Another Regional Airport Rip-Off

[Dr_Tre]

C1196/08 (AGA) Tuesday, 1 Apr 2008

Ref UK AIP EGNV 2.4/handling services and facilities, 7 remarks.
EGNV 2.4 line 7 -
delete wording - aircraft exceeding 2 metric tonnes are subject to
mandatory handling.
Insert wording - all visiting aircraft are subject to mandatory
handling and PPR. Operators are requested to contact one of the 2
available handling agents-
midwest 01325 337733 or servisair 01325 331125.

:mad:

[betterfromabove]

Is it not time for a campaign of some sort to ensure access under normal conditions to UK airports.... a la Strasser??

Ain't just in extremis that we might want to get into an airfield, you know;)

As someone said the other day, we'll all end up farm-strippers at this rate.

[flybymike]

Absolutely infuriating development . The same thing happened at Leeds a few years ago. The trouble is that when one airfield does it, then they all want to do it. Jobs and money for the boys. Completely unnecessary just so that they can all pretend to be important international airports, and all justified under the "necessary security "excuse.
:rolleyes:

[Riverboat]

Absolutely outrageous, and I am very disappointed by the pathetic response of AOPA, who should be leading from the front. Most UK aierports are managed by people who have no sympathy or understanding of GA, and they aren't interested in GA because they just want to attract B737s.

A few months ago I landed in Bristol (Lulsgate) in a Seneca - on my own. I parked nxt to the Aero Club and got charged the thick end of £160 for a short term visit. Meanwhile Ryan Air were landing for £1 a passenger.

Now what expense did I cause Bristol? They had ATCOs sitting there, they had a runway that did not need relaying or resurfacing for me, they didn't even bother with dealing with me in any other way except for giving me a landing clearance.

Frankly the whole thing was outrageous, and I protested to AOPA about it, in the hope they might at last make an effort. As far as I know nothing whatsover has been done. (I accept that even if they had done something, persuading current UK airport management would have been a hard task.)

It really is a pity this issue isn't being tackled properly.

[Mike Cross]

I am very disappointed by the pathetic response of AOPA

Mmmmm.... What would you suggest? Security at international airports is one factor.

Another is the Land Compensation Act. There's a brief precis of what happened at Southampton on this page. (http://www.gvagrimley.co.uk/PreBuilt/Valuations/03387_CPO%20Update.pdf) Broadly speaking the law says you can replace your PA28 movements with 737's with no liability to pay compensation.

Then we all know that an airport operator doesn't make his money from runway occupancy, he makes it from renting out space. Southampton have taken that one so far that the former GA parking area has now been built on and I understand that they are parking CAT on the taxiway overnight due to insufficient stand space.

Years ago I flew into Stansted for fuel in a PA28, don't think I'd try it now.

Fact is that regional airports capable of taking CAT can make more money for their owners by doing so and no amount of wringing of hands on the part of GA will alter that. The days of vast acreages of redundant wartime aerodromes being available for light aircraft are sadly coming to an end.

[Lurking123]

Fishburn is very friendly.

[moonym20]

its sad how you can land at almost any large airport in the states, be greeted by helpful groundstaff, in some cases get a red carpet before you even get out the a/c and get the use of a crew car, most places do this for nothing and others for around $20

contrast here and you just have que of suits in high-viz vests each with his/her hand outstreched awating money

what a shame :ugh:

[tmmorris]

Isn't one of the conditions of the licence that they provide access to all aircraft on equal terms? They might argue that having mandatory handling >2t and not <2t would be discriminating in your favour!

Seriously, though, nationalise the lot - airfields, ATS, AIS, the works - like the States. It's part of the national transport infrastructure, FFS.

Tim

[tonyaddison]

i went all the way to tangier via france spain and portugal ,and landed at many regional airports .i think the most we got charged to land and park overnight was about 20-30 euro. all had heavy traffic in and out.i dont know how they can justifiy the rip off charges that are put on us all here.
maybe they just think because you have an aircraft you can afford it?
it is strange how ga and heavy traffic work fine together in europe but they make a big deal about it here.

[Mariner9]

dont know how they can justifiy the rip off charges that are put on us all here.

Very simple really - most of Europe subsidise their airfields from the taxpayer, we dont. Most of Europe have realistic movement limits for their airfields, we dont.

Does anyone here really think a UK party proposing to subsidise airfields by raising income taxes, and simultaneously allowing many more movements at the airfields would get elected?

The landing fees are published (or are avilable on the phone). If you don't like them, go somewhere else (for example Fishburn as suggested above)

[Rod1]

I hope Fishburn enjoys its new popularity! “GA” has been being forced out of the regional airports for years, but most of the time there is an alternative.

Rod1

[LDG_GEAR _MONITOR]

Peterlee is another friendly place with a tarmac strip :ok:- just make sure you call them on the radio especially wed/fri afternoons and weekends and dont do an overhead join ! (skydive drop zone for those that dont know ... !) also have fuel avail both jet and avgas for them that need it

[niknak]

As far as I understand it, it's only mandatory if you want to go through the terminal building.
If you want make arrangements to visit one of the resident G/A or training operators, avoiding the nause of security and extra fees, no handling is required.

[tonyaddison]

cant recall many people in europe complaining about the high taxes they pay to subsidise airports or pilots. maybe all of europes got it wrong and were right?

[Mike Cross]

You may know that the proper title for Shoreham was "Brighton Hove & Worthing Joint Municipal Airport". It came about as a result of Central Government incentives in the 1930's, as did a lot of others, including Portsmouth Airport.

Sadly the era of government subsidies is long gone and if you want a GA airport you need to come up with a model that is financially viable.

On the other hand, if you're a LoCo you'll know exactly how to put the squeeze on local authorities who are keen to see the traffic come to their area, whether in the UK or elsewhere in Europe.

Of course it does help to defeat the nimbys if you have a country with the same population as the UK but six times the land area like France, it also makes GA a more practical alternative to surface transport as the distances are greater.

[Captain Smithy]

Why is compulsory handling required? I often wonder this. Considering most "bigger" airfields have pretty tight security anyway I do not see the need for this.

The charges these cowboys levy are insane... Edinburgh for example is dreadful for visiting aircraft. I agree that "compulsory handling" is merely a money-making scam that also doubles as a disincentive for visiting GA.

GA is seen by airport management as insignificant and more of a pest than a customer. Why I don't quite understand... although at some busier airports I can understand perhaps traffic considerations.

[Duchess_Driver]

The 'Go somewhere else' attitude is exactly what they want you to do. But what if my appointment is just a few hundred yards from airport X. I then have to fly to Y and get a taxi to X which is a waste of time and money.

As has already been said.....if the runway isn't being used by your friendly Ryan or Easy, then all facilities are under utilised. What harm does 'G-XX, one orbit left for spacing from the inbound jet traffic" do. I'd rather have £10 from a PA-28 than nothing at all.

Sure, real estate (sorry, land) at airports is scarce - but there is always some forgotten corner that could be used as parking. It works in the US and other places - why not here? (Rhetorical)

[IO540]

As far as I understand it, it's only mandatory if you want to go through the terminal building.
If you want make arrangements to visit one of the resident G/A or training operators, avoiding the nause of security and extra fees, no handling is required.

Unfortunately the above (which works everywhere in Europe, not just the UK) may require subterfuge. Some airports are getting wise to it; I was closely questioned by Bournemouth tower last year as to whether I actually did business at the establishment where I was parking.

At Norwich, people go via a certain school (don't know which) but that will be OK only for the locals who have the contacts. However this then involves parking on grass, liberally covered in pebbles and with a few potholes. I had some regular business there a few years ago and narrowly avoided prop strikes only by walking the route first.

It's doubly stupid because Norwich has a vast army of security staff whose time is wasted confiscating toothpaste from GA pilots. What is their average salary? I am sure it is well above NMW.

As has already been said.....if the runway isn't being used by your friendly Ryan or Easy, then all facilities are under utilised. What harm does 'G-XX, one orbit left for spacing from the inbound jet traffic" do. I'd rather have £10 from a PA-28 than nothing at all.

In communist countries, people would be locked away for that kind of progressive thinking :) Can't do that in the UK either. But yes it's obvious.

p.s. where is EGNV? I can't be bothered to go and look it up.

[groundhand]

Some in teresting posts.

My guess the complainers are all GA flyers.

The argument that the runway is there and not being used is irrelevant.
Airports - like it or not - are commercial operations.

Having been involvd in ground handling at airports where they have introduced mandatory handling was no fun for me, nor profit making. It tended to be a right pain in the **** as the GA brigade, normally, have no concept of what is an 'acceptable' charge.

Basically a charge, any charge, is unacceptable to most GA flyers. I very well recall when a small cafe upped their cost of a cup of tea/coffee from 50p to 70p; the GA fraternity shouted long and hard about the huge increase and then went for a 'spin' in their little beastie.

Reality dear boys, reality.
No-one owes you a favour or a freebie.

GH

[Lurking123]

p.s. where is EGNV? I can't be bothered to go and look it up.

RAF Middleton St George.:}

[Duchess_Driver]

You mean Teesside - Sorry, Durham - Tees Valley (Nowhere near Durham, did Ryanair name this one?)

[Captain Smithy]

groundhand - You'd be correct in assuming that all complaints are indeed from those of us who fly GA. After all that's what the thread is about.

Airports are indeed commercial operations - that we all understand. I don't think any of us would be silly enough to expect to waltz into airports with absolutely no charge whatsoever. Of course we need to pay.

But the main point is: Why do the charges have to be so expensive? And why do we need costly compulsory handling when it is in many cases unnecissary?

I think this is especially relevant considering the, ahem, "inflated" landing fees many airports charge.

[Rod1]

Some have forgotten that all most GA aircraft need to operate is 600 m of flat grass (or less). If the regional airports want to charge you lots of dosh and you are VFR and flying for fun chances are there is a closer alternative with a 50/50 chance of a small donation or a landing fee of around £10. If you are IFR and flying for work then work pays, but you could go by other means.

Rod1

[XX621]

Lets just cut to the chase. The UK is not really the place to be if you want to do serious private flying. Weather, costs, culture, airfields - its all stacked up against us in, unfortunately, increasing amounts.:(

What happened to the spirit of aviation over here? :(

There is only real solution. A one-way flightplan over the FIR boundary.

Au-revoir:ok:

[stocker]

Aberdeen is another charge thats hard to swallow. My last quote for a C172 and overnight parking was £108 inc VAT.
Its all the wee things that add up, there are the Nav Fees,landing,handling departure etc etc.

An alternative at Aberdeen is to nip into Whiterashes where you can land for a fiver and overnight for an additional 15 quid. You will recieve nearly all the services provided by ATC, (and you will need them for this visit) for a fraction of the cost. OK its a bit further out of town but it depands what your visit is for.

Whiterashes is not in Pooleys though so check the AFE VFR guide.

I agree there have to be charges and you use up a lot of peoples time at some facilities and they also need to be paid to fund their own hobbies so thankfully there are usually alternatives.

For Edinburgh you have Kirknewton, also no longer in Pooleys but still available. Last time I was in there it was donations.......

[GASH !]

I took a Seminole into Bournemouth last week on a training flight. Total cost was £102 including mandatory handling and 2 hours of parking.

[Rod1]

Lets just cut to the chase. The UK is not really the place to be if you want to do serious private flying. Weather, costs, culture, airfields - its all stacked up against us in, unfortunately, increasing amounts.

What happened to the spirit of aviation over here?

Depends on your definition of “serious”. If you are talking your own aircraft, lots of flying for fun and lots of camaraderie then it is alive and well, has avoided most of the costs, does not have a hi ves vest and does not fly from regional airfields, but mostly form farm strips – find your local LAA/BMAA group.

If you mean IFR for business, then that is a completely different problem…

Rod1