I have no idea why (didn't buy any gas).  For a podunk airport I mind fees, a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious what the legal obligation is to pay these fees?  What is to stop some FBO from telling the next person who walks through the door, "That will be $10,000 for opening the door." (street side or ramp side)   --It's not like the fees are posted.    If I walk into the business and they tell me outrageous fees, I expect to be able to walk out immediately (without using their services) without paying their fees.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its coming on like an avalanche, the only ones who can stop it? The FAA through AIP grants. Private airports you won't be able to anything about but public airports that take Fed money ? Ya, they can put a stop to it IF THEY WANT. The only ones to get the FAA off their butts? The AOPA and if they don't get off their butts it'll be like whistling in the wind in just a short time, if its not already there.  

I'm not opposed to FBOs making money but I don't need a Taj Mahal. I don't need a monopolistic attitude that locks up an entire city if I don't pay up at airports that I have already paid for through my taxes (KLAS). And, all the fees should be required to be publicly posted, not hidden until you walk in the door.   

Tie down fees for overnight, within reason are fine, fuel, within reason, is OK, dropping your passengers for the day and watching the TV and eating all the popcorn then wanting a free courtesy car and never buying anything, wrong, pay up. Dropping someone off and departing in 10 mins, not!. Flying in and parking for the day, OK maybe a small fee, say after 6 hours pay the daily tie down fee. I could buy that without too much heartburn.   But, a "ramp fee" just to walk in the door? Infrastructure fee? Security fee? No way, Jose'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose you taxi in and pick up passengers and take off; but your passengers have been hanging around the FBO for two hours, eating their cookies, drinking their coffee and bugging their receptionist for information. There are so many variations of circumstances, it would be very difficult to set up guidelines to fairly cover all circumstances. I agree that excessive fees are a real problem, but I don't know a very good answer for keeping FBOs alive in a tough business, and treating plane owners fairly. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the rest of you but I did just fine 40 years ago (and still do) without cookies, apples, popcorn, 50 channels of TV, etc, etc. We had a room with rest rooms off to the side. A table with old flying magazines and Trade-A-Planes on it and good conversation watching planes takeoff and land. Once in a while they might have a radio tuned to the tower. What's next? Do we need full on Broadway productions on stage at the FBO to stay occupied while we wait? Oh ya, don't forget the door fee that will be added to your bill even if you don't watch the play!

I can stop at any number of out of the way airports without cookies and if needed get a rental car or even a courtesy car without all the fees! Most of the fees are, "just stick it to-um because they have no where else to go". 

When someone put all these "extras" in to try and attract the jet set, that was fine. They took the chance that it would pay off with more fuel sales. AND that's why they did it, don't kid yourself! But now, to make all pay for it, as another profit center, whether or not your are of the jet set crowd, is egregious. If you want that kind of service AND WANT TO PAY FOR IT, that's fine too! Most of us don't. We should have the choice because we already paid our fees in taxes, to use the airport. The FBO is a totally separate entity from the use of airport. They are not concomitant partners. 

My bottom line is , as mentioned before-

WHY ARE THE FEES HIDDEN? If you're so proud of them, Why not publish them on your website for all to see?         GEE, I wonder why?

And, the airport, because it uses Fed funds, should be required to provide access for those who don't want the extras.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, competition should be allowed, but note the conundrum below.
 
A legitimate potential problem about allowing competition on some airports is that the little guys will take all the business of the low-hanging fruit, leaving the remnant complicated, more expensive services potentially left without a service provider.
 
Example: I can run/administrate a small FBO selling fuel and miscellaneous consumables and offering a pilots lounge for next to nothing.  I'm less inclined to buy a $100k Jet A truck, a $75k backup, and have it manned 24 hours or do practically anything else needed to cater to the bizjet crowd, or to offer mechanic services. 
 
In the example, if the city lets me run the little-guy FBO, is another FBO going to come in and maintain the infrastructure to support the occasional bizjet?  Is there enough residual business left to even support such an operation?  The city has an obligation to provide support to all the planes, so how will they do it?
 
Lastly, and this is (IMO) critically important, is the city willing to lose it's status in the space-port race?  By space-port I mean the competition between cities and municipalities to see which little airport can have the most bling small airport.
 
In small airports not able to support competition, this is a prime example when "privatization" is not a good idea unless there is commensurate "representation" by the little guy's interest...which there is not on many fields. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cliffy said:

Its coming on like an avalanche, the only ones who can stop it? The FAA through AIP grants. Private airports you won't be able to anything about but public airports that take Fed money ? Ya, they can put a stop to it IF THEY WANT. The only ones to get the FAA off their butts? The AOPA and if they don't get off their butts it'll be like whistling in the wind in just a short time, if its not already there.  

I'm not opposed to FBOs making money but I don't need a Taj Mahal. I don't need a monopolistic attitude that locks up an entire city if I don't pay up at airports that I have already paid for through my taxes (KLAS). And, all the fees should be required to be publicly posted, not hidden until you walk in the door.   

Tie down fees for overnight, within reason are fine, fuel, within reason, is OK, dropping your passengers for the day and watching the TV and eating all the popcorn then wanting a free courtesy car and never buying anything, wrong, pay up. Dropping someone off and departing in 10 mins, not!. Flying in and parking for the day, OK maybe a small fee, say after 6 hours pay the daily tie down fee. I could buy that without too much heartburn.   But, a "ramp fee" just to walk in the door? Infrastructure fee? Security fee? No way, Jose'. 

Can the FAA make this as simple as requiring all airports that do not have TSA security AND receive Federal or State financial support to provide a minimum number of small GA spaces with fee caps for overnight parking and no fee for pick-up/drop-off, and a gate to the outside?  No need to over-regulate the FBO who is a private business.  Just assure a cost effective option be available that reflects the intent of the airport as port to the local community, and already paid for in our fuel and other taxes.  Monopoly gone, practical access granted.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, peevee said:

I'm at 36u today. They get 6.35 a gallon of gas plus a 25 or 50 dollar a night tie down. No wonder comments are off on airnav

Yep.

You see this on Airnav:

OK3 AIR has requested that AirNav not collect or publish user comments. For any feedback or customer service inquiries, please contact OK3 AIR directly.

You've been warned that a robbery is about to take place.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mooneymite said:

Yep.

You see this on Airnav:

OK3 AIR has requested that AirNav not collect or publish user comments. For any feedback or customer service inquiries, please contact OK3 AIR directly.

You've been warned that a robbery is about to take place.

You've been warned that a robbery is about to take place is in progress.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36U has taken a lot of Fed money and now we have to hold our hands up while they rob us blind just to go to Heber City when WE paid our share for access to the city already.

As I mentioned before- lets put up gas stations on each road leading into Heber City and make ALL traffic stop there and buy our high priced gas or pay us a fee before we allow them to continue into Heber City.

Its the same thing. Federal highways or Federal airports.

airnav would rather take the advertising money from the FBO than do what they started out doing- reporting our comments as a service to pilots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, flyboy0681 said:

You've been warned that a robbery is about to take place is in progress.

It's unfortunately the only convenient spot around. I'll take as little fuel as possible.

I was here 2 years ago and it wasn't this bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, cliffy said:

36U has taken a lot of Fed money and now we have to hold our hands up while they rob us blind just to go to Heber City when WE paid our share for access to the city already.

As I mentioned before- lets put up gas stations on each road leading into Heber City and make ALL traffic stop there and buy our high priced gas or pay us a fee before we allow them to continue into Heber City.

Its the same thing. Federal highways or Federal airports.

airnav would rather take the advertising money from the FBO than do what they started out doing- reporting our comments as a service to pilots. 

Unfortunately I'm staying in Heber and my options are to press on to vernal or somewhere for gas and get stuck down low for the 1.5 home or suck it up for 20 gallons and go home at 190.

 

At the end of the day I chose to come here so I can't complain much. Except for about the food at lunch, that was terrible, lol

 

I think it's cheaper to go into Aspen than here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is really the surprise factor when you get an unexpected charge.  The solution is simple: have the charges published somewhere.  AirNav has proven to be almost useless.  Competition does work.  If not at a single airport because of a single FBO, then between airports in the vicinity.

AOPA should get off their butts and do the obvious by publishing the charges already reported to them.  If they get perhaps a hundred reports a day, it should easily be handled by one headcount.  8 hours * 60 mins = 480 mins / 100 reports is almost 5 minutes each to post.  Even a government employee could (almost) keep up that pace.

COPA should do the same in Canada.  Stopping in Quebec for 10 minutes to wait out a local thunderstorm was a $100 shocker.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the traffic to the airport can't support the "style" of the FBO (without egregious fees) then it gravitates down to what it should be by demand (free market system in operation). It seems to have worked this way for a lot of decades. You want to take a chance and build a Taj Mahal for the jets and they don't cover the cost of your decision, too bad. That's business, your choice, your gamble. It shouldn't be up to the rest of us to be forced to support your bad decision.

And that's what it comes down to- if it takes a plethora of "fees" to keep the doors open then the business decision was faulty. If it can survive without the fees then the fees are excessive and repressive. And no one should be required to pay "fees" to access a city that runs a publicly funded airport.

Bottom line again is that the airport takes our money from taxes no different than for highways.  The airport should be required to support open access to the city without more fees (except fuel and tie down). Basic humanitarian services such as a rest room should also be required. If the city doesn't want to provide this then the lease agreements for the FBOs need to require it through their building.

The AOPA is already a day late and a dollar short on this and needs to catch up. OK AOPA, what are you doing with all the "data" you collect? Are you going to publish it on your website? Are you being "proactive" in collecting the data or are you just sitting back and waiting for someone else to carry the load?

Edited by cliffy
added comment
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owner of a public use airport may elect to provide any or all of the aeronautical services 
needed by the public at the airport. The airport sponsor may exercise, but not grant, an exclusive 
right to provide aeronautical services to the public. If the airport sponsor opts to provide an 
aeronautical service exclusively, it must use its own employees and resources. Thus, an airport 
owner or sponsor cannot exercise a proprietary exclusive right through a management contract.

https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/media/5190_6b_chap8.pdf

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Antares said:

Thus, an airport owner or sponsor cannot exercise a proprietary exclusive right through a management contract.

 
I explained in another post (in a similar thread) discussing the problem I had trying to open a small ~FBO.  The reality is de facto exclusive rights are given by local airport authorities all over the country.  This has been the norm for years, perhaps decades in some areas.  FAA knows it.  AOPA knows it.  When fees were more "reasonable" no one noticed or cared.  After the MegaFBOs started turning themselves into palaces, and jacked up their prices to pay for the marble, the little guys finally noticed and are fed up.
 
In the best case scenario, where competition could be allowed, I described the big problem for the municipality earlier in this thread.  The other big problem for the airport authorities is the guarantee of lawsuits from MegaFBO if/when the municipalities start allowing competition, stealing the MegaFBO's low-hanging fruit/profits from the piston crowd.  Of course the MegaFBO's argument would be "the city guaranteed us a monopoly and they're taking it away" but the two municipalities I tried to work with didn't want to mess with the status quo precisely for this reason.
 
The above is from the horses mouths to me.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In actuality, if the airport sponsor has an exclusive with only one FBO and doesn't want to rock the boat, one needs to file a complaint with the FAA for a violation of Grants Assurances and then the FAA waltzes in and says, "you'll lose your AIP money if you don't comply with the law".  Low hanging fruit plays no part. 

Just like the new "hangar usage" rules coming active July 1. If the airport doesn't make progress to comply with monitoring the use of hangars they'll lose their money- and that's straight from the FAAs mouth by voice from the ADO office..

The airport can't legally make a contract for an exclusive. It's bogus from the onset. Invalid and not enforceable. Even I could win that one and I'm no barrister. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've outlined the dynamics of the problem in the previous thread, but again the airport technically isn't granting exclusive rights.  The airport authority doesn't say "we give contract to 'MegaFBO A' to be the sole provider of services on the field and we will not allow another FBO to operate." 

What happens is that the authority creates a set of "minimum standards" that any operator must meet in order to open.  These "minimum" standards are substantial and require big money to open.  Lots of square foot office space, hangar space, maintenance capabilities, 24 hour fuel, lounge, maybe showers, conference rooms, etc.

Once the first MegaFBO opens there may be little business left for a second MegaFBO to be able to function and thus no second (competitor) FBO ever opens (at least on smaller fields).  And a little-guy FBO can't meet all the infrastructure requirements, therefor he can't open.  Thus there's no competition in many places. 

So the municipality didn't grant exclusive rights to MegaFBO A, rather the way they write the rules it makes it essentially impossible for little-guy budget-conscious FBOs to open.  And, if the minimum standards were changed, this might mean that (as stated in a previous reply in this thread) there'd be no one willing to maintain services for the bizjets. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are actually restrictions on "minimum standards " as well, just to prevent this sort of monopoly. It can be beaten within the FAAs guidelines. The minimum standards can't be set so onerous that competition can't come in. 

The FAA is going to have to be pushed to get this stuff under control as it doesn't comply with the ACs.

ACs are mandatory for AIP airports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to add- someone will always service the jets even if it means lower cost used equipment. I've done it that way with an FBO I opened for the money man. The fuel farm is the biggest item to install. Usually 2 10,000 gallon min tanks and equipment. Used trucks are easy to find for sale or lease. In fact some fuel companies will just about give them away for using their fuel.

Even "NetJets Preferred" can be secured in the first year if its done right. I've done it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Cyril Gibb said:

The issue is really the surprise factor when you get an unexpected charge.  The solution is simple: have the charges published somewhere.  AirNav has proven to be almost useless.  Competition does work.  If not at a single airport because of a single FBO, then between airports in the vicinity.

AOPA should get off their butts and do the obvious by publishing the charges already reported to them.  If they get perhaps a hundred reports a day, it should easily be handled by one headcount.  8 hours * 60 mins = 480 mins / 100 reports is almost 5 minutes each to post.  Even a government employee could (almost) keep up that pace.

COPA should do the same in Canada.  Stopping in Quebec for 10 minutes to wait out a local thunderstorm was a $100 shocker.

Cyril, where was that in Quebec, was it the city of Quebec?

Yves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yvesg said:

Cyril, where was that in Quebec, was it the city of Quebec?

Yves

Yup, Quebec City (CYQB).  I landed to wait out a thunderstorm across the river at my destination, St. Jean Chrysostome (CSG5), rather than circle for 10 minutes.  I wasn't even going to go into the FBO.  One of the line guys walked to the plane and told me I owed a ramp fee of 60 something plus tax.  A few weeks later I got a landing fee bill for $28.

We tied down at Republic (KFRG) a couple of months ago.   Nice airport and very convenient visiting NYC.  U.S. customs fee of $150.00 that they don't tell you when you're calling to make an arrival appt.  Luckily, they didn't have a slot available so we did customs in Buffalo.

KFRG was another example of a post-post-visit surprise.  I got a landing fee bill in the mail for US$2.50.  It cost them $1.36 in postage to send it to me.  Similar to the US$8.00 customs ramp fee in Erie I received a few months after stopping there.. I wish they would tell me so I could pay it while I'm there.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.