Big Brother Landing Fees

[FlyingDude]

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

As a past Airport Manager of a Part 139 airline airport I can attest to the fact that many airports that "lose money" it happens because of poor management. And it doesn't have to be placed on the backs of GA for the total support of the airport. 

 

This confirms my hunch, and that's what I was after when I mentioned that AOPA should audit their books.  Of course, like BBB, AOPA has zero power.  Yet, the fear of exposure puts many in line...

I know at least one airport that was privately owned and not doing well.  The owner was raising the price of fuel on a daily basis to square the books.  After a certain gap, people starting flying to nearby airports, obviously, making it much worse for the airport.  Finally, the state bought the airport, and they just love it now.  Plus, the manager is a really sharp guy, doing a great job...  Of course, as a result, they cannot "own" their hangars.  Not even drill a hole in the walls.  This is just one data point in a big pool of subjects, but at least  it might be an indication...  

I'm glad you shared your input.  I'll buy you a beer one day.

[A64Pilot]

We used to fly into Ocala for lunch, then Ocala instituted landing fees so we don’t anymore.

The truth is Ocala didn't want our little airplanes that get in the way and possibly make the Biz-jets wait, and that was the reason for instituting landing fees.

The money from the fees wasn’t the point, it’s not enough to make it worthwhile.

Just looked it up, apparently fees are for ACR ops only.

‘What’s ACR ops?

Edited June 23, 2023 by A64Pilot

[1980Mooney]

7 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

We used to fly into Ocala for lunch, then Ocala instituted landing fees so we don’t anymore.

The truth is Ocala didn't want our little airplanes that get in the way and possibly make the Biz-jets wait, and tgat was the reason for instituting landing fees.

The money from the fees wasn’t the point, it’s not enough to make it worthwhile.

Just looked it up, apparently fees are for ACR ops only.

‘What’s ACR ops?

Doesn't it mean "Air Carrier"?  There are some other airports with the same notation, but they will say ACR Ops with more than 30 PAX or something like that

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[A64Pilot]

I don’t know what it means, but Air Carrier makes sense, I hate it when things get abbreviated, back in the day it made sense with strips etc, but not now

[1980Mooney]

On 6/21/2023 at 1:23 PM, FlyingDude said:

Though you bring up struggling airports, I have spoken with 4 airport managers so far about this topic (no, not since yesterday when this thing riled me up.  I know 2 personally and the other 2 were there when I landed.)  All 4 mentioned the profitability of their airports between hangar fees and fuel profits.  One of them, actually, where fuel was 50c cheaper than the rest, said that her airport does put a profit on fuel, but other airports are simply overdoing it. ... We might indeed have to cough up to keep our half mile asphalt stretches that launch us to the world, or we might understand who's in need and who's surfing it.

If I'm such a burden on ATC, I should just stop speaking with them...  I don't always go into C or D airports...  I can always fly over or around them.  When I speak, it's because I don't want to be pest.  So many pilots told me to overfly Chicago B at 10,500' without speaking with them.  I can and it's my legal right.  I don't, because I want to be a nice guy.   

 

On 6/21/2023 at 3:57 PM, FlyingDude said:

@1980Mooney I hope we all agree that capitalism does not mean that "anything goes as long as the government is not involved." That's anarchy, actually.  Capitalism is against monopolies and we have antitrust to prevent that.  .....

Of course mine is a knee-jerk emotional response.  ....  This singling of aviation as the freeloader or as the rich men's game really bothers me.  

 

On 6/22/2023 at 9:35 AM, cliffy said:

......As a past Airport Manager of a Part 139 airline airport I can attest to the fact that many airports that "lose money" it happens because of poor management. And it doesn't have to be placed on the backs of GA for the total support of the airport. 

..Many forget that we pay a TAX in every gas purchase for the support of airports around the country. THAT is our contribution the air infrastructure in the USA. 

I understand that these are emotional responses. This is a difficult situation, but it is always best to deal with the facts.  We are all distressed that every cost in aviation is going up - A&P shop hour rate, fuel, parts, the cost of new planes, online flight and data subscriptions, etc.  For some reason people seem to overlook the fact that the cost to operate an airport and airspace is going up also.  The notion that airports only lose money because of poor management is nonsense.

"Three-quarters of general-aviation airports lose money every year and stay solvent only with cash from local taxpayers, says Vitaly Guzhva, a finance professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida.

"An awful lot of them are in very deep financial trouble," says airport consultant David Plavin, aviation consultant and past President of Airports Council International - North America.

General Aviation Airports: A National Asset (May 2012) (faa.gov)

And we think the tax on the sales of AvGas, the stuff we use (how many airports have a "self serve Jet-A pump"?) at all these GA airports, pays for everything.  However we overlook the fact that AvGas sales continue to decline.

And think about it.  There are 3,300 GA airports open to the public.  413,000 gallons of AvGas per day sounds like a lot but that is only 125 gallons per day per average GA airport.  That isn't even 2 and a half 55-gallon drums per day.  Busy gas station convenience stores sell more beer than that per day.  If there is $1 tax on that AvGas do you honestly think the $125/day goes very far towards airport expenses?

 

You said something about living in Italy and knowing in the US that "Capitalism is against monopolies and we have antitrust to prevent" "anything goes as long as the government is not involved".  Look no further than patented drugs - the US Govt. gives developers a 15 year monopoly - it is called a "patent".  And yes companies can charge anything they want - "anything goes".  There are many drugs that cost $500,000 - $3 million per dose or full course.  In aviation, single FBO's at any remote airport is monopoly.  And as single operators buy up the FBO's in a region, it is a regional monopoly.  As said above the volume is just not there at most airports to support competition.

Lastly many pilots forget that the average voting, tax-paying citizen does consider flying private planes to be a "rich man's game".  We are the 1% of the 1%ers.  Affordability of GA flying has only gotten more expensive from the "golden era" of the 50's-60's.  My next door neighbor bought a brand new Beechcraft Bonanza N35 in 1962.  Per Flying Magazine review of the time, it cost $26,500. A lowly Cessna 172 was under $10,000 that year.  The median income in 1962 was about $6,000.  So a Bonanza could be had for about 4 X the median household annual income and a 172 for about 1.6 X.  Today a Bonanza (and Textron/Beechcraft actually sold a couple Bonanza's this year) goes for about a $million and a 172 for about $440,000.  Median household income today is about $80,000 so a Bonanza is about 13 X and the 172 is about 5.5 X the median household income.  Look at your aviation magazines - most of it is "Turbine edition" now.  Most of the discussion is about moving up to a turboprop or jet.  Even here on MS there is a lot of discussion about future Mooney's with a turboprop or pressurization.  So it is not surprising the average public has that perception.  

[FlyingDude]

Vitaly Guzhva and David Palin pointed out a fact but did they elaborate the reason why 3/4 of airports are losing money? Or has anyone done that study? It's easy to notice that they're losing money... Saying that "Calling out bad management is nonsense" is also an emotional response, because you're not citing facts. Maybe aopa or someone else should indeed fish for the facts...

You know, the best way to get rid of a company or a business line is to make it lose money. Car companies made US railroads go bankrupt, for instance. They weren't dying on their own. So many examples out there.

A rise from 4x to 5.5x median income is actually not too bad. I was more fixating on the inflation of brand new aircraft. My Mooney's 65k price in 1967 equates to 300k today. It was one of the best back then and today a  Cirrus costs 900k+. So I've been more concerned with this 3x factor.

 

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, FlyingDude said:

Vitaly Guzhva and David Palin pointed out a fact but did they elaborate the reason why 3/4 of airports are losing money? Or has anyone done that study? It's easy to notice that they're losing money... Saying that "Calling out bad management is nonsense" is also an emotional response, because you're not citing facts. Maybe aopa or someone else should indeed fish for the facts...

You know, the best way to get rid of a company or a business line is to make it lose money. Car companies made US railroads go bankrupt, for instance. They weren't dying on their own. So many examples out there.

A rise from 4x to 5.5x median income is actually not too bad. I was more fixating on the inflation of brand new aircraft. My Mooney's 65k price in 1967 equates to 300k today. It was one of the best back then and today a  Cirrus costs 900k+. So I've been more concerned with this 3x factor.

Uh...airports lose money because cost is greater than all sources of revenue (city, state and federal subsidies, landing/ramp fees, rents, FBO fees, fuel mark up, etc. 

I said "The notion that airports only lose money because of poor management is nonsense."  You misquoted me.

Companies with stagnant or declining demand protect profits two ways - they cut costs (pay less, offer less, hammer suppliers if they can, etc) or they raise prices. where they can't cut costs.  And their costs are going up just like ours.  I am sure they are paying more for insurance...just like us.  Statistically GA continues to shrink as pilots from the "golden era" of GA pass and their estates send their hangar queens to scrap at a higher rate than new GA are built.  Some airports have tried to cut cost by reducing hours, closing and abandoning a runway, etc.  Most have needed to raise prices.  Many airport owners, especially in Houston, have found it is more profitable and less headache to close the airport and sell to developers - I have seen closings - Andrau (700 acres) is now housing, mixed use, Old Westheimer (74 acres) is now housing, Weiser (102 acres) is being developed.   I wager that the heirs of the current owners of West Houston and David Wayne Hooks will sell out by the end of the decade.

I don't understand your "4x to 5.5x median income is actually not too bad" comment but your comment about "I've been more concerned with this 3x factor." is spot on.

• A Bonanza has gone from 4 X median income to 13 X  (3.25 times more)
• A Cessna 172 has gone from 1.6 X median income to 5.5 X (3.45 times more)

"If" Mooney were to make planes again at a profit I suspect that they would also need to price them at $900K just like a Cirrus SR22. Let's face it, when Mooney were last selling priced at $700K-800K without options, they lost money.

[A64Pilot]

It’s my opinion that a Mooney is much more expensive to build than a Cirrus, very much more complex aircraft and requires many more man hours to manufacture and more skilled labor, so Mooney would have to charge more than Cirrus to be profitable, in my opinion.

Think about how much simpler fuselage a Cirrus has, to say nothing about the gear, it doesn’t even have a steerable nose wheel, much less retracts. I’ve heard but don’t know that it doesn’t even have a mechanical elevator trim etc.

Edited June 25, 2023 by A64Pilot

[FlyingDude]

@1980Mooney the companies you mention are those that are truly trying to survive. Then there are those that try to sink even healthy companies. That's also possible and done all the time. Maybe it's time we figure out which airport managers/management are doing great and which ones are either not successful or potentially sabotaging the airport to sell it to developers.

With or without the word "only"; I do call for auditing and figuring out what are the contributing factors... I'd call for sacking bad management, but in the case of truly dwindling funds and income... Then I'll pay my share as long as I can afford it... 

You're right about the reduction in pilot pool and hours flown. The automotive industry is also calling out how the new generation is so absorbed in their phones that they are not fascinated by the automobile and don't even want to drive. 

I do agree that a mooney would be harder to build than a Cirrus... A million rivets vs pouring dough in a mold. That's no brainer... 

[Echo]

Just ask for a bailout.  Ford just got $9.2 Billion...with a B from Federal Government for battery plant with Korean participation.  Kinda makes user fees insignifigant doesn't it?

[201er]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:59 PM, FlyingDude said:

https://www.vector-us.com/planepass

Just saw on facebook...  They install cameras at airports and they send you landing bills in the mail...

Becoming more and more like Europe...  Making GA unaffordable one step at a time.  I'm already sending a note to AOPA.  

 

 

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, Echo said:

Just ask for a bailout.  Ford just got $9.2 Billion...with a B from Federal Government for battery plant with Korean participation.  Kinda makes user fees insignifigant doesn't it?

Some in Congress would say that General Aviation is already getting a "bailout" every year.  

[FlyingDude]

@1980Mooney sorry I missed the word "only" in your post because I never named  incompetent management as the only reason behind the demise of aviation.

Airports banning the sale of leaded gas before the onset of UL, pireps on bad airport managers, bad city officials that you also read, city admins wishing mcmansions instead of hangars and airport managers playing along, etc. I'm not making up this thing. I just would like those people to be replaced with true aviation friends. 

On top of the theoretical economics you wrote, believe me when I say that healthy companies or business lines get chopped all the time using tricks. Healthy companies looking like crap on books or  dirt companies looking golden on books happen all the time. 

[skykrawler]

Nothing new going on here.   I flew into Essex (KCDW) a few years back.   Looked at a M20J for purchase, bought fuel with the FBO.  Four weeks later I got a bill from the airport for a landing fee - the tower records the operations and tail numbers.

I wonder what the enforcement mechanism is?  Can they put a lien on your airplane?

The difference is this Vector company is skimming some percentage that doesn't end up in the airports purse.

[exM20K]

19 minutes ago, skykrawler said:

The difference is this Vector company is skimming some percentage that doesn't end up in the airports purse

The company is being paid by the county to do work the county has presumably concluded it cannot do as cheaply.

“Skimming” in a bookkeeping context is fraud. Bribes paid to decision-makers by red light camera vendors, which were many here in Chicagoland, on the other hand…..

-dan

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, FlyingDude said:

Airports banning the sale of leaded gas before the onset of UL, pireps on bad airport managers, bad city officials that you also read, city admins wishing mcmansions instead of hangars and airport managers playing along, etc. I'm not making up this thing. I just would like those people to be replaced with true aviation friends. 

When you say "Airports banning the sale of leaded gas before the onset of UL" perhaps you are referring to Santa Clara County in California.  In August 2021 the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to stop leaded fuel sales, following the release of a peer-reviewed study that statistically linked ongoing use of leaded aviation gas with elevated lead exposure for the 13,000 children living near Reid-Hillview Airport, The County owns two of the airports, San Martin and Reid-Hillview.  The County instructed those airports to stop the sale of leaded Avgas on January 1, 2022. 

The Airport Manager, airport management companies and FBO's at those airports had no choice but to comply with the County Board per the terms of their employment contracts and service contracts.  Those airports sold Swift 94UL as a result.  It started an investigation by the FAA but the FAA has since dropped the investigation because Santa Clara County is working with the FAA to get G100UL into those airports.

Once again it is easy to blame those Airport Managers, but you are missing the bigger point.  The FAA may control airspace, but they do not control airport operations.  The FAA has no regulatory authority for controlling land uses to protect airport capacity. The FAA recognizes that state and local governments are responsible for land use planning, zoning, and regulation including that necessary to provide land use compatibility with airport operations.  For instance, the City or County leadership can pass regulations that close airports at night or close them completely if they wish (remember Meigs Field in 2003?).  The City of Austin closed in 1999 the incredibly convenient Robert Mueller Municipal Airport in the heart of the city .

City and County leadership are elected by the voting, tax-paying citizens.  If aircraft pilots and owners piss enough voting citizens off by flying too low, intentionally loud, at night and display an attitude of entitlement, we can expect to see "our airports" closed or restricted.  We need to do more to build goodwill with communities.  That may mean moving airports farther from cities although more expensive (who will pay for the move?) and less efficient for owners.

 

[FlyingDude]

Fair enough, those closures and fuel sales were caused by exogenous factors. I do agree on being a good neighbor. And a good user of the airspace by contacting Atc and abiding by their restrictions.

However I still rest with my case that if airports are citing lack of funds and need for more money to maintain runways, I'd like to ascertain that before opening up my wallet. I've seen way too many project managers blame lack of funds or personnel for their unsuccess. That's in the private sector, the government is notorious for being worse. And I've met some very good airport managers, including ours. We're in a high real estate cost zip code, too. So I don't immediately believe such claims on their face value.  If it's a bona fide need in the case of airports, I'll pay my share wholeheartedly. 

[Pinecone]

On 6/22/2023 at 9:36 AM, FlyingDude said:

Uhm, why is 85+ moron?  In places where people are taught to drive properly, where cars undergo inspection (not only environmental moneygrabber, but put it on dyno and check brakes, ABS, ensure minumum tire tread kind of inspection), even unlimited speeds are actually safe.  Stay on the right, use the left lane to pass.  Very simple.

Of course, if one is also texting, doing make-up (I noticed so many women applying lipstick while moving...  I looked, becasue the way they were waving got me concerned), clapping hands while singing and just being a passenger in the driver seat... While driving unstable cars on worn out treads with skyhigh CGs on marshmellow shocks ... I just wish there was a tram / train / subway so I won't deal with them at all...

The point is, people going significantly faster OR slower than the majority of the people are a hazard.

Yes, things work MUCH better with well trained drivers and when everyone stays right except to pass.  But we ARE talking about the US, where neither of these conditions exist.

Faster drivers are cutting in and out of traffic, many times with minimal separation.  And slower drivers force people to change lanes to get around them, leading the a higher possibility of a collision

[Hank]

41 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

The point is, people going significantly faster OR slower than the majority of the people are a hazard.

Yes, things work MUCH better with well trained drivers and when everyone stays right except to pass.  But we ARE talking about the US, where neither of these conditions exist.

Faster drivers are cutting in and out of traffic, many times with minimal separation.  And slower drivers force people to change lanes to get around them, leading the a higher possibility of a collision

"But I have as much right to ride in the left lane as you do, no matter what the signs say about Keep Right Except to Pass. And the Speed Limit is XX, and that's exactly how fast I'm driving!"

Those people make my blood boil!!!

But they are not a problem between airports, I just fly as fast as I want because there's no way I can even approach the 250 KIAS below 10K feet "speed limit" even in a vertical dive . . . . .

[Pinecone]

Hmm, I remember the days when TAC manual had a minimum speed of 350 KIAS for the AT-38B.  Or even better, running VR or IR routes with NO speed limit.

Just did Denver (KBJC) to NE MD (0W3) non-stop in 7 hours.  Commercial would have been around 6.5 hours from arriving at airport to being at home (home is 7 minutes from my hangar).

 

[smwash02]

Just adding a data point here for discussion.

I landed at KLRD (Laredo International) and was assessed a fee from Vector. The public data (on airnav) lists the airport as 'LNDG FEE ASSESSED FOR ANY "FOR HIRE" ACFT.', so I was surprised to be charged. I had already paid $20-30 in fees to the FBO. In my limited travel the FBO often collected the landing fees on the airport's behalf -- is it common to get two bills prior to systems like Vector?

I feel they have the right to charge these fees, but I would expect an airport taking federal money be required to keep the federal records accurate. Digging further it appears they have updated their website to reflect this change. I'll add that to my checklist.

Edit: I asked them (Vector) for a list from their billing department and was told "We do not have a list of our client airports, however we are listed on the airports website as the authorized collector of these fees at the airports that we manage landing fee billing for.  Please let me know if you have any questions."

Edited July 19, 2023 by smwash02

[Pinecone]

Did you tell them you were not for hire?

I overnighted at KBDL.  They asked if I was for hire.  I told them No, and the removed that fee.

[smwash02]

31 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Did you tell them you were not for hire?

I overnighted at KBDL.  They asked if I was for hire.  I told them No, and the removed that fee.

I did, but the response from Vector US is "It's on their website that they assess the fee from everyone" and the response from the airport was "The city passed an ordnance to collect the fee from everyone, even aircraft based there, and it's on the website." I asked why they didn't update the FAA data they publish if this change occurred in January, but they didn't seem to know about it.

[Hank]

40 minutes ago, smwash02 said:

I did, but the response from Vector US is "It's on their website that they assess the fee from everyone" and the response from the airport was "The city passed an ordnance to collect the fee from everyone, even aircraft based there, and it's on the website." I asked why they didn't update the FAA data they publish if this change occurred in January, but they didn't seem to know about it.

Sure makes me glad that Connecticut is a long, long ways from here! And small enough that I can land in the next state without much negative impact. 

[Pinecone]

On 6/24/2023 at 2:12 PM, 1980Mooney said:

And we think the tax on the sales of AvGas, the stuff we use (how many airports have a "self serve Jet-A pump"?) at all these GA airports, pays for everything. at perception.  

My home airport has self-serve Jet-A.

There is a tandem jump operation operating a couple of Caravans.  A Vision Jet, a Jet Ranger, and a single engine turbo prop.

I am not sure if they have a truck for Jet-1, but have SS and FS AVGAS