Bournemouth - Landing Fees !!

[Stretchwell]

I've just enquired as to landing fees at Bournemouth for a PA-28:

£45.78 Landing and Handling Fees
£10 Overnight Parking

I get the impression they don't want any private aircraft to visit !!

Any strips nearby?

Thanks.

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

Compton Abbas is in the general area and a great strip (might be boggy right now).

A taxi to Bournemouth would be expensive though, if that's where you want to be.

[S-Works]

What is the problem? This is a regional airport, it has infrastructure to maintain, staff to pay and shareholders to keep happy. You want to fly to Bournemouth you get exactly the same treatment as the CAT for a fraction of the price.

I assume you work for a living? You or your company charge a fee for your services in order to support the infrastructure and to make a profit. So if I think you are expensive and your company should not make a profit will you take a pay cut?

It never ceases to amaze me the complaints on here about landing fees.

We are not in the states or France where the airfields are publicly subsidised, here they are business and have to stand on their own feet. If you don't like it you vote with your feet. But I suspect the loss of revenue from your PA28/Cessna et. al would not cover the cost of cleaning the toilets etc.

Land at Compton Abbas or another VFR field near bye and I bet the Taxi costs 3 times the landing and parking!!

[gcolyer]

Originally Posted by bose-x

What is the problem? This is a regional airport, it has infrastructure to maintain, staff to pay and shareholders to keep happy. You want to fly to Bournemouth you get exactly the same treatment as the CAT for a fraction of the price.

I assume you work for a living? You or your company charge a fee for your services in order to support the infrastructure and to make a profit. So if I think you are expensive and your company should not make a profit will you take a pay cut?

It never ceases to amaze me the complaints on here about landing fees.

We are not in the states or France where the airfields are publicly subsidised, here they are business and have to stand on their own feet. If you don't like it you vote with your feet. But I suspect the loss of revenue from your PA28/Cessna et. al would not cover the cost of cleaning the toilets etc.

Land at Compton Abbas or another VFR field near bye and I bet the Taxi costs 3 times the landing and parking!!

Tee Side is also regional and only costs £12 to land and £4.23 overnight. or at least it was last march.

[S-Works]

Originally Posted by gcolyer

Tee Side is also regional and only costs £12 to land and £4.23 overnight. or at least it was last march.

Yep, but Teesside is in Gods Country and not 'darn 'sarf where everything costs twice as much!!! And please note it is TEESSIDE.......

However as a point, I go home to Teesside on a regular basis and an overnight seems to cost me more like £25. I need to check the exact price.

The point I am making is these places cost money to operate and they set fees accordingly. Our little spam cans do not represent any real revenue but cost just the same as the big jets in terms of infrastructure terms. So the answer is simple if we don't like it then we go elsewhere. £50 quid is about 30 mins flying time in an average spam can. About 12 mins in the Twin.

[Stretchwell]

Wow bose-x !! Take your head out of your posterior for a second please. All I did was comment as I am genuinely surprised that the fees are so high!

I am on a private flight. Yes I know it is a regional airport. What is so special about Bournemouth that means it has to charge significantly more than Cardiff and Teeside? Why does a PA-28 have to be handled by a handling agent when there are no pax, no fuel required, it's a domestic flight etc?

Go chill out bose-x or you'll do yourself an injury !!

[Single Spey]

bose-x

In that case there should be a system to allow a GA airfield to open up at least as close to Bournemouth as the current airport. CAA has a duty to allow equitable access to the airspace, so Bournemouth ATC would have a duty to co-operate. If this was not allowed then I am sure a complaint to the monopolies commission or the EU on the grounds of unfair treatment could be made.

[gcolyer]

Originally Posted by bose-x

And please note it is TEESSIDE.......

Noted..Thank you

Originally Posted by bose-x

However as a point, I go home to Teesside on a regular basis and an overnight seems to cost me more like £25.

I still have my reciept from last march, and it was £4.23 for one night parking a C172 (in between 2 Falcons). An like I said landing fee was £12 and no handling fee to pay.

[Martin @ EGLK]

Though I appreciate that Bournemouth has costs, how much does it cost for them to bring in a GA type AC? Not much. Everything is there anyway and GA's fly a tight circuit away from the bus lane.

I don't know Bournemouth's ops but when a regional has 6 scheduled & 12 chartered movements per day then getting a tenner from a GA flight will be bonus money for them. Bournemouth has quite a large quiet & relatively rundown area north of the main runway that is ideal for GA; yet they choose to charge prices that deter us.

The same is prob true for most regionals. I don't actually know if it is but I know Bournemouth quite well - I trained there! But haven't & prob never will return. Pity!

[gcolyer]

Originally Posted by Martin @ EGLK

Though I appreciate that Bournemouth has costs, how much does it cost for them to bring in a GA type AC? Not much. Everything is there anyway and GA's fly a tight circuit away from the bus lane.

I dont think this is the point. The Air traffic controller, fire service, movement area maintenance, electricity...blah blah blah costs dont discriminate between aircraft types.

So for costing purposes each movement cost the same amount and require the same amount of work.

Now this by no way means that I condone (is that spelt right?) £48 to land a 172, not when other similar size operations charge a 1/4 of that.

Like Bose-X says these airports have to pay their bills, and unfortunatley in this lovely country which we live in we have to pay through the nose for luxury, and I am afraid private flying is a luxury (even if it is in a spam can).

[Johnm]

The trouble is that in the UK (and the rest of Europe to a lesser degree) small aeroplanes are seen as a rich man's toy, whereas many of us use them as a mode of transport, which is how they are viewed in the USA.

I don't see this attitude changing anytime soon, in fact I confidently predict it'll get worse because of the green lobby and the delusions caused to airport managers by low cost airlines .

[Riverboat]

I have to say, I am shocked, but not that surprised, about the misguided comments made by Bose-X. The fact is, the major airports are not there to serve light aviation per se, but actually do very well from it. (Hangar leases, etc.) A lot of the expensive infrastructure that is required when the main business is seen as providing an airport into which large jets can operate, is totally irrelevant to light aviation, and its costs should not be put on it.

Nearly every airport in Britain was owned, at one time, by the State - the MOD, the local Council etc. When it was, it had very reasonable user fees. Since the majority were privatised the fees and charges have become totally unrealistic in many cases, and the management of the Airports concerned have failed to appreciate that the airports they are running are national and local assets. The Councils knew this, but the private owners don't, or couldn't give a damn.

There is an excuse for Southampton being very expensive, and that is that it is a small airport, is very busy, and light aviation is a bit of a nuisance. Increasing the charges helps to prevent everyone and his brother wanting to fly into Southampton. Their Aerodrome Licence does not allow them to discriminate as far as allowing aircraft in or out, but they can discriminate by charging a lot.

Bournemouth and (say) Bristol don't have this problem. They are bigger airports and also important regional airports. Their charges should be something in the order of £15 a tonne - still a lot, but fair. Instead, at Bristol, where I went only a short while ago in a single, charged me, with compulsory handling, well over £100. I noted a Ryanair flight landing shortly after me, and I bet they paid less than me.

But the point really is, these airports are important regionally and locally and they should not price out GA. It is about time AOPA and BBGA got their act together to mount a (friendly) campaign to get airport managers to be more receptive to GA and light aviation, provided, of course, that their airports are not extremely busy.

[Choxolate]

Originally Posted by gcolyer

I dont think this is the point. The Air traffic controller, fire service, movement area maintenance, electricity...blah blah blah costs dont discriminate between aircraft types.

So for costing purposes each movement cost the same amount and require the same amount of work.

But surely the point is that those high overhead costs would be the same (i.e they are fixed overheads)) whether no GA ever landed there, and those costs are required for the services required by the commercial traffic.

How does landing a light aircraft at Bournemouth (or any airfield come to that) INCREMENTALLY increase their costs by £30 - £40??

[S-Works]

Originally Posted by SoCal App

As a Brit living in the US, I have to sympathize with you on your costs. 45 quid is close to $90 for a landing fee.. Seems as though you stick the word "International" in your airport name and inflate the costs accordingly.

I fly IFR into Van Nuys - probably 3 times the size of Bournemouth. Ontario International, Burbank, Santa Barbara - no landing fee.
It just shows the totally different mentality adopted here.

It is nothing to do with mentality, it is to do with the fact that the state subsidises aviation in the US. The GA community is vastly bigger and has cohesive representation. UK GA has a dozen representatives only interested in their own agenda and flying population that as a whole prefer to winge and not act. In the UK the governement only exists to fund itself.

So lets leave the wonders of the US system out of the discussion, apples and oranges!

GColyer, got my reciept which is a lot more current than your last March visit (Christmas to collect Grandad) and it was £18.00 plus VAT.

[S-Works]

Originally Posted by Riverboat

I have to say, I am shocked, but not that surprised, about the misguided comments made by Bose-X. The fact is, the major airports are not there to serve light aviation per se, but actually do very well from it. (Hangar leases, etc.) A lot of the expensive infrastructure that is required when the main business is seen as providing an airport into which large jets can operate, is totally irrelevant to light aviation, and its costs should not be put on it.
Nearly every airport in Britain was owned, at one time, by the State - the MOD, the local Council etc. When it was, it had very reasonable user fees. Since the majority were privatised the fees and charges have become totally unrealistic in many cases, and the management of the Airports concerned have failed to appreciate that the airports they are running are national and local assets. The Councils knew this, but the private owners don't, or couldn't give a damn.
There is an excuse for Southampton being very expensive, and that is that it is a small airport, is very busy, and light aviation is a bit of a nuisance. Increasing the charges helps to prevent everyone and his brother wanting to fly into Southampton. Their Aerodrome Licence does not allow them to discriminate as far as allowing aircraft in or out, but they can discriminate by charging a lot.
Bournemouth and (say) Bristol don't have this problem. They are bigger airports and also important regional airports. Their charges should be something in the order of £15 a tonne - still a lot, but fair. Instead, at Bristol, where I went only a short while ago in a single, charged me, with compulsory handling, well over £100. I noted a Ryanair flight landing shortly after me, and I bet they paid less than me.
But the point really is, these airports are important regionally and locally and they should not price out GA. It is about time AOPA and BBGA got their act together to mount a (friendly) campaign to get airport managers to be more receptive to GA and light aviation, provided, of course, that their airports are not extremely busy.

See my quote below. When they were state funded they were supported out of taxes and cheap. When they were sold off they became privatre business's dedicated to making money for shareholders. Whatever you may think of my comments they are true. Are you a paid up member of AOPA or BBGA? If not how do you expect them to represent you? If you are why have you not raised the issue with the council?

[denhamflyer]

I generally agree with Bose-X. I am always amazed at how we whinge over trivial costs (compared to the cost of fuel and maitenance). I would much prefer airports remain open becuase they are viable and the facilities improve , so that it brings more people into flying. All too often I visit an airfield that is very run down and charges me next to nothing - great business model?

British Cinema's went the same way then when they were nearly all closed someone realised that give people a better experience and they would come back! Its easier to build a cinema than an airport so lets not let them all close because we argue over £10, £15,£25 or even £50 for a larger airport.

I think if they charged a little more appropriately and gave a better experience then more would fly - including for business travel and personal / family travel - make it an attractive form of transport and things will improve for all of us. Keep it as a strict hobby full of whingers and let see where we get..

A simple example is to have a good relationship with a taxi firm for onward travel. I have had a varied response from "do you want us to order your taxi now" as I enter the overhead to "there a bit unreliable around here - there is a telephone book over there if you want to try..."

It seems some airfields dont expect you to go anywhere....except the cafe.

[englishal]

And please note it is TEESSIDE.......

Please note, it is Durham Tees Valley.
I agree, £45 is a rip off. You do not get much for your money, about 5 minutes worth of communications, and the fire engines, which are there anyway, ready in case you crash and burn. And heaven forbid if EZ Jet are on a 100 mile final, you could end up orbiting for an extra 15 minutes.

Yep, used to be a resident, and now thank god I fly from Henstridge which is FAR FAR FAR better.

The sad fact is that GA in the UK doesn't mean anything to any body. It is a pain in the arse, causes endless hassle with NIMBYs, and we're not wanted. No wonder it costs £20,000 to get a gold plated JAR IR, and £70,000 to learn to operate the gear and flaps on a Boeing.

[Kirstey]

Originally Posted by bose-x

What is the problem? This is a regional airport, it has infrastructure to maintain, staff to pay and shareholders to keep happy. You want to fly to Bournemouth you get exactly the same treatment as the CAT for a fraction of the price.

They're not charging fair value for the service though. They're controlling demand, not charging a fair fee. £20 revenue from a PA28 is not going to cost more than that £20 to look after the aeroplane and leave it parked. If it costs £15 that's still a 33% PTP. If space/slots were an issue then it would be different. But it's not an issue so they're not making any economic sense. (IMHO)!

[S-Works]

Originally Posted by englishal

Please note, it is Durham Tees Valley.
I agree, £45 is a rip off. You do not get much for your money, about 5 minutes worth of communications, and the fire engines, which are there anyway, ready in case you crash and burn. And heaven forbid if EZ Jet are on a 100 mile final, you could end up orbiting for an extra 15 minutes.
Yep, used to be a resident, and now thank god I fly from Henstridge which is FAR FAR FAR better.
The sad fact is that GA in the UK doesn't mean anything to any body. It is a pain in the arse, causes endless hassle with NIMBYs, and we're not wanted. No wonder it costs £20,000 to get a gold plated JAR IR, and £70,000 to learn to operate the gear and flaps on a Boeing.

Actually I was referring to the area of my birth not the airport. The area is Teesside.

[niknak]

Originally Posted by Chilli Monster

As someone who HAS to go into Bournemouth it wouldn't matter what the landing fee was. It is, however, a prospect which I will admit fills me with dread every time I have to do. It is, without doubt, the WORST Air Traffic unit in the country.
Make your minds up EGHH - either you want to be the IFR training centre of the world, or a regional airport serving schedules, charters and GA which pays money to do business there. Stop trying to be both - you haven't got the capacity or the ability!

Ican supply Chilli's name and address for a suitable fee, alternatively I cannot for a larger wad of dosh...

For reasons which I am aware of but can hardly believe, the owners of my gaff put up landing fees for G/A to a similar but not quite as high level.
The result has been quite dramatic, we don't get half the number of G/A visitors we used to and neither do any of the shopping franchises within the terminal.
At one stage, handling of G/A was out to tender, but since the price hike the two realistic contenders have gone awfully quiet, I wonder why?

Admittedly it won't make a huge difference in the scheme of things, as we are well into the low cost market and will handle over 900,000 pax this year, most of whom will spend money in the terminal, but I think it's a travesty that (they - not us) can't accomodate G/A at a reasonable price.