Dale Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 I was thinking about a proposal to fix the tower closures. At KHWO we have about 140,000 operations annually. We need about $600,000 to pay our tower personnel. It seems the only way to keep our tower is to charge $5.00 per take-off/landing operation at the airport and this should cover it. Planes doing touch and go's and/or multiple take off and landings on the same day get charged only once per day for the use of the field. Should be easy enough to track and bill through each aircraft's registration or you could just have a credit card on file and the tower just sends along the charge per airport use by the aircraft. It isn't the best or most elegant solution in the world but I guess it will have to do as long as our government officials continue to send millions of dollars overseas for questionable projects or we contine to fund programs to determine why people overeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Simple enough right? But it's a slippery slope!! Once you make this work on a temporary basis then why not make it permanent? In no time you will be talking user fees for all of us. It may sound like a good idea but the minute we agree to this there is no going back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabremech Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 That's exactly what the current administration wants. No thanks, I'll use the look and see training that I paid for during my training. If I become a worry wart, I'll buy a TCAS system for my plane. David 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted March 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Yes, I agree it's a slippery slope. Once we start down this path, it is liable to end up at user fees. It would be nice if we could just convince our government officials to drop truly outrageous and wasteful programs they fund but I guess that is wishful thinking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Not No but HELL NO. AIM covers non-towered airport ops. I'll stick with those procedures and keep the money in my pocket. Once u agree to pay anything like that it goes downhill real quick 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker_Woodruff Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 We pay enough in fuel taxes and plenty more in general fund taxes due on April 15. Time to chop the government in half till the national debt is paid off. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisk Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 I'm not particularly big on community service or volunteering, but this seems like a clear case where pilots could help other pilots. Would we be as good as the professionals? No. Would it be better than 7 or 8 planes in the pattern on a sunny weekend day? Probably. And yes, I would probably volunteer if I knew others would too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregwatts Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Actually....this may work itself out. Boca Raton is already having meetings to find the $650K per year to keep their tower open. Saint Agustine will most likely do the same because they want the traffic and revenue for their golf courses. Naples will most likely find the money also because the Airport Authority sells a ton a fuel to the corporates and they don't want that money going to Ft Meyers. I think the only reason Pompano ever had a tower was to relieve FXE of training traffic........they probably can do without. The cities and local Chamber of Commerces will have to figure out if they can afford to not have a tower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
201er Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Actually I like the idea BUT IF and ONLY IF that means I get to opt out of paying for everyone else's stuff that I have absolutely no use for or interest in. If I get substantial tax break, I'll support user fees. But as long as the govt wants to stick its nose in every avenue of public life, they can pay the tab for our atc system. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJBrown Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 This is the worst idea yet. We fight like hell to avoid USER FEES and someone thinks this sounds like a good idea. For a real pilot to make such a suggestion is UNBELIEVABLE. This is like the NRA voting to eliminate the second amendment. I am trying real hard not to be too rude but this is unfathomable. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike A Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 I would not pay $5 per operation just to land at a field with a tower, or even be based out of one. I hate paying PBI $15 when I fly in there for work, and my company pays for it..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rwsavory Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Bake sale. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike A Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Actually....this may work itself out. Boca Raton is already having meetings to find the $650K per year to keep their tower open. Saint Agustine will most likely do the same because they want the traffic and revenue for their golf courses. Naples will most likely find the money also because the Airport Authority sells a ton a fuel to the corporates and they don't want that money going to Ft Meyers. I think the only reason Pompano ever had a tower was to relieve FXE of training traffic........they probably can do without. The cities and local Chamber of Commerces will have to figure out if they can afford to not have a tower. The private sector will always adjust better than the government could ever dream to.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yvesg Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 We have several airports in Canada with landings fees... and this is on top of paying a yearly (about $80) Nav Canada service fee. and this is on top of the fuel tax which was put in place many years ago to support the air transport system... and the fuel price here? About $8 a gallon... and then about 40% income tax... and those landing fees are taxed at 13%... same as any other service like the A& P annual...and this is only the tip of the iceberg. Welcome to Canada Yves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumper Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 We pay enough in fuel taxes and plenty more in general fund taxes due on April 15. Time to chop the government in half till the national debt is paid off. Hmmm, are you thinking what I'm thinking? Great idea! There's only one President . . . shall we split 'im down the middle or crosswise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 The private sector will always adjust better than the government could ever dream to.... Except this is the private sector. The tower at BCT is a contract tower, some savings there. The 8$ per gallon 100LL at the FBO there is another example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike A Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Except this is the private sector. The tower at BCT is a contract tower, some savings there. The 8$ per gallon 100LL at the FBO there is another example.It is a private sector tower that showed a lower operational cost than the FAA towers and was closed by the government anyway. Our government and the people running it (especially at the top) are jokes. Everything the government does can be done cheaper and better by a private company. If the businesses on and around the airport feel that paying somehow for an open tower is more beneficial than not paying for a closed one, they will find a way to get it opened. The $8 gas is probably a choice by the private company to focus on selling to jets rather than us lowly piston folks. Lets see where that price goes if the tower stays closed and the jets stay away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottfromiowa Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 NOPE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
co2bruce Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Based on Airnav (I have no idea if the numbers a right) Pompano has more daily traffic than Executive?? 465 vs 431. I agree with Scott........ NO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N33GG Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 NO, NO, and HELL NO!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becca Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 You know.. this is going to be controversial.. but the more I think I about it, and read comments on the tower closure on "small plane" forums, the less I think this is really something that impacts us as much as we think. The Mooneys, the Cessnas, the Bonanzas of the world, we operate just fine at untowered field. Even at a busy untowered field, its managable for us. As several posters have already said - just do what the AIM says, we're all trained in this. Heck, some of these places, the towers are a pain in the neck for us, causing long delays before departure when we can just taxi and go. If you look at the list of closures -- the south florida ones in particularl particular because I am familiar with -- the real losers in this are the corporate jets and their clients. But what is good for your Citation doesn't always equal best for my Mooney (um, awesome FBO at Dallas Executive aside). My understanding is many corporate jets operate on corporate policies or insurance policies that prohibit them from flying to an untowered field. Luckily, my Mooney has no such policy! Even when corporate jets do come into an uncontrolled field with busy single engine traffic, without a tower, their thirty mile finals (yes, I know fuel ain't cheap) disrupt the traffic pattern and cause everyone else inconvenience. In the mean time the people who fly corporate jets into Boca or Pompano and can't go there any more are re-planning to the nearest towered field still open - Fort Lauderdale or Palm Beach, clogging up those fields and interfereing with airline traffic because they can no longer go to the reliever fields with closed towers. For us Mooney drivers, worst case scenario I see is some cluttered traffic patterns (as if I don't already have that at my home field that doesn't have a tower) and some fancy airports suddenly without a tower that might be a little more appreciative of their Mooney customers as their G5 traffic has to go elsewhere... Long term, I don't think sequester or the tower closures are good for anyone or the health of airports in their totality, but its hard for me to get all worked up over this.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabremech Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 Most corporate operators base their decision to use an airport on runway length not whether they have a tower or not. We have some of the newest and best equipment on board and we use it. The point of corporate aviation is to use the other 4500 airports when we want or need to in order to serve our customers. Part 135 or 121 service would be more impacted depending on their ops manual. I too am not getting all worked up over this. The sun will rise tomorrow and in a short time we'll never even notice the change! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishboneash Posted March 23, 2013 Report Share Posted March 23, 2013 It is a private sector tower that showed a lower operational cost than the FAA towers and was closed by the government anyway. Our government and the people running it (especially at the top) are jokes. Everything the government does can be done cheaper and better by a private company. If the businesses on and around the airport feel that paying somehow for an open tower is more beneficial than not paying for a closed one, they will find a way to get it opened. The $8 gas is probably a choice by the private company to focus on selling to jets rather than us lowly piston folks. Lets see where that price goes if the tower stays closed and the jets stay away. There is nothing inherently better with a private company. The government needs to operate on a budget and be accountable. If that were true and could be done then this anti-government sentiment would go away. The problem is the bureaucracy is not accountable when it comes to public money. Some city governments operate like businesses and there are many like that, they are very efficient and better than any private company since they are not looking to make a profit and probably have an inkling of public good in their mission statement. My 2c. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mazer Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 First, I am very opposed to user fees. ESPECIALLY for landings. Why would we want to discourage proficiency by penalizing the act of practicing. Second, taxes should be either as a general tax for comprehensive costs, like the fuel tax or use specific, like a user fee. But, as I said first, user fees are likely a safety risk. Duplicating one form of tax on another is just a way to hide the true cost from the tax payers. It is just duplicitous and assumes the taxpayers are idiots that can be cheated. Oh, wait, maybe the government is right about that part. I can't understand why only contract towers are being closed considering the FAA's own statistics show that contract towers are safer and less costly/more efficient. Maybe a way to reduce the number of tower closures is to make all the towers contract towers and save enough money to keep some of the current hit list open. Finally, we probably don't need all these towers. I've looked through the list of towers in my area and think most of the closings won't create a problem. How often does KLEE or KEVB really warrant a tower. I'm sure other airports are equally undeserving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregwatts Posted March 24, 2013 Report Share Posted March 24, 2013 I can't understand why only contract towers are being closed considering the FAA's own statistics show that contract towers are safer and less costly/more efficient. Union contracts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.