Council run = short on commercial smarts.

Hmmm, I don’t think it’s really about “commercial” smarts but rather “strategic” smarts in relation to aerodromes and GA.

No council I know runs the public toilets in the town park as a “commercial” venture or “business unit”. Those toilets will cost more to establish and maintain than they will ‘generate in fees’. The toilets are nonetheless established and maintained as a public facility which makes the town a ‘nicer’ place to be and, therefore, visit.

For some reason, many councils can’t see an aerodrome as being just another public facility which is of substantial intrinsic value without ‘generating fees’ or ‘breaking even’ as a ‘business unit’. Aerial fire fighting base. Aeromedical evacuation facility. Supplies can be flown in and out when the town is cut off by floods or fires. Courier and mail service hub. And another means to attract visitors with $$ to the local area.

The Temora Council had the strategic foresight to and is now reaping the benefits of actively encouraging the use and expansion of the Temora aerodrome. The Aviation Museum chose to set up there, for a reason. Does the Temora Council charge landing fees for itinerant general aviation? No. Do aerodrome usage fees for Temora aerodrome ‘cover the costs’ of maintaining the aerodrome? No. But is the aerodrome a strategic asset that generates millions in revenue for the Temora township each year? You betcha!

(And the insurance requirements imposed on itinerant GA aircraft using the Temora aerodrome? Nil.)

Airport Fees
 

So I see high airport landing and usage fees.

The question I have to ask what do those same councils charge the limes of the Grey Nomad with caravan in tow, or the double B semi truck going through town. Do they have to pay a traversing fee or is there blatant discrimination going on here?

You mean the same visitors who whinge about spending $$ on a landing or usage fee?

And yet Temora charge a family $13 a time (or $605-$726 a year) to use the town swimming pool.

Because for many councils they are none of those things. They are just high cost assets (liabilities) used directly or indirectly by very few of the ratepayers. Of any of those points, they may maintain the aerodrome for the aeromedical potential, but that is going to be a very infrequent use, and not something that they aren't going to try and offset some of the costs of 365 days a year maintenance to provide.

We don't whinge about it. We just don't visit. That's the point.

If a council wants to charge my friends and I $10 to land/park when what we intended to do was spend around $2,000 in the local area over a weekend, the local businesses miss out. We go elsewhere.And if you check the council website for Temora (and e.g. Cowra), they specify a landing/usage fee for their respective aerodromes. Both councils came to understand that charging the fee was 'silly' (see reason above).

Then "many councils" aren't very strategic thinkers are they? That's a problem. That "very infrequent use" could be the difference between life and death for someone, or a town being immolated or not. The local pool's not much help when someone needs to be medivac'd to a city hospital. I suppose it's a good source of water to fight bushfires, but the most effective aerial fire fighting aircraft need fuel and a good runway when they're chockas. I'm always happy when they're sitting on standby, less than a 100 metres from my property, on 'catastrophic fire danger' day.

One way in which we 'encourage' our local council to be a little more 'strategic' is to provide data, based on aviation visitor spend in the local area, as to what would be lost if the Avdata snakeoil were to be purchased by council. The twice a work-day courier service company told council they would simply stop coming if fees were introduced. And we also inform the local businesses what would happen. Effective so far.

That's the problem, LB.

Many naysayers will poo-poo the idea of "saving" a $20 landing fee and $10/night parking charge, but it's not about the $$ - if it was, we wouldn't fly a light plane. Pilots tend to be (mostly) level headed, able to see through a ruse and don't like being taken for a ride. That $20 landing fee is maybe 2% of what we'd spend for a weekend away when you factor in accommodation, tucker & drinks, But it's also 20 minutes, or 50NM of fuel in the RV. It's the difference between going to Tamworth or Armidale, visiting Narrabri or Moree, or Gunnedah, or even Maroochydore vs Caboolture, Redcliffe or Caloundra if we wanted to go up to Queen-P's-Land.

$20 is stuff all in aviation-speak, but that's not the point. I don't like being taken for cash cow, or treated differently from Ma & Pa Kettle in their 4-tonne Landcruiser and 3.5-tonne caravan just because I want to arrive in my 750kg RV. Yes I have a plane. No, I'm not "rich". Ma & Pa Kettle probably have more disposable income than I do, yet they get a free pass (and often, free camping for their van with Council's allowing free-camping in their showgrounds and the like!) for their vehicle that weighs 10x mine...

And I don't believe in supporting Council's that feel that way.

Does anyone have a photo of the last page of Avdata invoice ? The page with all prices squeezed onto the a4 page. That was the most ugliest invoice I've ever seen in my life.

Exactly. Hear! Hear!

The beginning of the end was when the Commonwealth gave away airports. Bit by bit it all just got too hard, lovely little puddle jumper sold because I couldn't afford it. Put the CASA factor in and it became frustrating as well as expensive. Throw in extortionate councils and petty officials at regional airports the whole experience became not worth the effort.
Private GA is for the well off and people after a tax break, no longer for people on an average wage. The good times will never come back.

https://avdata.com.au/airport-charge-rates

But you are different. They don't have to provide a dedicated facility that no-one else can use to enable Ma & Pa Kettle to visit
You know why? Because there's many more of them. Who do you think makes up the vast majority of visitors to these small regional centers? I'll give you a hint. It's not 1 or 2 GA flights a month (if that). Even Temora, with their generous "no landing fees for itinerant aircraft" , only average around 20 non-local landings a month. They can afford this because they have the commercial agreements with their training organisations, ag operators, and the museum. The vast majority of the visitors to Temora drive there. If Temora introduced landing fees and say, half GA said *F*ck that!", and don't go, it really makes no difference to them. Conversely, if Upper Cumbaktawest says "Hey, we've abolished fees" and movements double, from hardly anything to twice hardly anything, it doesn't make any difference because no one wants to go there anyway.

Regarding local councils, guess how many grey nomads would turn up in their country towns if the main streets are wall to wall parking meters and the rest of the streets are signposted “permit only”? That’s right, not many would visit after the word got around. Why? Because parking fees are “grudge purchases” like insurance and fuel. You never get a good feeling from a grudge purchase, unlike buying chocolate. A lot of people bitterly resented grudge purchases and will go far out of their way to avoid them.


Given that parking fees are grudge purchases, you have to factor in the opportunity costs to arrive at the full cost of a decision.

[QUOTE]Opportunity costs represent the potential benefits that an individual, investor, or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another. Because opportunity costs are unseen by definition, they can be easily overlooked.[/QUOTE]

‘In airport terms, these are the aviation visits you don’t get, the aircraft related businesses that go elsewhere and the people who don’t migrate to your town because they have an aircraft and your Council decided to levy fees.

‘’When you total up these potential costs, it is no surprise how financially short sighted money grubbing through landing fees can be. aFor example an over night stop for me generally involves dropping approximately $400 into the local economy (accomodation $150. Car hire $90, Dinner and refreshments $50, refuelling $100 - $300). Mildura will never see that money, Wentworth (perhaps - they have landing fees), Kerang or Swan Hill will.

It's still a numbers game though. You over estimate GA's importance to the local economy in sufficient numbers that would make any difference vs visitors arriving by other means. I would hazard a guess that most small aerodromes are mainly just a fuel stop on the way to somewhere more interesting.

Like Dubbo for example. I've been through there so many times and only usually ever purchased fuel and kept moving. Due to the landing fees many now fill up at Narromine and keep going. Of about a dozen stops at Dubbo I'd say I've only ever been into down once due to weather or daylight.

Geesus, is it that hard to see the benefit to the whole community of an aerodrome asset? Only one or two GA movements per month, so stuff them, we'll charge them a fee that is ridiculous and doesn't have a hope of doing anything for the good of the aerodrome. The whinge comes from idiots brainwashed by 'user pays' when that same idiot is paying some of the highest taxes in the world. Those rich pilots should pay their fair share! Interesting, I don't know too many rich pilots.

But when it's a one off visit from an RFDS or air ambulance to pick up a loved one involved in an accident and get them to city medical care they'd be the first to whinge if their loved one couldn't be picked up because the aerodrome is ******.

A few years ago I flew into Dubbo in a 172.

Wanting a coffee and to use the bathroom, I had to walk outside the AD via a security gate, and then in the front terminal entrance. Upon getting to security, the conveyer belt was switched off, and four - yes, four - security pelicans were sat down on their phones. They had to switch the belt on to 'screen' me even though I had flown in and was wearing an ASIC. The next RPT flight was at nearly four hours away!

I strongly suggest that you all read these reports. The value of a small local aerodrome is overstated by many in GA and the costs of maintaining are not understood.
https://airports.asn.au/wp-content/u...ember-2016.pdf
https://airports.asn.au/wp-content/u...n-airports.pdf

Vag…..quite right, and CASA micromanagement and over regulation precludes local GA businesses from starting and growing, thus exacerbating the revenue shortfall. AAA are victims of CASA too.

Are you able to summarise the methodology used in these reports to calculate the "value of a small local aerodrome"?

I think what Vag277 is trying to say is that the economic value to the local community of sporadic visitors using small local aerodromes is of much less importance than the ability to provide critical services to their community such as aeromed, emergency response etc. As can be seen from the report. small local airports almost always operate at a considerable loss, but this loss is borne by the community as the cost of having such a facility available for those needed operations, even though it means other services required by the community suffer. Thus, I have absolutely no problem with a council wanting to charge itinerants landing and parking fees, because they aren't really providing it for them. The ability for Capt Joe Bloggs to drop in for fuel (far more likely than staying the night) is just a by-product of the airport being available to service the community . Any extra that they can garner to offset and assist in providing an essential service to their community is justified imo, and ultimately allows them to spend the equivalent dollar elsewhere on necessary community services.
Rather than begrudging landing fees, GA should be thinking of it as their contribution to helping the local community. By staying away for the sake of $20 you are guaranteeing that that apron won't be extended, or that that pothole will not get filled in.

So typically Australian. Aviation for the purposes of private travel is just a marginal irritation and not to be encouraged. Aerodromes aren’t there for them.

Before ALOP, aerodromes were there for everybody at no cost. That's because Australia still had some inkling of the importance of private aviation along with other forms of general aviation.

I don’t stay away for the sake of $20. I stay away because I’m not welcome.

Good luck extending an apron or fixing a pothole with 20 bucks.

You'll bring more money into the local economy therefore a greater economic benefit by dropping fees and having people want to stay the night, grabbing a pot and parmy, grabbing a cab each way to the airport etc.

Part of my flight planning is landing fees where I want to overnight - refuel.

This 'user pays' bull**** is a pox on the community. It's a pleasure flying in countries that see aviation as critical infrastructure that benefits all.

In 2020 there were 72K camper vans and 669K caravans registered in Australia. By comparison GA is nothing. Our comparative contribution to regional communities is negligible so is not relevant.

Presumably your "our" is a reference to just us mere private pilots flying for pleasure? If not, what are you including in "GA"?

And your word "contribution" is a little vague. Do you mean "economic" contribution? If not, what do you mean by "contribution"?

On “numbers games” and the “costs of maintaining” an aerodrome
 

I have an interest in a property with a hangar and aircraft at YCTM. The local council has – to its credit – established an ‘Aerodrome Advisory Committee’ as a forum to listen to users’ perspectives and to run ideas up the flagpole or foreshadow proposals. The Committee was formed in the wake of a meeting that the Council called when it was proposing to implement fees based on the Avdata system. I am on the Committee. As a consequence of these meetings, we got to see Council’s annual expenses and income for the aerodrome.

The first issue to become stark is that the single largest expense – around 25% - is ‘general rates’. That is, rates Council charges of itself and pays to itself. Whilst this may be standard accounting practice, it does not represent an actual out-of-pocket cost to Council.

Then I discovered that some of the original aerodrome land handed to Council has been fenced off for agricultural use. The agricultural users pay a fee to Council for that use. I asked whether the fees those people pay to Council for use of that aerodrome land get accounted for as income from the aerodrome? No.

Then I asked whether the proceeds of the sale of subdivided blocks of land, which were originally part of the aerodrome handed to the Council then sold freehold by the Council, were accounted for as income from the aerodrome or set aside for the maintenance of the aerodrome? No.

Do any of the rates paid by the people who bought those blocks and put hangars on them appear as income from the aerodrome? No. (And as the Council casts about trying charge someone – anyone – fees, the latest proposal is to charge those ‘locals’ and not itinerants for aerodrome use. *sigh*)

For a while the ‘main’ windsock – the ubiquitous PAL illuminated jobbie from the Jurassic Period with the circle below for dumbbells/crosses – was jamming. The defect could easily have been repaired by the engineering firm less than 50 metres away. (I saw the defect ‘up close and personal’ – as I occasionally climbed a ladder to free the sock.) The Council instead decided to replace the whole pole/sock/lighting assembly at a cost of $10k plus (exact amount to be seen in the next set of figures made available to the AAC). I’m not criticising the people who made the decision to replace the whole thing. But if the Council’s really concerned about the costs of the aerodrome, why not repair at a 10th of the cost of the replacement? (And before someone pipes up with speculative reasons, please don’t…)

Then appeared some brand new ‘industrial strength’ mower tractor attachments. They do a fantastic job! Word on the grapevine is that they were purchased “for” the aerodrome and will be accounted as a cost to the aerodrome. But are they used to mow only the aerodrome? No. (But I stress here that I need to do some digging to find the facts, first hand.)

Then someone who’s been around here for a very long time, including when the aerodrome was given to Council by the Commonwealth, asked: “What happened to the million dollars given to Council at that time by the Commonwealth to fund the maintenance of the aerodrome?” Shrugs all ‘round. “Probably went into general revenue.” Oh.

The Council has plans to subdivide more blocks of original aerodrome land and sell them freehold in an ‘air park’ arrangement. That’s a good idea. But….. I asked where the proceeds of those new sales would go – now that Council understands that aerodromes cost money to maintain and those blocks of land, like the earlier ones sold, were given to Council as part of the aerodrome. Lots of humming and frowning. “Maybe we’ll use it to fund the development of land at […a location that has nothing to do with aviation..].” Oh.

The biggest surprise was how small the delta between measured annual expenses and measured income is: A number of thousands that can be counted on the fingers of one’s hands. The local community is getting an absolute bargain. It may not be appreciated by many in the community, but that’s the fact. (Nobody complained when the firefighting aircraft were positioned on standby and the area was under extreme threat of fire. When the wet set in, nobody was complaining about the aerial agricultural operations that could only be carried out from a sealed runway. Plenty of noise complaints which, fortunately, the Council dealt with on a common sense basis.)

I have said publicly, and will continue to say publicly, that the Council’s suggestion that YCTM aerodrome isn’t paying its own way is not true in fact. And that’s just on tawdry dollars in and out. I’m not suggesting corruption; I’m just stating that when expenditure and income are accounted for in the way Council accounts for YCTM, it is always going to look like it’s making a ‘loss’.

I don’t think YCTM is on its lonesome. I recently attended a fly in at an aerodrome where the local council was proposing to impose landing fees. I spoke to the local aeroclub president and went through the kinds of issues we’re dealing with at YCTM. And at one point he paused and said: “Hang on a sec’. Part of this aerodrome has been fenced off for agricultural use!” Best to start digging, old mate!

Some people in Council continue to be hell bent on trying to make up the on-paper shortfall in fees somehow but, as I keep telling them, the fees will cost more to collect than will be collected. That lesson has already been learned the really hard way at many other places. I'm resigned to watching Council learn the same lesson, despite being forewarned.

I’m going to conduct a simple test. I’m going to offer to relieve Council of the financial burden that YCTM has apparently become for it. I’m going offer to take the aerodrome land off Council’s hands, at the price Council paid for it, and take over responsibility for operating it and all associated costs. And so generous am I, that I won’t ask for $1million to fund maintenance. Does anyone believe my offer will be accepted?

In any event, Cootamundra is a great town in walking distance from the aerodrome. Please drop in and stay for a while. The good news is that Council is currently pursuing a proposal to impose aerodrome usage fees on us ratepaying locals, but not on visitors. So you’re welcome!

.
None of that pays for the airport though. It lines the pocket of the hotel owner, the publican, and the cab operator, all of whom are already in situ, and would be anyway if one or two GA through didn't come through.

It is seen as critical infrastructure in this country. That's why so many aerodromes operate at a loss. It's extremely rare to see one close.

LB
Read the reports to find the answer. The importance of small regional airports is widely recognised. The problem councils have is the cost, especially where there is no or little RPT based revenue. That is why landing fees are imposed. Locations like Temora benefit from the large number of vehicle based visitors to town for many reasons, including the museum. Visiting aircraft are small volume for most of the year.

'Lines the pocket' of the hotel owner, who employs a barmaid or two and a cleaner.

Operates at a loss, or provides a critical service to the community, especially in times of need:

- Clinics because doctors and nurses WILL NOT move to regional areas.
- Bushfire and Flood Relief.
- Medevac.

Charging an itinerant aircraft $20 to land is patently ridiculous, it does NOTHING to contribute aerodrome works, except to piss the itinerant off, make them choose another aerodrome to grab fuel and POSSIBLY spend the night.

Aerodromes aren't seen as critical infrastructure, apart from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc. They are seen as a hindrance and a money pit, that is until the Mayor's son, daughter or wife need a Kingair to Sydney for emergency medical treatment.

Money pit, unless the aerodromes are correctly accounted for in the manner that Clinton described above. The soft and passive corruption that Australia tolerates will never allow that accounting to occur of course.

Good post Clinton

Let me take the liberty of tweaking that for you.

Temora benefits from a large number of vehicle based visitors for many reasons, mainly the museum’s air displays. The air display days provide the perfect excuse for the bike club and the car club to organise a rally to Temora, and for other travellers to visit and stay there. They don’t rally to visit and stay at Wallendbeen or Stockingbingal or Barmedman or Ardelethan (nice though all those towns may be).

And most of those Temora air display activities constitute … general aviation. Most of the maintenance is done by volunteer maintenance engineers with …. general aviation backgrounds. New general aviation businesses have been established at Temora.

I get it that, in Australia, it’s convenient for those in the bureaucracy to downplay the economic value of general aviation by perpetuating the impression that general aviation just a diminishing bunch of whinging private pilots at the margins. But fire fighting is general aviation. Medevac is general aviation. Search and rescue is general aviation. ‘Crop dusting’ is general aviation.

Where do the pilots who fly those aircraft start out? Where do the engineers who keep those aircraft come from? We drive small flying schools into the ground with charges and regulatory over-kill, and charge rents and fees that deter investment in other aviation-related businesses, such that many aerodromes are ghost towns most of the time, just begging to be turned into warehouses and DFOs. We can bring in pilots and engineers from overseas on visas, so we should just get on with it.

What a lucky country.

EDIT: I don't know why 'Prune automatically embeds a FB post - I can't do anything about it sorry. And I know the bottom link is the thread title. 'Prune - again - automatically parses the title instead of the actual URL like the other one. NFI why...

= = =

Speaking of landing fees, I saw on FB that Upper Hunter Council has their new Operational Plan out for public comment, which incorporates the landing (and other) fee structure for Scone Airport - Pages 323 & 324 have the airport fees... Tell you what, you wouldn't want to be going there for a weekend! ~$25 landing fee and around $75 in parking if you stayed for 48 hours with an average bug-smasher.. $100 before you've spent a dollar in town I think is pretty pi$$ poor.

You might also care to note that Upper Hunter Council also provide - at no charge - only a few minutes walk from the center of town, complete with a dump point, for any Grey Nomads. Again, why is one lot of tourists actively supported with no-cost facilities yet others aren't?

For anyone that wants to put their two bob in, either email [email protected] or go via snail-mail to: General Manager, PO Box 208, Scone NSW 2337. Here's what I'm putting in, so feel free to copy, paste and tweak it as required - but for fuxake put something in to try to put a stop to these ongoing bloody fees. It only takes one Council to abolish landing fees for private fliers that'll in turn provide an example to others.

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…

What's with these guys not accepting good old AU$??

The people who come up with these ideas probably have MBAs from a US university. Smartest guys in the room.

They do. That's why it's still there.
And thus has never had to pay a landing fee himself. The invoices got sent to the boss. Who paid them.
but is actually far more likely just to refuel and leave.
But that involves infrastructure that someone else has to provide and maintain. If I want to enjoy golf, I have to pay to use the golf course. If I want to enjoy car racing, I have to pay to use the track. But of course, flying should be free. Why? What makes your hobby so special compared to all the others people enjoy?

Golf courses and car race tracks have yet to prove themselves very valuable as pieces of defence capability, in their own right.

But I've tried. A wise mentor of mine advised me that you can lead a horse to water but you don't have to suck through its arse to make it drink.

What is the justification for use of the aerodrome at no cost?

The same as you use a road for 'nothing.' That's right, it's not nothing is it: rego, fuel excise, consolidated revenue, fines, council rates. You don't think you pay enough already? Add the bull**** of 'user pays' yet another tax.

Of course 'user pays' is not applied to EVERYTHING is it, otherwise you'd be paying for the kiddies to use local park facilities. I don't use the park facilities the indignant say, I don't have children the righteous say, they should pay, my council rates shouldn't be used for those facility repairs and how about the bludgers that come in from other council areas and use them????

User pays bull****. Universally applied to whatever service is 'provided' that they can get away with applying it to.

It is so typical of bureaucrats, isn’t it tossbag?

Private pilots are people who’ve apparently spent their lives successfully avoiding paying any kind of tax or charge and not making any other contribution to public infrastructure, now selfishly using aerodromes at ‘no cost’.

What is the justification for use of a primary school at ‘no cost’? Where do poor people get off, sending their children to get a ‘free’ education? Maybe it’s because we’re supposedly an advanced civilisation where education has an intrinsic value measured not just in dollars. It’s funded as a public good, out of the common wealth.

(I know: Private aviation has no intrinsic value. The skills and knowledge and capability are completely worthless to society. It’s just self-indulgence.)

The ALOP aerodromes were our (Commonwealth taxpayer’s) land given to local councils with a large wadge of our (Commonwealth taxpayer’s) money to be salted away to fund upkeep. Councils used it for other stuff. And that’s our fault, apparently.

I invested at YCTM because the Council had an enlightened understanding of the real value of the aerodrome. I pay rates. I spend lots in the local area. There’s a throughput charge for the Avgas bowser that goes to Council. And now Council wants to charge me a new fee because I’m using the aerodrome at ‘no cost’!

My preference is that Council charge only us ‘locals’ new fees because I do not want to deter visitors to YCTM. I want as many people as possible to use YTCM at ‘no cost’, because I know the real value of private aviation. And I’ll demonstrate to Council that which I’ve told them over and over again: The cost of collecting the fees will outweigh the fees collected. I’ll just reduce my Avgas purchases at YCTM and fill up at YTEM instead, such that the throughput charge I would otherwise have happily paid at YCTM outweighs the new fees I’m charged. Even bean-counting bureaucrats should be able to understand the folly. (There's a metaphor about using honey rather than vinegar to achieve a desired outcome.)

That's a pretty long bow to be reaching for, and a pretty spurious rationale as to why you should get to use it for free. It that's the best you can come up with, you're clutching at straws.
You do know how ALOP worked right? The Govt used to provide to local councils 50% of the funding required to maintain aerodromes in the Plan. Then between roughly 1988-1993, the Govt began unilaterally transferring their responsibilities 100% to the local councils, with provisos as to continuing operation as an aerodrome and restrictions on land use etc. the "large wadge" ($78M spread over 234 aerodromes) of taxpayers money was in the form of grants sufficient to offset operating losses (see, it was recognised at the time they were bottomless money pits - which is why the Feds wanted out) during the transfer of ownership and were generally considered sufficient to cover the net losses for the next 10 years. So essentially, that "large wadge" ran out 20 years ago, and councils have been covering 100% of the losses ever since. The grants were never expected to cover costs in perpetuity. If the council blew the funds immediately on other things within their remit, then they've been paying for the airport for 30 years out of their own pockets. So I don't buy into this ALOP hand-wringing. It's ancient history, and it's effects were over years ago.
This is from a Parliamentary Committee roughly 10 years after ALOP ceased discussing the effects: Aviation Report They knew they were in trouble 20 years ago.
In it's most literal sense, yes. I don't know why you think society owes you something, or you have stepped outside the realms of ordinary, just because you can fly.