Bournemouth - Landing Fees !! [Archive]

S-Works

23rd Jan 2007, 14:38

What is the problem? This is a regional airport, it has infrastructure to maintain, staff to pay and shareholders to keep happy. You want to fly to Bournemouth you get exactly the same treatment as the CAT for a fraction of the price.

I assume you work for a living? You or your company charge a fee for your services in order to support the infrastructure and to make a profit. So if I think you are expensive and your company should not make a profit will you take a pay cut?

It never ceases to amaze me the complaints on here about landing fees.

We are not in the states or France where the airfields are publicly subsidised, here they are business and have to stand on their own feet. If you don't like it you vote with your feet. But I suspect the loss of revenue from your PA28/Cessna et. al would not cover the cost of cleaning the toilets etc.

Land at Compton Abbas or another VFR field near bye and I bet the Taxi costs 3 times the landing and parking!!

gcolyer

23rd Jan 2007, 15:35

S-Works

23rd Jan 2007, 15:46

Tee Side is also regional and only costs £12 to land and £4.23 overnight. or at least it was last march.

Yep, but Teesside is in Gods Country and not 'darn 'sarf where everything costs twice as much!!! And please note it is TEESSIDE....... :p

However as a point, I go home to Teesside on a regular basis and an overnight seems to cost me more like £25. I need to check the exact price.

The point I am making is these places cost money to operate and they set fees accordingly. Our little spam cans do not represent any real revenue but cost just the same as the big jets in terms of infrastructure terms. So the answer is simple if we don't like it then we go elsewhere. £50 quid is about 30 mins flying time in an average spam can. About 12 mins in the Twin.

Stretchwell

23rd Jan 2007, 15:50

Wow bose-x !! Take your head out of your posterior for a second please. All I did was comment as I am genuinely surprised that the fees are so high!

I am on a private flight. Yes I know it is a regional airport. What is so special about Bournemouth that means it has to charge significantly more than Cardiff and Teeside? Why does a PA-28 have to be handled by a handling agent when there are no pax, no fuel required, it's a domestic flight etc?

Go chill out bose-x or you'll do yourself an injury !! :=

Single Spey

23rd Jan 2007, 15:59

bose-x

In that case there should be a system to allow a GA airfield to open up at least as close to Bournemouth as the current airport. CAA has a duty to allow equitable access to the airspace, so Bournemouth ATC would have a duty to co-operate. If this was not allowed then I am sure a complaint to the monopolies commission or the EU on the grounds of unfair treatment could be made. :D

gcolyer

23rd Jan 2007, 16:09

And please note it is TEESSIDE....... :p

Noted..Thank you :rolleyes:

However as a point, I go home to Teesside on a regular basis and an overnight seems to cost me more like £25.

I still have my reciept from last march, and it was £4.23 for one night parking a C172 (in between 2 Falcons). An like I said landing fee was £12 and no handling fee to pay.

Martin @ EGLK

23rd Jan 2007, 17:36

Though I appreciate that Bournemouth has costs, how much does it cost for them to bring in a GA type AC? Not much. Everything is there anyway and GA's fly a tight circuit away from the bus lane.

I don't know Bournemouth's ops but when a regional has 6 scheduled & 12 chartered movements per day then getting a tenner from a GA flight will be bonus money for them. Bournemouth has quite a large quiet & relatively rundown area north of the main runway that is ideal for GA; yet they choose to charge prices that deter us.

The same is prob true for most regionals. I don't actually know if it is but I know Bournemouth quite well - I trained there! But haven't & prob never will return. Pity!

gcolyer

23rd Jan 2007, 17:54

Though I appreciate that Bournemouth has costs, how much does it cost for them to bring in a GA type AC? Not much. Everything is there anyway and GA's fly a tight circuit away from the bus lane.

I dont think this is the point. The Air traffic controller, fire service, movement area maintenance, electricity...blah blah blah costs dont discriminate between aircraft types.

So for costing purposes each movement cost the same amount and require the same amount of work.

Now this by no way means that I condone (is that spelt right?) £48 to land a 172, not when other similar size operations charge a 1/4 of that.

Like Bose-X says these airports have to pay their bills, and unfortunatley in this lovely country which we live in we have to pay through the nose for luxury, and I am afraid private flying is a luxury (even if it is in a spam can).

Johnm

23rd Jan 2007, 18:50

The trouble is that in the UK (and the rest of Europe to a lesser degree) small aeroplanes are seen as a rich man's toy, whereas many of us use them as a mode of transport, which is how they are viewed in the USA.

I don't see this attitude changing anytime soon, in fact I confidently predict it'll get worse because of the green lobby and the delusions caused to airport managers by low cost airlines:mad: .

Riverboat

23rd Jan 2007, 20:07

I have to say, I am shocked, but not that surprised, about the misguided comments made by Bose-X. The fact is, the major airports are not there to serve light aviation per se, but actually do very well from it. (Hangar leases, etc.) A lot of the expensive infrastructure that is required when the main business is seen as providing an airport into which large jets can operate, is totally irrelevant to light aviation, and its costs should not be put on it.

Nearly every airport in Britain was owned, at one time, by the State - the MOD, the local Council etc. When it was, it had very reasonable user fees. Since the majority were privatised the fees and charges have become totally unrealistic in many cases, and the management of the Airports concerned have failed to appreciate that the airports they are running are national and local assets. The Councils knew this, but the private owners don't, or couldn't give a damn.

There is an excuse for Southampton being very expensive, and that is that it is a small airport, is very busy, and light aviation is a bit of a nuisance. Increasing the charges helps to prevent everyone and his brother wanting to fly into Southampton. Their Aerodrome Licence does not allow them to discriminate as far as allowing aircraft in or out, but they can discriminate by charging a lot.

Bournemouth and (say) Bristol don't have this problem. They are bigger airports and also important regional airports. Their charges should be something in the order of £15 a tonne - still a lot, but fair. Instead, at Bristol, where I went only a short while ago in a single, charged me, with compulsory handling, well over £100. I noted a Ryanair flight landing shortly after me, and I bet they paid less than me.

But the point really is, these airports are important regionally and locally and they should not price out GA. It is about time AOPA and BBGA got their act together to mount a (friendly) campaign to get airport managers to be more receptive to GA and light aviation, provided, of course, that their airports are not extremely busy.

Choxolate

24th Jan 2007, 07:52

I dont think this is the point. The Air traffic controller, fire service, movement area maintenance, electricity...blah blah blah costs dont discriminate between aircraft types.

So for costing purposes each movement cost the same amount and require the same amount of work.
But surely the point is that those high overhead costs would be the same (i.e they are fixed overheads)) whether no GA ever landed there, and those costs are required for the services required by the commercial traffic.

How does landing a light aircraft at Bournemouth (or any airfield come to that) INCREMENTALLY increase their costs by £30 - £40??

S-Works

24th Jan 2007, 08:21

As a Brit living in the US, I have to sympathize with you on your costs. 45 quid is close to $90 for a landing fee.. Seems as though you stick the word "International" in your airport name and inflate the costs accordingly.

I fly IFR into Van Nuys - probably 3 times the size of Bournemouth. Ontario International, Burbank, Santa Barbara - no landing fee.
It just shows the totally different mentality adopted here.

It is nothing to do with mentality, it is to do with the fact that the state subsidises aviation in the US. The GA community is vastly bigger and has cohesive representation. UK GA has a dozen representatives only interested in their own agenda and flying population that as a whole prefer to winge and not act. In the UK the governement only exists to fund itself.

So lets leave the wonders of the US system out of the discussion, apples and oranges!

GColyer, got my reciept which is a lot more current than your last March visit (Christmas to collect Grandad) and it was £18.00 plus VAT.

S-Works

24th Jan 2007, 08:25

I have to say, I am shocked, but not that surprised, about the misguided comments made by Bose-X. The fact is, the major airports are not there to serve light aviation per se, but actually do very well from it. (Hangar leases, etc.) A lot of the expensive infrastructure that is required when the main business is seen as providing an airport into which large jets can operate, is totally irrelevant to light aviation, and its costs should not be put on it.
Nearly every airport in Britain was owned, at one time, by the State - the MOD, the local Council etc. When it was, it had very reasonable user fees. Since the majority were privatised the fees and charges have become totally unrealistic in many cases, and the management of the Airports concerned have failed to appreciate that the airports they are running are national and local assets. The Councils knew this, but the private owners don't, or couldn't give a damn.
There is an excuse for Southampton being very expensive, and that is that it is a small airport, is very busy, and light aviation is a bit of a nuisance. Increasing the charges helps to prevent everyone and his brother wanting to fly into Southampton. Their Aerodrome Licence does not allow them to discriminate as far as allowing aircraft in or out, but they can discriminate by charging a lot.
Bournemouth and (say) Bristol don't have this problem. They are bigger airports and also important regional airports. Their charges should be something in the order of £15 a tonne - still a lot, but fair. Instead, at Bristol, where I went only a short while ago in a single, charged me, with compulsory handling, well over £100. I noted a Ryanair flight landing shortly after me, and I bet they paid less than me.
But the point really is, these airports are important regionally and locally and they should not price out GA. It is about time AOPA and BBGA got their act together to mount a (friendly) campaign to get airport managers to be more receptive to GA and light aviation, provided, of course, that their airports are not extremely busy.

See my quote below. When they were state funded they were supported out of taxes and cheap. When they were sold off they became privatre business's dedicated to making money for shareholders. Whatever you may think of my comments they are true. Are you a paid up member of AOPA or BBGA? If not how do you expect them to represent you? If you are why have you not raised the issue with the council?

denhamflyer

24th Jan 2007, 10:28

I generally agree with Bose-X. I am always amazed at how we whinge over trivial costs (compared to the cost of fuel and maitenance). I would much prefer airports remain open becuase they are viable and the facilities improve , so that it brings more people into flying. All too often I visit an airfield that is very run down and charges me next to nothing - great business model?

British Cinema's went the same way then when they were nearly all closed someone realised that give people a better experience and they would come back! Its easier to build a cinema than an airport so lets not let them all close because we argue over £10, £15,£25 or even £50 for a larger airport.

I think if they charged a little more appropriately and gave a better experience then more would fly - including for business travel and personal / family travel - make it an attractive form of transport and things will improve for all of us. Keep it as a strict hobby full of whingers and let see where we get..

A simple example is to have a good relationship with a taxi firm for onward travel. I have had a varied response from "do you want us to order your taxi now" as I enter the overhead :D to "there a bit unreliable around here - there is a telephone book over there if you want to try..." :{

It seems some airfields dont expect you to go anywhere....except the cafe.

englishal

24th Jan 2007, 13:14

And please note it is TEESSIDE.......
Please note, it is Durham Tees Valley.
I agree, £45 is a rip off. You do not get much for your money, about 5 minutes worth of communications, and the fire engines, which are there anyway, ready in case you crash and burn. And heaven forbid if EZ Jet are on a 100 mile final, you could end up orbiting for an extra 15 minutes.

Yep, used to be a resident, and now thank god I fly from Henstridge which is FAR FAR FAR better.

The sad fact is that GA in the UK doesn't mean anything to any body. It is a pain in the arse, causes endless hassle with NIMBYs, and we're not wanted. No wonder it costs £20,000 to get a gold plated JAR IR, and £70,000 to learn to operate the gear and flaps on a Boeing.

Kirstey

24th Jan 2007, 14:47

What is the problem? This is a regional airport, it has infrastructure to maintain, staff to pay and shareholders to keep happy. You want to fly to Bournemouth you get exactly the same treatment as the CAT for a fraction of the price.

They're not charging fair value for the service though. They're controlling demand, not charging a fair fee. £20 revenue from a PA28 is not going to cost more than that £20 to look after the aeroplane and leave it parked. If it costs £15 that's still a 33% PTP. If space/slots were an issue then it would be different. But it's not an issue so they're not making any economic sense. (IMHO)!

S-Works

24th Jan 2007, 21:53

Please note, it is Durham Tees Valley.
I agree, £45 is a rip off. You do not get much for your money, about 5 minutes worth of communications, and the fire engines, which are there anyway, ready in case you crash and burn. And heaven forbid if EZ Jet are on a 100 mile final, you could end up orbiting for an extra 15 minutes.
Yep, used to be a resident, and now thank god I fly from Henstridge which is FAR FAR FAR better.
The sad fact is that GA in the UK doesn't mean anything to any body. It is a pain in the arse, causes endless hassle with NIMBYs, and we're not wanted. No wonder it costs £20,000 to get a gold plated JAR IR, and £70,000 to learn to operate the gear and flaps on a Boeing.

Actually I was referring to the area of my birth not the airport. The area is Teesside.

niknak

25th Jan 2007, 00:01

As someone who HAS to go into Bournemouth it wouldn't matter what the landing fee was. It is, however, a prospect which I will admit fills me with dread every time I have to do. It is, without doubt, the WORST Air Traffic unit in the country.
Make your minds up EGHH - either you want to be the IFR training centre of the world, or a regional airport serving schedules, charters and GA which pays money to do business there. Stop trying to be both - you haven't got the capacity or the ability!

Ican supply Chilli's name and address for a suitable fee, alternatively I cannot for a larger wad of dosh...:p

For reasons which I am aware of but can hardly believe, the owners of my gaff put up landing fees for G/A to a similar but not quite as high level.
The result has been quite dramatic, we don't get half the number of G/A visitors we used to and neither do any of the shopping franchises within the terminal.
At one stage, handling of G/A was out to tender, but since the price hike the two realistic contenders have gone awfully quiet, I wonder why?

Admittedly it won't make a huge difference in the scheme of things, as we are well into the low cost market and will handle over 900,000 pax this year, most of whom will spend money in the terminal, but I think it's a travesty that (they - not us) can't accomodate G/A at a reasonable price.

Hampshire Hog

25th Jan 2007, 16:52

Bournemouth is pricey, but in their defence - actually they are very welcoming to GA. Bournemouth Handling provides an efficient booking in/out system and you get a free coffee (albeit not in the best of surroundings). You can walk into the museum (which is quite interesting), if you need to use the facilities, and take a look around as well. Whenever I've been there, the controllers could not have been more helpful, which is not always the case in large regional airports these days.

I'd rather pay about £25 for the service they provide there, but the fee and treatment could be far worse.

HH

Stretchwell

25th Jan 2007, 18:30

Just returned from Bournemouth. Total bill £57+ to park a PA-28 and leave again the following day. The staff were very good but facilities very limited. ATC ok but had to orbit on base leg for 10+ minutes due wake vortex and other traffic - not ATC's fault.

If there were any other airfields nearby I'd have gone there but if you are visiting a friend in Bournemouth you have to grit your teeth and pay the dosh. However, I won't be back in a hurry - due to the cost not my friend !!

My innocent initial posting has caused some interesting comments !! The bottom line is that Bournemouth don't want GA and the price is designed to put most people off. It will work.

Have a nice day.

Yankee

26th Jan 2007, 20:19

Stretchwell
Could you PM me with the brake down of the charges on the invoice. I'm interested in how all this works out. My main gripe is the 50% jump in charges between a less than 1tone and a less than 1.5tone plane especially for the handling side of things. Can't see for the life of me why it should cost 50% more to handle say a AA5B at 1024kg with one on board as against a AA5A at 998kg with four. I'm sure four people ware out their carpet, seats and drink more coffee than one when the planes takes up exactly the same space.

SensibleATCO

26th Jan 2007, 21:44

It never fails to amaze me why the likes of Bose-x are not able to comprehend that HH are ripping GA off (along with some other places). Even worse he comes up with complete crap about having to pay staff and shareholders as some sort of reason to justify the rip off. IDIOT.
Another thing that amazes me is how idiots like Bose-x can post such crap which clearly indicates that he knows very little about the commerce of aviation and in particular sweet FA about regional airports.
:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Riverboat

27th Jan 2007, 02:18

Bose-x, yes I am a member of AOPA and BBGA but they are very busy with what they believe to be more important matters. Reminds me of Nero. If we are not careful GA in Britain will be priced out, and there really needs to be a concerted, but reasonable, effort to persuade airport management to price GA more realistically.

Crashed&Burned

18th Feb 2007, 21:44

The Bournemouth picture is a very common one. When an airport is quiet, GA is welcomed with open arms. The moment an airport gets even one scheduled flight operating it sees itself as another Heathrow and GA is beneath its dignity.

Bournemouth has gone down the path of attracting scheduled and large jet aircraft, so GA will be discouraged and have to find a new home. I don't like it much but we are stuck with it.

Bye bye Bournemouth.

C&B

BEagle

18th Feb 2007, 21:53

"When an airport is quiet, GA is welcomed with open arms. The moment an airport gets even one scheduled flight operating it sees itself as another Heathrow and GA is beneath its dignity."

And then, like Coventry and Robindoncasterfinningleyhoodinternational (or whatever it's stupid name is), they start an airspace grab campaign to deny Class G airspace to GA..........:mad:

S-Works

19th Feb 2007, 08:09

<It never fails to amaze me why the likes of Bose-x are not able to comprehend that HH are ripping GA off (along with some other places). Even worse he comes up with complete crap about having to pay staff and shareholders as some sort of reason to justify the rip off. IDIOT.
Another thing that amazes me is how idiots like Bose-x can post such crap which clearly indicates that he knows very little about the commerce of aviation and in particular sweet FA about regional airports.>

Be carefull about making comments so personal, you REALLY don't want to get into a slanging match with me.

Whatever you make think of me I am not an idiot and have both an intimate knowledge of the airline business and of GA. Your chicken scratch fees do not meet the upkeep of places like Bournemouth so hey have to go out and find better sources of income. Unfortunatly those sources of income are the airlines. Bournemouth has a specific amount of movements and Bloggs in his PA28 paying 40 quid comes not where near to the several hundred that each chav carrier brings in. Like it or not your spam can is not worth the effort to these people but they can't get away with stopping you going so they make it unattractive.

I don't like it anymore than you do but it is fact and insulting me won't change it!

Kirstey

19th Feb 2007, 11:23

Be carefull about making comments so personal, you REALLY don't want to get into a slanging match with me.

I'm inclined to disagree Bose!! Just coz you have an IR doesn't make you any better at arguing!

S-Works

19th Feb 2007, 11:38

<I'm inclined to disagree Bose!! Just coz you have an IR doesn't make you any better at arguing>

No, but it pisses me off and I go all guns blazing! :p

But an IR does make me better at instrument flying...... :cool:

There is no need to be rude and insult people. You would not do it to my face so why do it when hiding behind a pseudonym?
:hmm:

What has happened to the quote function?

ariel

19th Feb 2007, 14:58

Sorry, but I have to agree with bose-x on this one.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that the larger airports with full ATC and handling facilities have much higher overheads than most of the small, (mainly GA), ones.

£45.78 plus overnight fees of £10 are certainly not the worse I've come across for one of the larger airports. In fact, on my last visit to Hawarden, (full ATC, but much smaller), I was charged £20 landing fee, and not allowed to even go to the clubhouse! - all I was allowed to do was walk upstairs to the top of the tower, pay the fee, then go (and they were damm miserable on that day too).

On another note, I did most of my training at Bournemouth, and always found ATC to be polite, courteous, and above all helpful.

So, much as I don't like it either, (cost, that is) what bose-x has said is, I think, a reasonable take on how things are.

ariel (and no, I'm not a washing powder)!

StarbucksOne

19th Feb 2007, 15:15

For the amount of tax we pay I for one would expect state subsidised airfields. One less Trident missile per year could probably finance GA landing fees for ever!

More smaller licensed airfields, as in other countries, is the way forward. But, lets face it, thats not going to happen is it.

Its such a shame the GA scene is seemingly disregarded by the authorities/govt. I'm currently planning to relocate to the US/Canada - a more deserving recipient of my flying budget.

Floppy Link

19th Feb 2007, 16:08

What has happened to the quote function?
...still there, just use the code
:E
:ok:

Chilli Monster

19th Feb 2007, 17:59

For the amount of tax we pay I for one would expect state subsidised airfields. One less Trident missile per year could probably finance GA landing fees for ever!

Dream on, there's more important things for el Presidente to spend (waste) our taxes on like:

1) Iraq / Afghanistan
2) NHS
3) Agreeing to and implementing every bit of policy that comes out of the EU
4) More Prisons (just shoot the habitual criminals instead - it's cheaper)
5) MP's payrises, travelling and accomodation (possibly THE least cost-effective members of current society)

What has happened to the quote function?

What - this one ;)

englishal

20th Feb 2007, 08:47

It is an unfortunate fact of life that the larger airports with full ATC and handling facilities have much higher overheads than most of the small, (mainly GA), ones.
True, but in the UK we have this mentality that we just wack up charges willy nilly (see the NHS / road pricing / climate change etc....) and hope this fixes the problem.

Now if Bournemouth halved their landing fee and had a large GA ramp, and reasonable overnight parking (see Jersey - £9.00 or so for about a week!), you would get more than twice as many visitors, have a nice busy airfield, and be able to keep the ATC trainees busy....People may even come down for the weekend....

I really don't understand some airfields. If you had a really good restaraunt on-site, and charged a zero landing fee, they would probably make more money from the plane load of passengers popping in for sunday lunch than the £15 landing plus a coffee.....

pulse1

20th Feb 2007, 08:57

you would get more than twice as many visitors, have a nice busy airfield,

Flew out of Bournemouth recently - 20 minutes waiting at the hold. 15 minute holds waiting to land are common.

It seems quite busy enough for me.

S-Works

20th Feb 2007, 09:03

With all due respect Al, why would halving the landing fee increaase GA traffic? There is not a lot down there for GA unlike the CI where the novelty factor alone of flying to the Islands draws people. Not to mention the local welcome and facilities. The South coast is a sailing haven and really only the uber rich can fly down to there boat for a weekend!!!

Bournemouth does not have the draw or more "exotic" places and so they have played the survival game and gone for airline business.

I would like nothing more than having an endliss list of Instrument equipped 5 Star restuarant airfields at my beck and call but even the prolific number of hours I fly multiplied by the number of regular GA pilots out there would not generate the revenue of a months worth of CAT flights.

We have to be realistic. Lets face it look at the AV8 when it first started it was popular, then a few bad comments and the business droppped off, the English weather rolled in and it went tits up. These wonderful facilities you crave at the big places like Bourneomouth, these active GA ramps etc. Who fills them and makes them pay when the weather is poor?

Kirstey

20th Feb 2007, 09:33

Surely Airport costs a predominantly fixed? An Air Traffic Controller costs the same whether they're clearing 20 aeroplanes to land or 2?

Variable costs will be incurred by the handling agent. But it really doesn't cost much.

Expensive landing fees are to affect supply and demand. But in the case of Bournemouth I don't think that's neccassary

S-Works

20th Feb 2007, 09:41

Exactly Kirstey! 2 737's full of paying passengers that will be able to land 99.9% of the time or 20 Spam Cans on a hot summers day followed by zero spamcans for the next month because the weather is typically British?

Kirstey

20th Feb 2007, 11:07

If it's an either/or Bose then yes I agree. But I can't see at Bournemouth anyway why there isn't room for both? At Southampton there's as issue of Apron space.

Surely with mainly fixed costs it's a case of more revenue by having BOTH interests served. Unless GA was so prevelant that it delayed CAT movements. But as you say Bose.. there's not really much reason to go to Bournemouth apart from IR training, which I assume is booked as a slot so avoiding delaying Ryanair et al.

Ultimatly, it's a free market. If I need to go to Bournemouth I'll go and I'll pay. I won't pop in for the sake of it. At least I'm free to make my own decision.

englishal

20th Feb 2007, 16:35

737's full of paying passengers that will be able to land 99.9% of the time or 20 Spam Cans on a hot summers day followed by zero spamcans for the next month because the weather is typically British?
It is not an either / or. Bournemouth have a couple of 737's / Airbuses in and out per day. If they can't fit GA traffic in between then there is no hope for us.

S-Works

20th Feb 2007, 17:12

Bournemouth as far as I am aware has a limit on the movements and I suspect that is part of the drive for using those movements more profitably.
I am not defending the situation, I would love to have access cheaply to such a facility but neither am I looking at it with GA rose tinted glasses. GA business does not generate the revenue that CAT does plane and simple.
It does not cost any more to handle a GA movement than it does to handle a 737? In fact actually it costs a LOT more to handle because a small aicraft with one or two people consumes admin time and controller time etc. A 737 stuffed with people uses similar resources but at a much better return. The lights have to be powered, the firemen paid, the admins paid, taxes, insurance the list goes on. This all costs a lot of money!!
The yanks can do it because they are subsidised as can the French for the same reason. Fly into airfields at other European countries that are not subsidised and the prices are similar.

Its not an either/or at Bournemouth GA are welcome, they just have to pay the appropriate costs......

scooter boy

20th Feb 2007, 19:31

If you need to go that much then you pay. Simple as that. I really do not mind forking out £25-50 at a decent airport with a properly maintained and inspected tarmac runway, lighting, ATC, security etc... it is just a fact of life in this country. Airports have to pay their way and I would far rather pay a little more than lose them to Prescottian housing development.

As a helicopter pilot (as well as fixed wing) I really detest having to pay anything at all if it is a private site with no fire cover etc...
Much of my helicopter flying is private site to private site and I have a block landing fee arrangement with the only licensed airfield I regularly land my R44 at.

What makes up for the landing fee saving by all this pvt to pvt stuff is one trip in to Battersea. It can make for a v expensive day, especially if you want to arrive before 10.30 and leave after 16.30.

What really gets me at many airfields though (irrespective of the landing fee) is the parking charges. £25 per night for your machine to sit on the grass - no workload for ATC, no extra security drafted in, no valet service. This can get very expensive if you plan to stick around for a few days.

Better get back to work now - I need to pay for my habit...

SB

englishal

21st Feb 2007, 08:03

I used to be based Bournemouth and the reason I left was because of the high landing fees. Ok, there was no handling, but if you went for an hours flight, then the landing fee would be ablut 50% of the cost of the flight...on top of the cost of the flight! So it really wasn't worth staying. Now I pay no landing fee (well, £90 per year) and can come and go as I please, even when the airfield is shut (as I have a key to the gates).

High landing fees have a knock on effect to the businesses base there - these fees must be passed on to the end user, and although they no doubt have deals it is going to push up the cost.

I suppose if you HAVE to visit then fine. Bournemouth is by no means the most expensive, I paid £90 at Edinburgh!

Johnm

21st Feb 2007, 11:08

I've said it before and I'll say it again:ugh:

Too many UK regional airports don't understand the importance of volume. They are really landing and take off supermarkets. We just go and buy landings and take offs. The secret of success in such a market is high volume with modest margins.

How many regional airports do you know that operate anywhere near capacity? Yes OK Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester.....but...

Hour Builder

23rd Feb 2007, 19:30

BoseX

I dont want to jump on the band wagon here, but do you have the same opinion with the CAA fees etc?

It too has infrastructure to maintain and staff to pay. I guess your arguement would be that there is no other choice-you cant go get your licence elsewhere, although the CAA do accept any ICAO licence for GA flying.

Be interested to hear your thoughts.

HB

S-Works

24th Feb 2007, 07:17

HB, You answered your own question! I don't agree with the CAA fees, not because they exist but because the are monopoly hiding behind being a regulator. We have no freedom of choice and so the CAA have nor ight to make a profit from us.

With the airport landing fee issue you have the freedom of choice, if you don't like it you don't go there.

You also have me wrong, I am not defending Bournemouth I am just trying to bring a balanced view to a very 1 sided discussion. The problem with all of the comments about volumes is that GA can't sustain those volumes and then what does the airport do? The GA market is small, for 98% of GA pilots the weather is a major factor. Take a look at the weather so far this year and show me the volume GA would have generated. The airlines come and go pretty much whatever the weather.

As I said before I would love to have places like Bournemouth at my beck and call for next to nothing and I am one of the 2% of GA pilots that is less weather dependant so a big airfield with an ILS for a tenner is a dream come true!

I flew to Cambridge 3 times in the last 10 days and all 3 times I was the only GA movement they saw. Why? Because the cloud base was 400ft and the viz about 1200. That weather does not generate volume business, but the military were still coming and some corp jets.

Need I say more?

englishal

24th Feb 2007, 17:58

Need I say more?
About what?

I am also one of the 2%, and I won't go off and shoot approaches at Bournemouth willy nilly, because last time I did, if memory serves me right, a total of 3 approaches (with missed) plus a full stop landing cost me almost £100 (plus aeroplane). And this was with no handling required!

I'd rather go to LA for the weekend, spend £250 on flights (yes you can) shoot 20 approaches in some funky twin and come home having got it out of my system than pay hundreds of pounds for something that is not worth £100's of pounds.

That is the sad state of affairs of some of the airfields in the UK. I wonder how Jersey does it? Hmm...Jersey Aero Club, there is an idea, and aero club working with and for the pilot and aeroplane owner ;)

S-Works

24th Feb 2007, 20:42

And good on you Al!!! I am sure plenty of people would love to do that and as one who does it several times a year it gets my vote. But once again comparing the vastly subsidised US to the UK is unrealistic. I will think of it when I fly out to Newark on Weds though!

Jersey is very unique and not fair to compare it against the mainland.

I don't understand why you are arguing with me, I supprt exactly what you are saying, but am just trying to smooth some of the bias off!!

Stretchwell

24th Feb 2007, 21:00

................and all i did was express my surprise at the fees at Bournemouth. Look what I started !! :hmm:

englishal

25th Feb 2007, 09:51

I don't understand why you are arguing with me, I supprt exactly what you are saying, but am just trying to smooth some of the bias off!!
I've got a cold, and can't fly :*

I'm not really arguing Bose, I know what you're saying, but I believe that it is the British mentality that stops airfield managers looking at the bigger picture.

Sure CAT comes first, but bring in more GA punters between the 737's and increase your profit even more, get a good reputation, encourage new business at the airfield, new knock-on businesses in the town (which directly affects the regional economy and hence airfield profits etc).....