Originally Posted by
Pilot DAR
As nice as it may be to have a convenient airport from which to fly, and possibly train, it is a costly luxury. If an airport can operate and sustain itself, while keeping user fees low, how nice! But the reality is that airplanes use a lot of costly space for their operations, and GA pilots are generally not eager to pay the costs in proportion to the use of space and services they need.
I fly over golf courses embedded in the city, on really expensive property, and again, lots of space for low density usage. But, from what my golfing buddies tell me, enough people will pay immense sums to use that special purpose property. I hardly see most GA pilot/owners happy to pay tens of thousands annually to be a member, and use the airport facilities, but there seem to be enough golfers to sustain this, and then a hundred a round on top of that!
I completely agree and understand what you are saying, but I think that I have spent an average of around £2,000 per year on landing and approach fees at Biggin Hill, this is actually only marginally more than most golf memberships that I know of within the London region (obviously excluding the thousands of pounds worth of kit). I understand that perhaps I fly more than some pilots only doing their 3 monthly circuits (which is still £700ish in landing fees a year). If the issue was that there are lots of people flying very little, perhaps they need to rethink their business model and charge fees to all based pilots rather than charge per landing / approach - similarly to White Waltham where all pilots need to be members of the aerodrome club. So yes, okay we struggle with the £130+ (more like £175+) per hour of flight, but we still pay similar sums to the golfers... Perhaps it is also an economy of scale? Are there more people golfing than flying?
Food for thought!