Landing fees

[Bushebiggles]

I visited Blackbushe airfield again for a short visit to meet friends. The cafe is pleasant and so are the staff as are fireman and ATC, but the charges are not.
The landing fees are now £25.46 unless you upload at least 25L fuel @£2.12. Hardly a saving.
I assume since they now have 2 or 3 exec jets based there, the management considered they are big time and GA is a nuisance.
There is not ILS or maintenance on site and the number of light aircraft has dimished significantly, I understand due to the extremely high fees for parking and landing.
Blackbushe is no longer economical to visit unless you're an MP on expenses.

[robin]

I was planning to go there to visit relatives, but baulked at the cost.

£10-20 is ok for my little toy, but not that.

[dont overfil]

I believe there was comment somewhere recently about this. I think at that time there was more than one price for landing depending on time and whether you had PPR.

D.O.

[Oxeagle]

There is also now mandatory handling for aircraft over 2.5 tonnes (IIRC, could have been 3), which you don't seem to receive any additional service for :ugh: I took the E90 in there in October and the total landing + handling bill came to around £130 inc VAT, compare that to Fairoaks which is much more conveniently placed for London and which charges half that and no unnecessary mandatory handling!

[phiggsbroadband]

Another 'Black' airfield is Blackpool, who charge in the twenty region. They do have a landing voucher in 'Flyer' magazine, but the tight bas**rds want you to upload 50litres, which most likely will cost you even more of a premium.... Free voucher I think not.

Andrewsfield (Grass), Tibenham and Turweston are in 'Pilot'.
Haverfordwest, Holmbeck (Grass), Retford Gamston, and Wick are in 'Flyer'.
Sleap is in both 'Flyer' and 'Pilot' for this December.

[Richard Westnot]

From memory, we paid iro £25.00 at Blackbushe for the Cirrus in the August.

You are right though, no maintainance facilities whatsoever.

[first taff]

I am sure we have all seen these type of posts many times over the years and it seems to me that the only way we can get the message across to those airports that charge a over the top landing fee is "To not go there"!! , just boycott these places full stop ,, it seems to me some of these airport managers think they are doing us a favour letting us land there and there is also a degree of "can pay so will pay "in their thinking too , a chap I know use to take his citation into a certain airfield , charged him £100.00 , next time he went there it was £200.00 , so exit one customer. when they see the revenue from landing fees , fuel sales and the business like cafes fall then they will start to get the meassage and thats the only way they will get the message. direct action .

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Agree with Taff. Places to avoid...:rolleyes:

Shoreham charged me £21ish to land my Jodel last year, more than it cost to fly there. I haven't been back since. If there was one airfield that thinks it's Heathrow, this has got to be it (Apart from Heathrow of course) ATC are totally overbearing too..

Places I do go are Headcorn, North Weald, Turweston, Conington all have landing fees of £10. Pleasant, get a cup of tea and some lunch.. No frills..:ok:

[chevvron]

Do the above quotes include parking? At Fairoaks, you only get charged for parking if you nightstop ie land just after 8am and depart just before 6pm and parking is free.

[AdamFrisch]

What to me is amazing, is that the business/commercial traffic isn't backing GA up on this at all and never have. Surely a 5 year old without even the slightest MBA in economics realises that if they accept higher GA fee's to keep the "riffraff" out, then that that's detrimental to all aviation business. Now they have to bear that cost alone. I've never understood the divide between GA and commercial in this regard. There is no joint organisation that looks after aviation as a whole, just a lot of special interest entities. By charging GA higher prices to keep the small stuff out, they all lose - don't they realise this?

If the very people these small airports with "shiny jet" hubris are trying to attract would also put their foot down, then there would be no overcharging taking place.

[Talkdownman]

You are right though, no maintainance facilities whatsoever
Not true. There is an excellent gentleman who operates there with an alfresco peripatetic facility. It's not his fault that there are no hangars.

[FleetFlyer]

My experience of Blackbushe is one of a rude officious man on the radio and spectacular landing and parking fees. I'll only be going there for emergency diversions in future.
The front desk staff and local instructors were charming and you have to feel for them, having their livelihood eroded because the management want to price them out of the market.

[first taff]

99.9% of the comercial and business side of aviation could not give a toss about GA ,they dio it for a living we do it for fun were at the bottom of the food chain as far as there concerned and they would rather we were not around ,BUT , the last time i checked our money was as good as theirs,!! I know there are people like AOPA fighting our corner but to me we need to get more direct , puting the word around the ga comunity of the overcharging / bad service etc airfields, I mean they go to town on bad service companies on programes like watchdog etc , If I gave a bad service / too expensive for my work word would soon go around !! , why should aviation be any different , perhaps we should start a union ?? LOL :ugh:

[POBJOY]

Simple answer to this. Most airfields are run by private individuals or a Company.
They are under no obligation to offer any service to anyone,and are free to 'open their stall for custom' as they please.
You the customer makes the choice whether to make use of a facility or not.
This may depend on what your particular requirement is,and that may influence what you are prepared to pay.
An Airfield that at least offers a fuel uplift to offset a fee seems to be making an effort to 'get your custom'.
If you choose not to avail yourself of this that is your decision based upon how important your need is.
Of course you could operate your own airfield and provide a service to suit.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi Pobjoy, you may not have done the maths, if you think its a 'discount' if you buy fuel....

Blackpool require 50 litres of fuel uptake at £2.21, instead of £1.72 back at my base airfield. A difference of 49p/litre, or an excess charge of £24.50.

Is that worth it? Even if you do get your knick-knacks sent through a scanner prior to departure...

[POBJOY]

You miss the point Phiggs,no one is forcing you to land at BP or anywhere else,you have a choice, and it seems a very low avgas price at base.
That is your good fortune,but not relevant to landing somewhere else.
A customer has the best option to avoid what he considers to be high charges; do not go there.

[abgd]

I agree that ultimately privately owned airfields generally have the right to charge whatever they choose. On the other hand, it is irksome when the charges are quite so high. If you plan to go somewhere, as oppose to just fly to get a burger for fun, then you don't always have the discretion to fly to a different airfield.

I flew from Blackbushe for a little while, including during weekdays, and there was very little conflict between bizjets / commercial traffic and the flying school aircraft, at least as far as I could tell. Likewise at Inverness, where it was generally straightforward to stay out of the way whilst the bigger aircraft came in and out.

There does seem to be a trend that even smaller airports are becoming prohibitively expensive, and from the outside I agree that it's hard to imagine that anyone will be profiting from this.

[JUST-local]

Prices December

Fuel is £2.04 a litre inc. Vat.

Normal landing fee up to 3 tonnes is £8.20 per half tonne plus Vat. (50% disc. For training)

[POBJOY]

Have looked up what Blackpool has on offer for its £8.20 per HT + Vat charges.

Two runways,Radar.Instument approach,lights,Walk to Town,multiple facilities, Etc Etc.

By any standards that seems a good deal,unlike Plymouth which is now CLOSED, and will be developed.

If you choose to be involved with aviation; be pleased that there are Airfields available when you need them.

[chevvron]

'rude officious man on the radio' at Blackbushe? Well talkdownman doesn't work there any more, so I wonder who it could be?

[Joe le Taxi]

Personally I can't get excited about the landing fee when it is £15 or less.

Oxford is great value. Cambridge on the other hand, from the website, looks bonkers expensive for an SEP, or is there some special deal I'm missing? We've wanted to fly there several times, but then I see the landing and parking fees, and drive, or go to Oxford instead. So Cambridge get zilch.

[soaringhigh650]

There are two separate issues I saw when I was in the UK, neither of which was helpful:

1) No government subsidy for airports. Therefore there IS a landing fee (say £15-25) to cover costs and to ensure the airport remains profitable.

2) Airports that support commercial flights who cannot care less about GA. Their objective is to maximize returns for investors and GA is not one of such flights. They may be busy at certain times of the day but not busy enough. They have handling fees and minimum landing fees which brings the total to about £75-£250 per landing/parking.

If GA thinks of boycotting an airport that charges £15-£25, think again. These airports are run for GA and run on moderate means. Not going there means the airport will likely close down and disappear for good.

If GA thinks of boycotting an airport that charges £75-£200. think again. The numbers of movements are small and the income earned from it is small. You achieve nothing other than to completely lose an airport that you have access to. The airport bosses will see this as a win for them, thus paving way for their fees to go up further. You've now given up the airport to market its business to other heavier, higher-revenue traffic. You are better off at an organized campaign to government/airport bosses to bring charges to more realistic levels.

The bottom line is that GA needs basic transport infrastructure to connect people and places. And boycotting is not the way to do it.

[robin]

Good points,

But we all boycott some airfields when they are too expensive for the facilities or when it is made abundantly clear that GA is being discouraged.

Plymouth, for example, was not always the most welcoming of airfields and imposed security and other procedures well beyond its needs. I used to contrast the way that they made things difficult for us whereas Gloucester in recent years has become a much more friendly destination and richly deserves its new reputation.

I know of at least 3 airfields I used to visit that I no longer go to. I would love to use them again but I won't until they change their mindset (and mandatory handling charges).

[Keef]

The problem is the "business model" of airfields in the UK.

An airfield uses a lot of land, and airfields are counted as "brownfield" which means they can be built on. Given the choice between a couple of dozen GA visitors a day, prepared to pay (say) £15 each and (maybe) a few larger jobbies at £100 and (maybe) buy a few hundred litres of fuel (with all the palaver of Government regulation on fuel) - offset by the cost of an A/G operator or a FISO and maybe a fireman or two, and the CAA's and OfCom's charges for licences...

...or sell the site for a few million as building land:

you have to be dedicated to running an airfield. Look back at the number of airfields (even municipal ones) that are now housing estates, and the writing is on the wall.

The USA has a different model: airfields are essential transport infrastructure and are needed, so they are funded out of a central pot. Landing fees? What are they? The USA also has a lot of spare land lying around.

HMG isn't going to fund airfields - they see them as a source of taxation while they're there and a source of more taxation when they change role to building site.

I suspect (with some but incomplete statistics) that there are far more farm strips in the UK than every other sort of airfield added together. That's certainly the case in the little corner where I am. It's the way it's going to go, I suspect.

[soaringhigh650]

The problem is the "business model" of airfields in the UK.

And hence the importance of effective advocacy at the highest levels of government to ensure airports are run/licensed in a way that does not unreasonably discriminate between different classes of users.

It's the way it's going to go, I suspect.

But only for the recreational flyer on a burger run. But the sole use of farm strips is short sighted. It doesn't work for proper transport for business and vacation, as it shows in Italy.

[Dan Winterland]

I used to own a RF3. I always asked for a 50% discount as I only had one mainwheel. It usually worked!

[Prop swinger]

But only for the recreational flyer on a burger run. But the sole use of farm strips is short sighted. It doesn't work for proper transport for business and vacation, as it shows in Italy.
SEP GA is not "proper transport" over here, it is recreational. It is virtually always quicker, cheaper, more reliable to use road, rail and/or commercial air to go somewhere, we choose to fly ourselves because it is fun. The state has no business raising taxes to subsidise the pleasures of a tiny minority.

[soaringhigh650]

SEP GA is not "proper transport" over here, it is recreational.

And should it be made proper transport? If so you need to think about how to fight off improper costs hard rather than keeping it the preserve of a recreational game of the elite and wealthy and hence your "hobby" never takes off.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

And should it be made proper transport?
How could it be?

You'd have to fix the weather first!

Then you'd have to fix the £3/minute hire costs, down to a few pence to compete with the likes of easyJet (so the toy-aircraft-from-farm-strip brigade are still waaaay too expensive).

Then it might be worth worrying about the landing charges.

(I have used an SEP as "proper transport" in the UK. Twice, in twenty-something years of flying. (And I've failed more than twice, because of weather.) Both times it won only because the north-west quadrant of the M25 is usually a disaster, and because I chose not to care about the cost.)

[mm_flynn]

Within England, air transport of any sort is of marginal value. For 'most weather' GA it is even worse. There are a limited number of airfields located near any place you are likely to want to go, the vaguely economic ones have no lights, limited hours, no approaches. Some of this is driven by regulation, some by tradition, and some by an industry strategy to make money by high margin rather than high volume (Gloucester seeming to be a notable exception with lights, approaches, friendly environment, reasonable fuel, reasonable landing, no mandatory handling).

London to Birmingham is too close
London to Manchester means landing in Liverpool or at the main (and frequently expensive) international airport.
The South into Scotland mostly has 'Bend Over Here It Comes' pricing (other than Cumbernauld which is quite convenient for my work).

I use a SEP for transport to Rotterdam, Carlisle, Glasgow (Cumbernauld), Dublin (Weston), and Newcastle. All of which are more convenient to get to from South West London by GA than by any other means.

The level of landing charges and mandatory handling in some of these places is rather high for the service (Rotterdam is expensive, but I use the facilities quite extensively so it is not that bad).

[soaringhigh650]

You'd have to fix the weather first!

Help by getting an IR?

Then you'd have to fix the £3/minute hire costs

You can get a share of a plane?

There are a limited number of airfields located near any place you are likely to want to go, the vaguely economic ones have no lights, limited hours, no approaches.

This needs fixing to take the industry off. The cross-channel flights are where the value comes in.

[cockney steve]

we choose to fly ourselves because it is fun. The state has no business raising taxes to subsidise the pleasures of a tiny minority.

Propswinger # 27.

Which is precisely why I object to the huge subsidies to "The Arts"
NEVER been to one of those caterwauling contests...sorry, "the Opera"...'cos I don't see the elitist ticket price as being VFM (value for Money)
Likewise "fairies" *jigging about AKA "the Ballet" ....An oblong of stacked housebricks, a dirty bed, a pickled dead animal....I think I've subsidised the lot.

Oh, and the school bus...spent the last 50 years subsidising that, I can count my rail and bus journeys combined , on the fingers of one hand, during the same period. but still I paid the compulsory subsidies.

Like it or not, we all subsidise another minority ,somewhere along the line.

"The Arts" gets up my nose as an Elitist, "luvvies" indulgence...so why shouldn't GA, Yachting, Historic car and Motorcycle-racing etc. be subsidised as well.

* OK, I know it was a cheap jibe and they really fxx-up their bodies and joints in the name of "Art"....so, ask a dinghy sailor about "Enterprise Knee" :}

[7of9]

Cambridge on the other hand, from the website, looks bonkers expensive for an SEP, or is there some special deal I'm missing? We've wanted to fly there several times, but then I see the landing and parking fees, and drive, or go to Oxford instead. So Cambridge get zilch.

Join this for cheaper landings at Cambridge at weekends;

CAFC | Home (http://www.flyingcambridge.com/index.php)

Trev:ok:

[Prop swinger]

And should it be made proper transport? If so you need to think about how to fight off improper costs hard rather than keeping it the preserve of a recreational game of the elite and wealthy and hence your "hobby" never takes off.
It's nothing to do with "improper costs" or inaccurate assumptions about "game of the elite and wealthy", it's all to do with very basic, very simple economics.

Remote areas that would benefit most from air travel simply lack the footfall to fund the infrastructure. Populated areas already have road & rail links as well as access to commercial air travel. Anywhere you can easily fly yourself to is usually easier, quicker or cheaper to get to some other way.

[A and C]

It's not the landing fee at Blackpool that I object to it is the compleat stupidity of the way they do business.

I go to the landing fee office and pay, telling them I need fuel and asking if I can pay at the fuel pumps.

I taxi across the field to the pumps and fill up........then I am told that I have to go back to the same office to pay for the fuel.

The half hour of effing about results in me missing a business meting at the end of the day.

They seem to go out of their way to inconvenience the customer making Blackpool a place I won't go unless I have to.

[abgd]

Living in Wales, having access to a plane actually reduces the 'cabin fever' by quite a bit. London is a 6 hour round trip away rather than 16 hours by train. I haven't been to Penzance yet, but again it's likely to be a lot more pleasant by plane.

Some parts of Scotland are quite well served by small airfields and I have met people in remote areas who used their aircraft to get around - my impression is that it's the more populated parts e.g. Edinburgh that are expensive or difficult to get to.

I have no objection to paying £15 for a landing fee to support a local airport. I don't see any justification for flying being subsidised in the UK, and the irony is that it's often those airports that have been subsidised for the purposes of developing passenger services and tourist revenue that become prohibitively expensive to GA.

If GA thinks of boycotting an airport that charges £75-£200. think again. The numbers of movements are small and the income earned from it is small. You achieve nothing other than to completely lose an airport that you have access to. The airport bosses will see this as a win for them, thus paving way for their fees to go up further. You've now given up the airport to market its business to other heavier, higher-revenue traffic. You are better off at an organized campaign to government/airport bosses to bring charges to more realistic levels.

For me, it's not a question of 'boycotting' in the same way that I'm not boycotting Extra by not buying an Extra 300. I can't afford either. If I were to fly to such an airport, it would likely double the cost of the trip, and I find flying just barely affordable anyway.

Anyway, I don't see any reason why an airport cannot charge a high price to an international Citation using the expensive ILS and ATC infrastructure, whether or not it charges a low price to a VFR pa28.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Try landing a helicopter at some of the hotels near Blackbushe, Stoke Park demand £ 500! I took a passenger there for a conference recently, he had 12 rooms booked for 5 days, if he had left his car in the car park a uniformed flunkey would have collected his bags, I landed him on a patch of mud near the first tee, he carried his own bags and was livid when he found out about the landing fee.

Some hotels charge £50, others free if the pax are staying, one in Devon robs you of £250. For Stoke park money I expect radar, full ATC, fuel, fire cover and a dolly to carry the bags.

And no they're not my helis, just my job, £20 for landing my Condor seems a bargain when you look at the huge overheads involved in owning/running an airfield. I've always found Blackbushe very welcoming, in fact even Elstree has a lighter side, Biggin great, Barton fantastic with really interesting stuff tucked in hangars, Southend:mad:. If you're going to Blackpool then handling is worth having if you use Hangar 3, their bill is not too eye watering and there is none of the ridiculous security.

When my boss looks at the expenses for running the jet every year his biggest gripe is landing fees avreage last year £ 1017 per landing.

SND

[soaringhigh650]

Anyway, I don't see any reason why an airport cannot charge a high price to an international Citation using the expensive ILS and ATC infrastructure, whether or not it charges a low price to a VFR pa28.

My original comment was directed at those who think it's getting pricier and pricier to access an airport that they regularly or occasionally use, but then quietly decide to give up going there without making any noise and use something else instead.

I don't see the US government subsidizing $800 every time I fly my PA28 into JFK.

[Prop swinger]

The FAA gave 87 New York State airfields a total of $131 million in the fiscal year 2011; JFK picked up nearly $4 million.

Assuming you flew your PA28 in once a day, that would be just under $11,000 per landing.

[soaringhigh650]

Assuming you flew your PA28 in once a day

That's if I was the only aircraft using JFK.

[chevvron]

Never mind landing fees at Blackbushe, I've just discovered overnight parking is roughly 3 times what it costs at another local airfield (no not Farnborough dummy!)

[DC10RealMan]

I spent 30 years flying in the London area with all the hassles and costs that that entails and then I moved "Op North" and fly at Sleap with the Shropshire Aero Club.

What a revelation!

No controlled airspace
No yellow jacket b*****ks
No unnecessary rules and regulations
No officious members of "The Management"

Only helpful, courteous members of staff
Hard runways with night landing facilities
Easy going and yet professional atmosphere
Cheap flying and fuel
Excellent restaurant
Lovely part of the country
Common sense currency rules
Very reasonable landing fees
Did I mention no controlled airspace!!
Tremendous place, the best thing I ever did was to retire and fly at Sleap.

[JW411]

I taxied out one afternoon at JFK and found myself in the conga line behind a Cessna 172 (I was driving a DC-10). The Cessna 172 duly took off and I got the standard JFK departure clearance:

"Caution wake turbulence, you are cleared for take-off".

Cessna 172 - Wake Turbulence?

[ChampChump]

I used to own a RF3. I always asked for a 50% discount as I only had one mainwheel. It usually worked!

I tried that with my Falke once, jokingly, at an airfield where I was known as a regular visitor in it. 'No, you have four wheels' came the swift reply...