Backlash against Vector Airport Systems

[dkkim73]

18 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

The server doesn’t let me hit both the “laugh” and the “like” button at the same time, but I want you to know, you deserve both!

Thank you, Rags. I was thinking this morning I should edit and soften it a bit, you know it's being Christmas and all... I ran into the Grinch and his little dog and he asked me, "Bro, you doing ok?".

But I see my sentiments are not in isolation. 
Merry Christmas all! 

[MikeOH]

@dkkim73

And, again, MS improves my vocabulary!  Schumpeteresque and caltrops...had to look 'em both up.

[Hank]

33 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

 

And, again, MS improves my vocabulary!  Schumpeteresque and caltrops...had to look 'em both up.

News reports have been saying the Ukrainian Army is using caltrops against the Russians for over a year now. They're a little bigger than the ones used for the last several millenia against infantry and cavalry, but are still effective. 

Caltrops don't work well against aircraft, unless you sprinkle them generously over taxiway and ramp areas.

[kortopates]

Those of us in the Socal area having been dealing with this for over a decade. It’s old news and the discussion reminds me how many of felt about this years ago. I am a bit surprised how much this is expanding. But we’ve always been use to paying fees of some kind, such as ramp or facility fees and really i don’t see any difference here when the airport is collecting it. It seems they have the right to do it and frankly we take it for granted how good we have it here versus outside of the US. FBO have to make millions in infrastructure investments to get their lease so we can’t really deny them from being able to charge for their use.
Our first airport to do this was SMO and it seemed as much as method to discourage using the airport as much as anything and more recently Torrance started it too to discourage traffic.
But Catalina has always been charging but different since a private airport.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

Those of us in the Socal area having been dealing with this for over a decade. It’s old news and the discussion reminds me how many of felt about this years ago. I am a bit surprised how much this is expanding. But we’ve always been use to paying fees of some kind, such as ramp or facility fees and really i don’t see any difference here when the airport is collecting it. It seems they have the right to do it and frankly we take it for granted how good we have it here versus outside of the US. FBO have to make millions in infrastructure investments to get their lease so we can’t really deny them from being able to charge for their use.
Our first airport to do this was SMO and it seemed as much as method to discourage using the airport as much as anything and more recently Torrance started it too to discourage traffic.
But Catalina has always been charging but different since a private airport.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[0TreeLemur]

On 12/23/2024 at 11:03 AM, DXB said:

Some fields are newly added, but many simply don't collect for planes under 6000 lb MTOW

TCL is on the list.  I'm based at TCL, and have never (yet) received a bill.  Either they don't charge for light GA, or they are saving up the charges to send me a new years present!

[DXB]

On 12/24/2024 at 10:35 AM, EricJ said:

SAD is the AZ airport that I described, that will waive the fee with any fuel purchase, even 1 gallon.

 

I thought it was worth further identifying those 17 fields for fixed wing aircraft currently using Vector to bill <6000lb MTOW planes. Note, I'm not sure the list below is comprehensive - one on the original list was a heliport, which I left off the list below. But KISM needed to be added to the list - they recently started billing us $3 per 1000lbs on top of all FBO fees to land there (and in some cases merely to transit the delta or do a low pass per report).  I'm also not sure all deserve to be boycotted (e.g. as @EricJSAD Safford AZ reportedly waives all fees with any gas purchase, even 1 gallon). Regardless, unlikely to use some of them anyway (e.g. San Antonio International). However, some are exorbitant (e.g. Montauk MTP) - $45 landing for a Mooney, $100 overnight, at a small field with no services, albeit in a very nice place. 

 

ISM Kissimmee Gateway Airport, Kissimmee, FL

5C1 Boerne Stage Airfield, San Antonio, TX

ACY Atlantic City Airport, Atlantic City, NJ

AGC Allegheny Co. Airport, Pittsburgh, PA

ASE Aspen Airport, Aspen CO

BDR Bridgeport-Sikorsky Airport, Bridgeport, CT

BED Hanscom Field, Bedford, MA

DAL Love Field, Dallas, TX

HWV Brookhaven Airport, Suffolk Co, NY

ISP Long Island MacArthur Airport, Islip, NY

JPX East Hampton Airport, East Hampton, NY

MTP Montauk Airport, Montauk, NY

RYY Cobb Co. Airport, Atlanta, GA

SAD Safford Regional Airport, Safford, AZ

SAT San Antonio International, San Antonio, TX

SMO Santa Monica Airport, Santa Monica, CA

TOA Zamperini Field, Los Angeles, CA

[midlifeflyer]

On 12/25/2024 at 9:56 PM, kortopates said:

Those of us in the Socal area having been dealing with this for over a decade.

Vector has been around for almost two decades. I suspect that one of the differences now is that ADS-B tracking allows the monitoring to be done more inexpensively, which means airports which weren't using it before may see it as being more cost effective. That, in turn means collecting fees they have always charged and for some, imposing fees they did not charge before. 

But either way, Vector is just a vendor providing monitoring and collection services. The backlash belongs to the airports and FBOs. Airport fee structures need to be more transparent. And I think the real problem is that while many of us do check for applicable fees if we are staying somewhere overnight, not many do for a brief in-and-out visit.  I'm starting to see Vector mentions in EFB comments but it might be a nice thing for an EFB to highlight in some way.

[jetdriven]

It’s the same thing as these red light cameras, some out-of-town for-profit company calls up the local authority and says hey here’s free cash from heaven without lifting a finger, but we’re just going to tax and raise the hell out of your local constituents.  But we get half under your cover, and you get half for doing nothing.  But there’s no accountability because you just do it anyway.  Do you think airports are calling vector or do you think Vector is out there trying to sell it to airports?

 

take a look at their webpage and see what they’re trying to do. And then read the reviews. They’re pretty good. 

[FlyingDude]

I had started a post about 1.5 years ago on this very topic:

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/45873-big-brother-landing-fees/

At that time, I wrote to AOPA and this was the response I got.  I had posted this response under the original thread, too.

Thanks for your email.  Yes, that is completely legal.  Airports are free to charge landing fees and can use human observation, cameras, or other means to record them.  Vector Airport Systems is at many airports.  If you have been charged in error that definitely would not be acceptable and you should reach out to Vector Systems to correct it.

At this point, I'd pick my battles.  I (personally) am perfectly fine paying the 20-30bucks at places like Gatlinburg, Titusville, Centennial where I actually got great service.  So maybe my beef is with in-the-middle-of-nowhere fields or "mandatory shacks you must pass to exit" where they want to milk people.

 I think we should also acknowledge the world we live in. 

#1 general aviation is seen as rich boys' playground.  One recent example is this post https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10222217339017137&set=gm.8789214651174518&idorvanity=443036732459060  Look for Mr. Peter Barry who wrote this: "What a bunch of Rich whiners!. You tiny minority of Rich aviation people who want to fly in because it's cool. Has nothing to do with wilderness and its values. Your private, selfish wealthy act of flying in and around the wilderness ruins it for thousands of other people will actually value wilderness.. The solitude the beauty, the quiet the long long hike to get in.... Go whine somewhere else."  So in the eyes of jealous losers, killing GA will be an act of "social justice."  They'll attack with leaded fuel, then with noise, then with affordable housing on airport lands.  They'll never stop.

#2 As cities and towns expand, airports get engulfed.  We are on the same boat as race tracks, shooting ranges and (lo and behold) farms for that matter.  Yes farms.  People buy houses next to farms and then complain about the smell.  But this expansion of towns drives up property taxes, too.  I heard from some airport managers that FAA grants are used for upkeep and renovations.  If the hangar fees, fuel profits, etc. do not cover the expenses, the very capitalism would require the closure of the airport unless it's useful for some other purpose.  "Playground for rich whiners" does not qualify...

#3 Airport accounting.  Though airports are allowed to charge landings fees, are they doing it to beef up their profits, or is it because they want to square their books with the rising costs?  Are they being managed properly, or is there a lot of waste that could be prevented?  I guess there, being an active member of the airport admin would clear any doubts.

Other than that...  Frankly, if landing fees are justified, I'd rather pay an automated system than a human - because a human collector would require much higher fees to cover their salaries, and not to mention a reduction in airport opening hours.  Have you ever been denied landing in perfect day VFR because the airport was closed 6min ago?  It hurts.

 

[DXB]

I think it's worth keeping in mind that systems like those now being aggressively expanded by Vector lay the groundwork for increasing monetization and privatization of public use fields, which I think should be viewed as public infrastructure rather than profit centers.  The influx of private equity investment into aviation hasn't necessarily yielded this outcome yet, but it is certainly a major risk going forward.  That kind of money in after big returns on investment in a few years - any maintenance and improvement in the infrastructure is a lucky byproduct, not a metric of success.  Of course it can have positive effects for us too - e.g. addressing the major crunch in hangar space across the country.  

https://avbizjournal.com/?s=private+equity

[jetdriven]

1 minute ago, DXB said:

I think it's worth keeping in mind that systems like those now being aggressively expanded by Vector lay the groundwork for increasing monetization and privatization of public use fields, which I think should be viewed as public infrastructure rather than profit centers.  The influx of private equity investment into aviation hasn't necessarily yielded this outcome yet, but it is certainly a major risk going forward.  That kind of money in after big returns on investment in a few years - any maintenance and improvement in the infrastructure is a lucky byproduct, not a metric of success.  Of course it can have positive effects for us too - e.g. addressing the major crunch in hangar space across the country.  

https://avbizjournal.com/?s=private+equity

Can you explain further how it’s gonna alleviate the hanger shortage in this country?

[DXB]

8 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

Can you explain further how it’s gonna alleviate the hanger shortage in this country?

The article I linked mentioned it - it's a market that could generate revenue quickly if there's a private channel for such investments at existing fields.   I'm not sure it's happening yet, but clearly the demand is there.

[PeteMc]

3 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Do you think airports are calling vector or do you think Vector is out there trying to sell it to airports?

Probably both.  Would not surprise me if it was the airports reaching out though.  There's probably some city, county, state bean counter looking for ways to bring in more review.  And maybe Vector reached out to them for some larger airport that it would make sense and they started asking about it for their smaller airports.  

 

[hubcap]

19 hours ago, jetdriven said:

It’s the same thing as these red light cameras, some out-of-town for-profit company calls up the local authority and says hey here’s free cash from heaven without lifting a finger, but we’re just going to tax and raise the hell out of your local constituents.  But we get half under your cover, and you get half for doing nothing.  But there’s no accountability because you just do it anyway.  Do you think airports are calling vector or do you think Vector is out there trying to sell it to airports?

 

take a look at their webpage and see what they’re trying to do. And then read the reviews. They’re pretty good. 

I sit on the Board of my local airport. Our airport is the busiest non-towered airport in Missouri. The airport is owned by the city and staffed with city employees. We currently have 132 aircraft permanently based at our airport and a couple of active flight schools. The airport barely breaks even.

Our voters passed a bond earlier this year for community infrastructure improvements and there were plenty of locals complaining loudly about the money for the airport improvements. If it weren't for fuel sales, the airport would be in the red every year. That would not be popular with the taxpayers. Bigger airports may have more ways to generate revenue, but the battle for tax dollars still continues and oftentimes its difficult to find allies on the City Council or at Planning & Zoning. I can see why airports may consider this an option for capturing some revenue and I suspect it will become more common rather than less common.

However, I am not a fan, and most of the money for airports comes from the federal government. I think the stoplight cameras are a good comparison to this issue with Vector. Fortunately, Missouri has outlawed stoplight cameras in our state. Maybe we can get the state to outlaw Vector.

[1980Mooney]

On 12/23/2024 at 12:27 PM, Will.iam said:

I feel it’s a rip off scheme especially if i do not use their service. At KDTO for example there are 2 FBO and there used to be free transit parking in front of the tower. It’s a bone of contention when i want to pickup someone that comes to the airport and does not use their facility in anyway shape or form for them to come out and expect a fee from me. It’s the equivalent of going to a restaurant and self parking in the parking lot but i still have to pay a valet person?!?! No if i didn’t use their valet then I don’t pay. The FBO doesn’t own that tarmac the tax payers do and for a FBO company to come in and then claim that part as theirs to charge a fee is wrong. Now if they build a new complex and new concrete in front of their business and you park there sure. But it would be like me setting up a toll fee in front of my property on the road that goes in front of my house when the tax payers paid for the road already. It’s not mine to charge for nor is it the FBO’s to charge for either. 

Not sure where you are coming from saying "for a FBO company to come in and then claim that part as theirs to charge a fee is wrong".  The FBO is just doing it as an agent of the Owner of the airport (City, County or private) under contract.  The contract may stipulate that the FBO gets a service fee.  If you have an issue with the practice, take it up with the Airport Owner - they are making the decisions.

And as far as charging to enter or use a publicly owned asset, how is this any different from a City charging to enter and park in a City owned parking garage? (and they probably hire a third party to collect the fees as an agent to the City).  Same as the State charging a fee to enter a State Park.  And charge more if you stay overnight.  A perfect example is a City or County funded and owned sports stadium.  Of course the City or County is going to charge you to park and enter.  Toll fees on public bridges? - common and most going cashless with license plate reading technology.

And the road in front of your property?...if the Owner (City or County and yes paid by taxes) wanted to turn that into a Toll Road, they could hire you to collect the fee as their Agent.  Yes you will get a commission on the collections to cover your service costs.

I think you will see more user fees on everything as Government entities struggle to cover the costs of operating, maintaining and replacing assets and infrastructure.  Most Cities/Counties have balanced their Annual Budgets by deferring needed spending/maintenance on assets and infrastructure.  It can't go on forever.

[DXB]

24 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Not sure where you are coming from saying "for a FBO company to come in and then claim that part as theirs to charge a fee is wrong".  The FBO is just doing it as an agent of the Owner of the airport (City, County or private) under contract.  The contract may stipulate that the FBO gets a service fee.  If you have an issue with the practice, take it up with the Airport Owner - they are making the decisions.

And as far as charging to enter or use a publicly owned asset, how is this any different from a City charging to enter and park in a City owned parking garage? (and they probably hire a third party to collect the fees as an agent to the City).  Same as the State charging a fee to enter a State Park.  And charge more if you stay overnight.  A perfect example is a City or County funded and owned sports stadium.  Of course the City or County is going to charge you to park and enter.  Toll fees on public bridges? - common and most going cashless with license plate reading technology.

And the road in front of your property?...if the Owner (City or County and yes paid by taxes) wanted to turn that into a Toll Road, they could hire you to collect the fee as their Agent.  Yes you will get a commission on the collections to cover your service costs.

I think you will see more user fees on everything as Government entities struggle to cover the costs of operating, maintaining and replacing assets and infrastructure.  Most Cities/Counties have balanced their Annual Budgets by deferring needed spending/maintenance on assets and infrastructure.  It can't go on forever.

Appropriate user fees for part 91 light aircraft at various airports are a legit debate, which I will side step for the moment. Automated devices to collect such fees, similar to toll roads, may also be reasonable.  However, private enterprise both promoting and abbetting aggressive expansion of these fees should be fought by GA pilots at every turn. Use of ads-b data for such collection, including careless and erroneous attempts at collection, deserve strong pushback, as do lack of complete transparency in fee structures - aviation is notorious for that one (though not as bad as my own industry- healthcare). 

 

[hammdo]

Let me bring up a legit possibility:

I’m on an IFR flight plan landing at KBOW or 4FL9, ATC gives me an instruction to overfly KISM and I breach their  Class D airspace. I then get a charge later from Vector because my ADS-B said I crossed the airspace. Didn't talk to tower etc. 

Should i pay? Do I now have to say unable to avoid a possible charge?

-Don

[Ibra]

On 12/24/2024 at 4:35 PM, EricJ said:

SAD is the AZ airport that I described, that will waive the fee with any fuel purchase, even 1 gallon.

Is that automatic? they read fuel invoices, tail numbers and ADSB tracks 

They should at least do some smart work when the “user already paid” such as “hangar rental” and “fuel taxes”. How does it work for say based operators with hangar rental? are they are on some “exclusion list”?

What starts as “user pays” does end up very ugly: there is not much money to make charging Part91 under 12000lbs, the next step for light GA is losing runway access and ramp access (loss of ATC, FBO monopolies, made up security rules, mouvements restrictions…). I know how it works for airports outside US 

The use of ADSB data outside flight safety or managing traffic is rather odd…

Edited December 27, 2024 by Ibra

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, DXB said:

Appropriate user fees for part 91 light aircraft at various airports are a legit debate, which I will side step for the moment. Automated devices to collect such fees, similar to toll roads, may also be reasonable.  However, private enterprise both promoting and abbetting aggressive expansion of these fees should be fought by GA pilots at every turn. Use of ads-b data for such collection, including careless and erroneous attempts at collection, deserve strong pushback, as do lack of complete transparency in fee structures - aviation is notorious for that one (though not as bad as my own industry- healthcare). 

 

53 minutes ago, Ibra said:

What starts as “user pays” does end up very ugly: there is not much money to make charging Part91 under 12000lbs, the next step for light GA is losing runway access and ramp access (loss of ATC, FBO monopolies, made up security rules, mouvements restrictions…). I know how it works for airports outside US 

The use of ADSB data outside flight safety or managing traffic is rather odd…

Hmmmm.  "private enterprise both promoting and abbetting aggressive expansion of these fees"  That sounds like the mantra of the incoming DOGE cabal.

The Reason Foundation and Project 2025 have pushed expansion of user fees to completely user fund the FAA and to privatize ATC.  "the Reason Foundation has written an open letter to the incoming leaders of the Department of Government Efficiency to make air traffic control a "user-funded utility."

Think Tank Urges DOGE To Make ATC 'User-Funded' - AVweb

Open letter on air traffic control to DOGE’s Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy

Aviation International News

Letters to President-elect Trump debate funding ATC with user fees

The use of ADSB data outside flight safety or managing traffic is rather odd…

• It is probably "music to Musk's/Ramaswamy's  ears".  Perfectly automated.  Easy Peasy....

And for those that think GA pilots pay their "fair" share of FAA and ATC costs through AVGAS fuel tax - it is laughable.  The commercial operators have complained that they are subsidizing GA.  That measly $38 million is supposed to cover all the thousands of small General Aviation airport FAA grants for capital improvements and ATC along with FAA overhead.  

Get ready for big increases in costs.  And yes it is a slippery slope.  The DOGE boys probably already have their fav Private Equity oligarchs lined up to buy the ATC.... 

@takair expressed a concern about PE buying up airports and screwing us. 

• PE would much prefer to buy the technology at the top - fewer people, no liability.  Owning an airport is a PITA fraught with liability.
• And PE owners would find ways to cut cost - like outsource ATC centers to somewhere like India.  After all why do they need to be in the US?!!

 

 

• History of the User Fee Fight in the United States - AOPA

Edited December 27, 2024 by 1980Mooney

[Will.iam]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Not sure where you are coming from saying "for a FBO company to come in and then claim that part as theirs to charge a fee is wrong".  The FBO is just doing it as an agent of the Owner of the airport (City, County or private) under contract.  The contract may stipulate that the FBO gets a service fee.  If you have an issue with the practice, take it up with the Airport Owner - they are making the decisions.

And as far as charging to enter or use a publicly owned asset, how is this any different from a City charging to enter and park in a City owned parking garage? (and they probably hire a third party to collect the fees as an agent to the City).  Same as the State charging a fee to enter a State Park.  And charge more if you stay overnight.  A perfect example is a City or County funded and owned sports stadium.  Of course the City or County is going to charge you to park and enter.  Toll fees on public bridges? - common and most going cashless with license plate reading technology.

And the road in front of your property?...if the Owner (City or County and yes paid by taxes) wanted to turn that into a Toll Road, they could hire you to collect the fee as their Agent.  Yes you will get a commission on the collections to cover your service costs.

I think you will see more user fees on everything as Government entities struggle to cover the costs of operating, maintaining and replacing assets and infrastructure.  Most Cities/Counties have balanced their Annual Budgets by deferring needed spending/maintenance on assets and infrastructure.  It can't go on forever.

That’s all great except the airport was/is paid for with federal money. Your examples are all city or state not federal. Toll roads are for the new roads they build. I have yet to see a toll applied to an already developed federally funded road. So not the same comparison. And at least with the toll roads i can choose to use that new part of the road or stay on the free federal road. For an airport to charge for their funded part of the airport fine. But for them to charge for use of the federal part of the airport is nothing short of stealing and should be prosecuted at a federal offense. Like vandalizing mail boxes is a federal offense. 

[jetdriven]

4 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

That’s all great except the airport was/is paid for with federal money. Your examples are all city or state not federal. Toll roads are for the new roads they build. I have yet to see a toll applied to an already developed federally funded road. So not the same comparison. 

Actually, it does go on. Right here in Northern Virginia. They gave interstate 66 to a consortium of private equity and a foreign, for-profit company for a 50-year lease of I-66 and dynamic tolling with no limit. They sold the public on this thing with a bunch of newspaper articles and a PR blitz that said that the average toll would be about six dollars during peak times. Imagine what happened when the tolls soared to $67 right after it opened, and then the state backpedaled and said well it’s in the contract they can do whatever they want.  They also have control of the algorithm so they can make the total whatever they want to for the next 50 years but let’s just say they’re gonna make the $3 billion back pretty quickly.

[toto]

4 hours ago, hubcap said:

Fortunately, Missouri has outlawed stoplight cameras in our state.

OT: I think they may be coming back, at least in KC. I still drive through intersections on 71 and 152 with old signage about stoplight cameras, but I believe the KC city council approved the reintroduction this fall. 

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, Will.iam said:

That’s all great except the airport was/is paid for with federal money. Your examples are all city or state not federal. Toll roads are for the new roads they build. I have yet to see a toll applied to an already developed federally funded road. So not the same comparison. And at least with the toll roads i can choose to use that new part of the road or stay on the free federal road. For an airport to charge for their funded part of the airport fine. But for them to charge for use of the federal part of the airport is nothing short of stealing and should be prosecuted at a federal offense. Like vandalizing mail boxes is a federal offense. 

Federal Parks and Monuments with “user fees”

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fee_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System#List
 

I think 92 are listed above.  You don’t pay - then you don’t enter. Doesn’t matter that Federal funds paid for it. 
 

Airport landing fees and ramp fees are perfectly legal. 

[jetdriven]

2 hours ago, toto said:

OT: I think they may be coming back, at least in KC. I still drive through intersections on 71 and 152 with old signage about stoplight cameras, but I believe the KC city council approved the reintroduction this fall. 

In most of the states they've been ruled unconstitutional, and none of them have ever passed a public referendum. But red light camera companies know this, so they call it a civil penalty, and they send you some official looking fake ticket that you can usually ignore, because the whole thing is a scam. Some states, like Maryland, they can refuse to renew the Maryland drivers car registration until they pay it. So they're using the power of the state to enforce a private for profit out of state company to deprive you of property without due process. And yes, I have a problem with that, so should you.