I was curious about the cost to the airport if aircraft are tankering fuel. I tried two scenarios. One was a small airport, with 737-800 tankering 2.5 hours fuel – say 6 tonnes. The second was a large airport with a mix of 777, 767 and 737. The 777 was tankering in 30 tonnes, the 767 was tankering 20 tonnes, and the 737 was tankering 6 tonnes.
The design of airport pavements (runways etc) typically assumes that the aircraft arrives lighter than it departs: i.e. it fuels up at the airport. Thus the arrivals are at light weights and the departures are at heavy weights. Since the damaging effect of a load is a function of [weight to the power 4], a heavier aircraft is much much more damaging than a lighter aircraft. If everyone is tankering, then effectively you are doubling the number of heavy flights and cutting the lighter flights to zero.
For both scenarios, the design life of the pavement was cut from 20 years to 12-13 years. If the airport is charging a landing charge per tonne, then simplistically the charge should rise by about 50%. Of course, the cost of pavement deterioration and replacement is only a small percentage of the costs that the landing charge covers, so the true increase should be less.
However since most airports today are run either as shopping centres or industrial parks, I would be surprised if many airports even knew about what happens on the runway.