Backlash against Vector Airport Systems

[toto]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

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.

 

As @hubcap mentioned, they were ruled unconstitutional in Missouri. I haven’t seen new legislation yet, but they’ll need to do something to address the constitutional problems with taking pictures of a license plate. No idea whether there is a public/private partnership involved. 

Ref: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=90869

[PeteMc]

10 hours ago, hammdo said:

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. 

Not even close to a legit possibility! 

When have you EVER been charged for flying through Airspace in the US???  (Europe and other parts of the world I understand may be different.)  At least at the moment in the US, the discussion of flying through Airspace and getting charged for it is not really even a discussion worth having. 

[Ibra]

10 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

The Reason Foundation and Project 2025 have pushed expansion of user fees to completely user fund the FAA and to privatize ATC.

That's nuts, you won't be able to land once ATC is privatised (I know how medium/big airports works in countries with "private ATC"). In Europe, the only places with thriving GA and public ATC are France & Germany, the airport are still accessible to light GA (most of the rest has gone into the turf)

For 38m$ from Avgas seems on the low side? from some "100LL transition" discussions, I understand 800mUSG is sold annually in US (100mUSG is sold in Europe where Avgas tax vanishes instead of going back to GA ), that's 5cent on gallon in taxes, it seems low? I would have expected 160m$ with 20cent on gallon and maybe 80m$ once the whales had their share

Infrastructure is not supposed to make money, it's a money hole when you look at direct costs and revenues, the only benefit you get from it are the indirect economics around: tourism, pilot training, airtaxis, accessibility, flying schools, helimeds, jobs, council airports...most GA Part91 operators, don't require traditional  airport services that cost dozens of millions per year, you only need a gate to get in/out from ramp, the "the user pays for what he uses" is a good logic instead of "the user pay to acess": for private comany owning airport GA is viewed as nuisance without much profits: not much money anyway compared to Public Transport 

Edited December 28, 2024 by Ibra

[DXB]

6 hours ago, PeteMc said:

Not even close to a legit possibility! 

When have you EVER been charged for flying through Airspace in the US???  (Europe and other parts of the world I understand may be different.)  At least at the moment in the US, the discussion of flying through Airspace and getting charged for it is not really even a discussion worth having. 

multiple pilots overflying vector fields reported it happening to them on the related fb group - and got no response from vector when they tried to challenge it

[PeteMc]

6 hours ago, DXB said:

multiple pilots overflying vector fields reported it happening to them on the related fb group - and got no response from vector when they tried to challenge it

So you're telling me that people have actually gotten an invoice for "Airspace Usage" from Vector???  Or more likely, they received an incorrect LANDING Fee.  Which is my point of discussing what is "legitimate" and what is BS.  If one of these people actually has an Airspace Fee invoice, please show it.

And I'm not disputing there may be issues with Vector's auto billing, at least I'm assuming it is automatic.  On a cold day I could see ADS-B showing I landed (or even went subterranean) on a low approach.  So the system didn't see it as an overflight, but a landing.  For that you'd simply need to respond that you did not land, it was a low approach and until further evidence of a landing from Vector, your email/letter is proof of no required payment.  Then put it on them to prove you landed.  And if they try to send you to collection, you have proof you did respond.  I would not just toss it in the invoice in the trash.  

 

Edited December 28, 2024 by PeteMc

[DXB]

1 hour ago, PeteMc said:

So you're telling me that people have actually gotten an invoice for "Airspace Usage" from Vector???  Or more likely, they received an incorrect LANDING Fee.  Which is my point of discussing what is "legitimate" and what is BS.  If one of these people actually has an Airspace Fee invoice, please show it.

And I'm not disputing there may be issues with Vector's auto billing, at least I'm assuming it is automatic.  On a cold day I could see ADS-B showing I landed (or even went subterranean) on a low approach.  So the system didn't see it as an overflight, but a landing.  For that you'd simply need to respond that you did not land, it was a low approach and until further evidence of a landing from Vector, your email/letter is proof of no required payment.  Then put it on them to prove you landed.  And if they try to send you to collection, you have proof you did respond.  I would not just toss it in the invoice in the trash.  

 

Yes presumably they were billed erroneously as landings, likely as a result of inaccuracy of their newer algorithms  that incorporate ads-b data.  If you don't pay their bills, you get threats of liens against your plane from them by mail.  It's a hollow threat. Any such lien would have to be initiated by the airport, and even then  the legality seems murky (no legal expertise claimed on this end).  A collection agency would be similarly toothless here, since there's no line of credit based on an SSN.  I think in large part bills through Vector could be ignored with very little exposure.  

[jetdriven]

There’s also a duty to notify properly and just mailing a letter in the mail to the address that the airplane’s LLC is from is not sufficient notice of mailing. Now, if they sent a certified letter that you signed for or that was returned, possibly, but they’re probably not even going to do that. There’s too many fools that are just willing to roll over and pay them, and for the ones who don’t, they make false threats of liens. 

[T. Peterson]

On 12/27/2024 at 3:51 PM, 1980Mooney said:

 

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

“And for those that think GA pilots pay their "fair" share of FAA and ATC costs through AVGAS fuel tax - it is laughable.”

If this is indeed the case then what is the problem with user fees? If user fees will indeed make it fair for all concerned then that is how it ought to be. If the costs drive me out of aviation which I suspect it might, so be it. I don’t want to sell my airplane, but it is even less appealing for me to suck on the government teat as so many seem to think they are entitled.

There may also be an aside that paying our own way would actually lower our costs. I am not hopeful, but per chance it would be an unforeseen consequence of doing the right thing.

[jetdriven]

12 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

“And for those that think GA pilots pay their "fair" share of FAA and ATC costs through AVGAS fuel tax - it is laughable.”

If this is indeed the case then what is the problem with user fees? If user fees will indeed make it fair for all concerned then that is how it ought to be. If the costs drive me out of aviation which I suspect it might, so be it. I don’t want to sell my airplane, but it is even less appealing for me to suck on the government teat as so many seem to think they are entitled.

There may also be an aside that paying our own way would actually lower our costs. I am not hopeful, but per chance it would be an unforeseen consequence of doing the right thing.

If the airport and airway trust fund is insufficient, they should probably think about raising the fuel tax. But every time you involve private industry into this by the time they take their cut of fees and everything else, it doesn't really close up the revenue gap it just makes some billion dollar company even richer, and gouging users for fees.

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, jetdriven said:

If the airport and airway trust fund is insufficient, they should probably think about raising the fuel tax. But every time you involve private industry into this by the time they take their cut of fees and everything else, it doesn't really close up the revenue gap it just makes some billion dollar company even richer, and gouging users for fees.

I’m pretty sure I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but the statement as it stands is a bit broad. Privatization is already here and that’s fine. All the fuel is handled by some private company or other. We would not want a fleet of government trucks handling the fuel. Many extrapolate this principle to the fee collection process. While the principle behind it may be sound, it is an unnecessary middleman that is taking advantage of their position. It’s always messy when mixing private with public. Some we have to put up with, but not this.

[midlifeflyer]

Privatization is an interesting construct. I realized that in an economics class years ago (probably high school). Our teacher (a woman who looked incredibly like Thomas Jefferson) told us why the US Postal Service had to be a government monopoly. The business of distributing mail and packages throughout the country was just too complex. Private companies could not possibly do the job effectively. It would be chaos.

[DXB]

20 hours ago, jetdriven said:

There’s also a duty to notify properly and just mailing a letter in the mail to the address that the airplane’s LLC is from is not sufficient notice of mailing. Now, if they sent a certified letter that you signed for or that was returned, possibly, but they’re probably not even going to do that. There’s too many fools that are just willing to roll over and pay them, and for the ones who don’t, they make false threats of liens. 

If Vector knowingly lacks standing to get a lien, aren't their threats to do so criminal extortion?   I suspect the airport itself can get a lien under at least some circumstances, with laws varying by state (I claim no expertise here). The wording of Vector's threatening letters seems to be pivotal. I hope some folks saved them and will make them public.

[Pinecone]

5 hours ago, jetdriven said:

If the airport and airway trust fund is insufficient, they should probably think about raising the fuel tax. But every time you involve private industry into this by the time they take their cut of fees and everything else, it doesn't really close up the revenue gap it just makes some billion dollar company even richer, and gouging users for fees.

Which is what happened with many red light cameras.  Sold to the city as X number of people run red lights, so you will earn this much.

They left out that once people realize, they stop running red lights.  But the contract is for a minimum fee per month, which quickly becomes more than the revenue from people running red lights.

[T. Peterson]

45 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Which is what happened with many red light cameras.  Sold to the city as X number of people run red lights, so you will earn this much.

They left out that once people realize, they stop running red lights.  But the contract is for a minimum fee per month, which quickly becomes more than the revenue from people running red lights.

Excellent point. Folks may very well avoid these airports. I do my best to avoid high fee airports. I love the little mom and pop places.

[midlifeflyer]

16 hours ago, DXB said:

If Vector knowingly lacks standing to get a lien, aren't their threats to do so criminal extortion?   I suspect the airport itself can get a lien under at least some circumstances, with laws varying by state (I claim no expertise here). The wording of Vector's threatening letters seems to be pivotal. I hope some folks saved them and will make them public.

Who says they lack standing to get a lien? Has someone read their contracts with the airport? Has someone posted a copy of the “threatening letter”?

You are absolutely correct. There are various state laws at work here, as well as rights created by contract. 

[DXB]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Who says they lack standing to get a lien? Has someone read their contracts with the airport? Has someone posted a copy of the “threatening letter”?

You are absolutely correct. There are various state laws at work here, as well as rights created by contract. 

The letters from Vector threatening liens have been described online, but I've as yet to see one.   Vector's CEO stated they have never actually placed a lien (in a post now deleted) without refuting that they sent letters threatening liens.  It would be great to understand the terms of the contracts, how they address instances when bills aren't paid, and the ability to implement the terms of contracts in context of various state laws.  I'm no lawyer, but i suspect digging into these minutiae will help put up some guard rails against ravenous for-profit entities enticing more airports into collecting landing fees every time your wheels touch asphalt somewhere.   

[PeteMc]

1 hour ago, DXB said:

without refuting that they sent letters threatening liens.

My guess is these "threatening" letters are boilerplate and they just lay out worst case scenario just like any other past due invoice letter.  Heck, my basic quotes and invoices at the bottom states late fees and reimburse any legal fees.  Don't ever expect to need to charge a customer to reimburse me for any legal fees, but it's stated. 

 

[cliffy]

Just a curious thought-

Did  the landing fees go up AFTER the contract was signed with Vector? Is there an "administrative fee" attached to the bill? who pays Vectors "cut"? The airport sponsor or us through a additional fee?

As one who ran a Pt 139 airport for a short while you have no clue how "clueless" most city councils (cities are the airport sponsor in most cases) are on anything let alone running an airport. 

All they see is the ability to collect revenue and nothing more. Beyond that they have blinders on. 

In some cases the FBO leases the ground for the tiedowns and ramp from the city. In some cases not. If they do I can see them wanting to recover those costs If not, its a financial gain using publicly paid for property (the ramp, FAA grant).  If the city is part of the later then they are complicit. 

Every city wants an airport, not many want to pay for same.

We pay fuel taxes for airport improvements (ramp resurface), do we then have to pay again to use that improvement (FBO access fees)?

Airports CAN charge a landing fee IF they want. Many cities don't so as to attract business to the city. Every city that accepts Fed funds has some sort of study compiling the value to the city that the airport represents. 

It is still my opinion that IF the airport sponsor accepts Fed funds to keep the airport alive then they should have to provide a set number of tie down spots, rest room access and gate access on and off the airport as a condition of Fed fund acceptance. 

If they want to limit access to their city through a private company (FBO) with an exclusive contract for the entire airport then then the "gate fee" should be controlled by the city council and not the FBO. If the city wants to charge a fee so be it. At least an elected body is the determining factor.

If the city (another name for Airport Sponsor) wants to charge BOTH a landing fee AND a 'Gate Fee" so be it, It should be transparent that is the city doing it. having the FBO do it only transfer the angst away from the city (which is what they want as elected officials).

I started a conversation with Baker many years ago about FBO fees and the locking up of airports to no avail. I've been an AOPA member since the 1960s and I support them just because we need all the voices we can get BUT I think they have gone too far into a merchandizing company than an advocate for GA. JMO

As to the analogy of fees for state parks think of it as the park is a "destination" in it self and not just an access point to a city. Park fees are fine IF I WANT TO GO TO THAT PARK. If I want to go to a city I don't pay a fee to get off of a Federally funded highway to enter the city-    DO I? 

[Pinecone]

18 hours ago, cliffy said:

Just a curious thought-

Did  the landing fees go up AFTER the contract was signed with Vector? Is there an "administrative fee" attached to the bill? who pays Vectors "cut"? The airport sponsor or us through a additional fee?

WE always pay.  A business has costs, we pay those costs and a profit, or the business fails.

It amazes me when there is talk of new taxes or higher minimum wage and people say that "Oh the business will pay that, not us."  REALLY???

[PeteMc]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

It amazes me when there is talk of new taxes or higher minimum wage and people say that "Oh the business will pay that, not us."  REALLY???

I know!  And maybe "scarry" might be better than amazing. 

Sure, some minor cost increases I might absorb, at least for the remainder of the year.  But every year there was that new evaluation of what my expenses were (or expected to be) and what the market would allow. 

[piperdown85]

I've read many reports on FB and other places of threats of aircraft liens from Vector but they all seem 2nd hand, like some kind of lore - beware Keyser Soze! Does anybody actually have one they can post? I've never seen one.

[Fly Boomer]

7 hours ago, Pinecone said:

It amazes me when there is talk of new taxes or higher minimum wage and people say that "Oh the business will pay that, not us."  REALLY???

I'm always amused by the talk of cutting or raising corporate taxes.  If taxes go down, the execs get raises.  If taxes go up, you and I pay more for whatever goods and services that corporation provides.  The only money corporations have is money they get from us.

[jetdriven]

16 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I'm always amused by the talk of cutting or raising corporate taxes.  If taxes go down, the execs get raises.  If taxes go up, you and I pay more for whatever goods and services that corporation provides.  The only money corporations have is money they get from us.

We just cut the corporate tax rate in half forever, did prices go down?  Did executive compensation, margins and share buy backs go up?

[Fly Boomer]

20 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

We just cut the corporate tax rate in half forever, did prices go down?

Not likely.

[Justin Schmidt]

On 12/23/2024 at 12:16 PM, DXB said:

Speaking on behalf of every American GA pilot , we are not accustomed to it in the US and are enthusiastic about not becoming accustomed to it.  

New England has landing fees . Matter of fact ma tried to increase to $1000 per landing a few years ago.