Rip-off Luton
Some more money for Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ici
Age: 56
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to say it but this thread just goes to show the extent which the (excessive) UK airport charges have become accepted. Robert Vesco, it is not Europe as such, it is the UK that charges horrendous prices for almost everything. Continental Europe (and anywhere else I can think of) are extremely cheap in comparison. Plus the service is much better (Wx briefs, etc).
So what, if the airport happens to be a large one (ie Luton, or even LBA or NCL)? What happened to the "economy of scale?" Why should we get stung so much money to take 2nd priority in a queue (which we do, don't we)?
I have to laugh when I fly into Europe. I can land and park (for a week) at a very major Spanish airport for about 30 Euros. Major French airfield charges (Perpignan, Toulouse, Tours, etc, etc) seem to be consistently less than 5 Euro.
FujiF (who fortunately lives near to France)
So what, if the airport happens to be a large one (ie Luton, or even LBA or NCL)? What happened to the "economy of scale?" Why should we get stung so much money to take 2nd priority in a queue (which we do, don't we)?
I have to laugh when I fly into Europe. I can land and park (for a week) at a very major Spanish airport for about 30 Euros. Major French airfield charges (Perpignan, Toulouse, Tours, etc, etc) seem to be consistently less than 5 Euro.
FujiF (who fortunately lives near to France)
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew into Basle-Mulhouse earlier in the year, an airport
which is at least the equivalent of Luton and was
charged ~20Euro's for my SR-22 light single.
-- Andrew
which is at least the equivalent of Luton and was
charged ~20Euro's for my SR-22 light single.
-- Andrew
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Buster
It would appear that you believe that your level of activity on the forum entitles you request that threads are deleted when you are bored with them.
I would be interested what stage of your flying career you have reached.
Are you paying for your flying?
Are you flying for free?
Are you getting paid to fly?
Are you getting paid not to fly?
The obstacles that are quite uneccessarily put in the path of those of us who wish to use GA aircraft for business purposes(as opposed to car,train,scheduled a/c are legion.
Landing/Handling /Approach Fees
Fines for movements out of hours (1min!)
Restictions on movement times. Can you believe that you can't take off from Biggin beforte 9am on the weekend!
Lack of airfield lighting
The list goes on
It need not be this way
In many other parts of the world they do not take this attitude.
In the US there are very few airports that are too big and full of their own importance to turn away GA aircraft.
Landing fees are almost unheard of if you uplift fuel.
They can't believe we charge for approaches, they encourage practise and currency.
Handling fees! Borrow the courtesy car.
Common traffic frequencies allow for the perfectly safe operation of airfields without air traffic.
Most airfields have pilot operated lighting systems for 24 hr operation.
It is us in the UK who must wake up to the benifits of a vibrant GA industry and adopt the practices of those who are making a much better job of it than we are.
And yes we should object to over charging and too many RULES RULES RULES.
I would be interested what stage of your flying career you have reached.
Are you paying for your flying?
Are you flying for free?
Are you getting paid to fly?
Are you getting paid not to fly?
The obstacles that are quite uneccessarily put in the path of those of us who wish to use GA aircraft for business purposes(as opposed to car,train,scheduled a/c are legion.
Landing/Handling /Approach Fees
Fines for movements out of hours (1min!)
Restictions on movement times. Can you believe that you can't take off from Biggin beforte 9am on the weekend!
Lack of airfield lighting
The list goes on
It need not be this way
In many other parts of the world they do not take this attitude.
In the US there are very few airports that are too big and full of their own importance to turn away GA aircraft.
Landing fees are almost unheard of if you uplift fuel.
They can't believe we charge for approaches, they encourage practise and currency.
Handling fees! Borrow the courtesy car.
Common traffic frequencies allow for the perfectly safe operation of airfields without air traffic.
Most airfields have pilot operated lighting systems for 24 hr operation.
It is us in the UK who must wake up to the benifits of a vibrant GA industry and adopt the practices of those who are making a much better job of it than we are.
And yes we should object to over charging and too many RULES RULES RULES.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grobit - Please remember that GA is anything from a C150 to a 747 that is not on CAT. Yes we will orbit or hold to let CAT get on with it BUT not when we pay the extraordinary fees charged by some airports. CAT also is not averse to intefereing with GA traffic but that is rare as the majority of pilots are understanding and considerate of each others operational needs.
Has any one noticed that as soon as an airport puts "International" (e.g. Humberside international) they get ideas above there station and up the fees for all. Lastly why does one have to pay navigation charges to go into Luton in anything less that minima conditions?
Has any one noticed that as soon as an airport puts "International" (e.g. Humberside international) they get ideas above there station and up the fees for all. Lastly why does one have to pay navigation charges to go into Luton in anything less that minima conditions?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's unfortunate that GA is always the left out in the cold when Commercial Air Transport decide they want to take over. CAT pushes GA out of airfields and airspace for commercial gain.
It's a pity that the annexation of airspace and facilities by big business does not seem to carry any quid pro quo in the way of provision for those displaced.
So in this vein, how about a few statistics, lifted shamelessly from the GAAC website
"It may surprise you to learn that, in terms of flying activity, GA is a much bigger activity than Commercial Air Transport (CAT).
Did you know for instance that:
there are more Private Pilot Licences than Commercial Licences?
there are eight times more GA aircraft in the UK than there are airliners?
there are at least six times more movements by GA aircraft in the UK than by CAT craft?
worldwide, GA aircraft accounted for 75% of all hours flown by civil aircraft?
of the 118 million aircraft departures Worldwide, 101 million were General Aviation
in 1989 there were 40,230 people employed in CAT Worldwide but 335,400 employed in GA
in 1989 CAT employed only 21% of all pilots Worldwide
in Europe, of 24.3 million aircraft movements in 1989, 18.6 million were accounted for by GA
in the UK in 1989, there were on average 1,289 daily movements of CAT aircraft. The figure for GA aircraft was 8,375
(Source: ICAO figures for 1989 excl.USSR/China)"
But then of course flying in light aircraft is a "leisure activity" whereas the thousands of people who fly out of Luton each day exporting money from the UK with the aid of tax-free fuel are by contrast engaged in .... errr..... going on holiday!
Yours, gently stirring the pot
Mike
It's a pity that the annexation of airspace and facilities by big business does not seem to carry any quid pro quo in the way of provision for those displaced.
So in this vein, how about a few statistics, lifted shamelessly from the GAAC website
"It may surprise you to learn that, in terms of flying activity, GA is a much bigger activity than Commercial Air Transport (CAT).
Did you know for instance that:
there are more Private Pilot Licences than Commercial Licences?
there are eight times more GA aircraft in the UK than there are airliners?
there are at least six times more movements by GA aircraft in the UK than by CAT craft?
worldwide, GA aircraft accounted for 75% of all hours flown by civil aircraft?
of the 118 million aircraft departures Worldwide, 101 million were General Aviation
in 1989 there were 40,230 people employed in CAT Worldwide but 335,400 employed in GA
in 1989 CAT employed only 21% of all pilots Worldwide
in Europe, of 24.3 million aircraft movements in 1989, 18.6 million were accounted for by GA
in the UK in 1989, there were on average 1,289 daily movements of CAT aircraft. The figure for GA aircraft was 8,375
(Source: ICAO figures for 1989 excl.USSR/China)"
But then of course flying in light aircraft is a "leisure activity" whereas the thousands of people who fly out of Luton each day exporting money from the UK with the aid of tax-free fuel are by contrast engaged in .... errr..... going on holiday!
Yours, gently stirring the pot
Mike
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems like there are two types of comparison here. And if you take the time to look at it, I think you'll find that the "blame" is being put on the wrong people.
First of all, we're comparing the fees which a 737 is charged with those of a PA28, and attempting to put some kind of proportion on their relative size. Well, sorry, but it doesn't work like that - the PA28 occupies the runway for, near enough, the same amount of time as a 737. What's more, after it's landed it's going to take on a hell of a load less fuel. It will have few passengers, which in turn means that there are less people wandering around the shopping centres - a situation which if it were allowed to develop would force the owner to reduce the rent on the retail units. About the only area where a PA28 really deserves to be charged less than a 737, in terms of raw numbers, is in parking, because you can squeeze a lot more PA28s into the same space. But airfield operators generally don't charge a PA28 the same as they charge a 737. That's very nice of them, I reckon - from an economic point of view, they're loosing money by charging us little guys less.
So the blame doesn't lie with the airfield owners.
The other comparison which people are trying to make is with the system in the US. As has been pointed out time after time whenever this subject gets raised, the US has a totally different attitude towards airports, right up to government level. Airports are owned by the government, and the government pays for the running and upkeep of the airports. That's why GA types are allowed to land at huge international airports with little or no landing fees - there are obviously huge costs associated with a PA28 landing at LAX, but the government foots the bill.
So if you want our system to be more like theirs, it's not the airport you need to talk to, it's our government. Good luck!
FFF
-------------
First of all, we're comparing the fees which a 737 is charged with those of a PA28, and attempting to put some kind of proportion on their relative size. Well, sorry, but it doesn't work like that - the PA28 occupies the runway for, near enough, the same amount of time as a 737. What's more, after it's landed it's going to take on a hell of a load less fuel. It will have few passengers, which in turn means that there are less people wandering around the shopping centres - a situation which if it were allowed to develop would force the owner to reduce the rent on the retail units. About the only area where a PA28 really deserves to be charged less than a 737, in terms of raw numbers, is in parking, because you can squeeze a lot more PA28s into the same space. But airfield operators generally don't charge a PA28 the same as they charge a 737. That's very nice of them, I reckon - from an economic point of view, they're loosing money by charging us little guys less.
So the blame doesn't lie with the airfield owners.
The other comparison which people are trying to make is with the system in the US. As has been pointed out time after time whenever this subject gets raised, the US has a totally different attitude towards airports, right up to government level. Airports are owned by the government, and the government pays for the running and upkeep of the airports. That's why GA types are allowed to land at huge international airports with little or no landing fees - there are obviously huge costs associated with a PA28 landing at LAX, but the government foots the bill.
So if you want our system to be more like theirs, it's not the airport you need to talk to, it's our government. Good luck!
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: South East UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So... In the eyes of G.A,...
What would be an acceptable fee for a P28A, landing at a London Area Airport that has 24 hour availability, in receipt of full A.T.C. service with ILS, providing full ICAO/CAA compliant facilities that assure safety, and including any navigation charges by the airport(or ATC), not forgetting VAT on top (nothing to do with the airport)????
What would be an acceptable fee for a P28A, landing at a London Area Airport that has 24 hour availability, in receipt of full A.T.C. service with ILS, providing full ICAO/CAA compliant facilities that assure safety, and including any navigation charges by the airport(or ATC), not forgetting VAT on top (nothing to do with the airport)????
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leeds Bradford International - around £25 landing fee, not sure about parking fee.
Humberside International - around £20 landing fee and no parking fee up to 2 hours if I remember correctly.
EMA has a similar policy. Not in the south east but they are still "International airports"
Seems fair to me.
Humberside International - around £20 landing fee and no parking fee up to 2 hours if I remember correctly.
EMA has a similar policy. Not in the south east but they are still "International airports"
Seems fair to me.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
panjandrum
The facilities you mention were provided to meet the needs of Commercial Air Transport. Is it fair that someone who didn't want, need, ask for or use them should have to pay for them?
Where there is spare capacity to slot in GA why not do so? They seem to manage it outside the UK with no problem.
I would be quite happy to pay the same cost per passenger that Ryanair pays!
I see from my log book that I once refuelled at Stansted in a PA28. Wouldn't like to try it now!
Mike
The facilities you mention were provided to meet the needs of Commercial Air Transport. Is it fair that someone who didn't want, need, ask for or use them should have to pay for them?
Where there is spare capacity to slot in GA why not do so? They seem to manage it outside the UK with no problem.
I would be quite happy to pay the same cost per passenger that Ryanair pays!
I see from my log book that I once refuelled at Stansted in a PA28. Wouldn't like to try it now!
Mike
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's already been clearly stated that Luton welcomes G/A, but it doesn't need G/A.
They publish their prices for all the world to see, and if you don't have a pressing need to go there in particular, go somewhere cheaper like Cambridge or Duxford.
Agreed, many other airports in Europe don't charge half as much as some UK establishments, but who pays for the running costs of the airports - the local ratepayers.
With the very occassional exception, the state of the smaller airfields in the US is reflected in what they charge you - the lack of upkeep is noticable.
In the UK the vast majority of airports are Ltd companies which get no local or government subsidies, right or wrong that's the way it is, and they have to stand on their own 2 feet.
Even though the running costs are very high, the majority offer significantly reduced landing fees to accomodate G/A, and also offer en route services (such as radar/flight planning/met) free of charge.
I suspect that the very large majority of G/A users will never have the need to go to Heathrow or Gatwick - but will bitch about their right to do so and not pay a dime in the process, because it's their democratic right to air their views.
They publish their prices for all the world to see, and if you don't have a pressing need to go there in particular, go somewhere cheaper like Cambridge or Duxford.
Agreed, many other airports in Europe don't charge half as much as some UK establishments, but who pays for the running costs of the airports - the local ratepayers.
With the very occassional exception, the state of the smaller airfields in the US is reflected in what they charge you - the lack of upkeep is noticable.
In the UK the vast majority of airports are Ltd companies which get no local or government subsidies, right or wrong that's the way it is, and they have to stand on their own 2 feet.
Even though the running costs are very high, the majority offer significantly reduced landing fees to accomodate G/A, and also offer en route services (such as radar/flight planning/met) free of charge.
I suspect that the very large majority of G/A users will never have the need to go to Heathrow or Gatwick - but will bitch about their right to do so and not pay a dime in the process, because it's their democratic right to air their views.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: England
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luton dont want or need your business so dont go, try Panshanger instead.
Likewise Newcastle, avoid - go to Eschott
ditto St Mawgan, avoid - go to Perranporth
for London West try Elstree or Denham. East try Stapleford, South Redhill
Vote with your wallet go where they will appreciate your business.
Likewise Newcastle, avoid - go to Eschott
ditto St Mawgan, avoid - go to Perranporth
for London West try Elstree or Denham. East try Stapleford, South Redhill
Vote with your wallet go where they will appreciate your business.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few weeks back a guy I know had to divert to Luton with a landing gear problem , they charged him IRO £320.
Is this a bargin for the services of the fire crew ? or is it a flight safety issue because the high cost would put most pilots off and they would perhaps land at a less suitable airfield ?.
Is this a bargin for the services of the fire crew ? or is it a flight safety issue because the high cost would put most pilots off and they would perhaps land at a less suitable airfield ?.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Panjandrum
A regional airport needs the facilities to attract the business it is seeking. If that business is Commercial Air Transport which requires ILS and all the trimmings then that's what they have to provide and one assumes they price for CAT accordingly.
Having catered for their main revenue-generating CAT, any GA traffic they slot in between is bunce. They don't have to employ any more staff or provide any additional facilities to do it. If someone wants to use the ILS then by all means charge them for doing so. If you price GA out of the mix you'r not making any saving and you're throwing away the chance of additional revenue.
This seems to be well recognised outside the UK.
Obviously when an airfield gets to the point where it is saturated with CAT and there is no unused capacity it's a different story.
The guy who started this wanted to pick up his friends after their arrival at Luton, seems simple enough if there is the capacity available and it would be possible at most regional airports outside the UK for a price far less than was paid by the passenger for the entire incoming flight including airport charges!
Shoreham seems to be able to provide a hard runway and ATC for around £15 a throw since you ask. Kemble has a runway that can and has taken 747 and Airbus and charges £10
Mike
A regional airport needs the facilities to attract the business it is seeking. If that business is Commercial Air Transport which requires ILS and all the trimmings then that's what they have to provide and one assumes they price for CAT accordingly.
Having catered for their main revenue-generating CAT, any GA traffic they slot in between is bunce. They don't have to employ any more staff or provide any additional facilities to do it. If someone wants to use the ILS then by all means charge them for doing so. If you price GA out of the mix you'r not making any saving and you're throwing away the chance of additional revenue.
This seems to be well recognised outside the UK.
Obviously when an airfield gets to the point where it is saturated with CAT and there is no unused capacity it's a different story.
The guy who started this wanted to pick up his friends after their arrival at Luton, seems simple enough if there is the capacity available and it would be possible at most regional airports outside the UK for a price far less than was paid by the passenger for the entire incoming flight including airport charges!
Shoreham seems to be able to provide a hard runway and ATC for around £15 a throw since you ask. Kemble has a runway that can and has taken 747 and Airbus and charges £10
Mike
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike C.
You are absloutely spot on, with the minor but very important point that the vast majority of UK regional airports DO provide exactly the service that you describe, and at a reasonable price.
We (like many other airports our size) offer long, hard runways, full ATC with radar, free met and flight planning and ground handling for G/A, all for less than £15 a landing.
Sure, the commercial traffic comes before the VFR G/A, but IFR traffic (G/A or CAT) is treated equally, and slotted in as the flow dictates (obviously training traffic comes second), and I'm sure you'll find this to be the case at most UK regional airports.
As I said earlier, there are some that don't need G/A, and will not change their minds for anyone, if you don't want to pay, go somewhere nearby - their loss.
A and C:
I wholly endorse the principal which the majority of UK airports that only charge a nominal fee for emergency diversions, I'm ashamed to admit that mine isn't one of them, nor is Luton by the look of it, but if your mate could only get his problem fixed at Luton, it looks like they had him by the short and curlies.
That said, the last thing on a pilots mind when he has a problem and has to divert, is what the landing fee might be.
Final 3 Greens - delete Buster! Where would Kylie sleep at night?
You are absloutely spot on, with the minor but very important point that the vast majority of UK regional airports DO provide exactly the service that you describe, and at a reasonable price.
We (like many other airports our size) offer long, hard runways, full ATC with radar, free met and flight planning and ground handling for G/A, all for less than £15 a landing.
Sure, the commercial traffic comes before the VFR G/A, but IFR traffic (G/A or CAT) is treated equally, and slotted in as the flow dictates (obviously training traffic comes second), and I'm sure you'll find this to be the case at most UK regional airports.
As I said earlier, there are some that don't need G/A, and will not change their minds for anyone, if you don't want to pay, go somewhere nearby - their loss.
A and C:
I wholly endorse the principal which the majority of UK airports that only charge a nominal fee for emergency diversions, I'm ashamed to admit that mine isn't one of them, nor is Luton by the look of it, but if your mate could only get his problem fixed at Luton, it looks like they had him by the short and curlies.
That said, the last thing on a pilots mind when he has a problem and has to divert, is what the landing fee might be.
Final 3 Greens - delete Buster! Where would Kylie sleep at night?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More hassle than it is worth, has to be part of the reason.
As others have said already there are plenty of examples in the rest of Europe where you can go land and park for some time on an airport not dissimilar to Luton/Stansted without breaking the bank.
Sure enough the pressures of traffic at Luton/Stansted at times is such that it would be inappropriate/impossible to merge light GA traffic but if they wanted they could accomodate small traffic a lot of the time.
So face it guys, we are an unwanted breed.
FD
As others have said already there are plenty of examples in the rest of Europe where you can go land and park for some time on an airport not dissimilar to Luton/Stansted without breaking the bank.
Sure enough the pressures of traffic at Luton/Stansted at times is such that it would be inappropriate/impossible to merge light GA traffic but if they wanted they could accomodate small traffic a lot of the time.
So face it guys, we are an unwanted breed.
FD
Instead of Luton, lob into Rush Green. It'll only cost you a fiver plus a tenner or so for the taxi from Luton Airport. It is only 550m of grass though so you'll need something with goodish short field performance if you are carrying a load