I’d suggest also trying to point out that the cost of attempting to collect the fees will outweigh the fees collected. Lots of councils have worked that out, the very hard way. (Air Services worked out that it cost more to chase chicken feed airways charges from myriad intermittent users in light aircraft than it cost to send out and pursue the invoices, so gave up trying to chase any user for charges under $500 (if my memory serves me correctly.) And that’s an organisation which is unambiguously out to make a profit.)
One of the reasons the Council operating YTCM decided not to take up Avdata’s proposed system is that I explained how it worked. When “Alpha Bravo Charlie” is sent an Avdata invoice charging a fee for use of YCTM and no fee is paid, it’s Council that is owed the money and Council that has to pursue the debt and prove that ABC used YCTM and enforce the charge. (Solution: Pay money to set up security cameras! There’s ABC, caught dead to rights. Great! Now commence recovery action for $12.50 and commence proceedings if it’s not paid. …)
Better paradigm and message: An aerodrome is a very valuable community asset because it provides very useful capabilities for the local community. Fund and nurture it on that basis. And if the occasional private aircraft pilot and friends pulls in and visits the town, that’s icing on the cake. Maybe the pilot will one day fly an aircraft that puts out a local fire that was threatening your home, fertilises the crops on your farm, transports you or one of your loved ones to life saving medical treatment or deters and defeats people who’d like to invade and kill you. Or maybe the pilot did that in a previous life and now just wants to enjoy flying without being hit with a bunch of parking tickets.
BTW: The council operating YCTM also gets income from the throughput of the Avgas bowser…
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 5th May 2022 at 08:23.