Landing fees
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: chances are, not at home
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I can't get excited about the landing fee when it is £15 or less.
Oxford is great value. Cambridge on the other hand, from the website, looks bonkers expensive for an SEP, or is there some special deal I'm missing? We've wanted to fly there several times, but then I see the landing and parking fees, and drive, or go to Oxford instead. So Cambridge get zilch.
Oxford is great value. Cambridge on the other hand, from the website, looks bonkers expensive for an SEP, or is there some special deal I'm missing? We've wanted to fly there several times, but then I see the landing and parking fees, and drive, or go to Oxford instead. So Cambridge get zilch.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two separate issues I saw when I was in the UK, neither of which was helpful:
1) No government subsidy for airports. Therefore there IS a landing fee (say £15-25) to cover costs and to ensure the airport remains profitable.
2) Airports that support commercial flights who cannot care less about GA. Their objective is to maximize returns for investors and GA is not one of such flights. They may be busy at certain times of the day but not busy enough. They have handling fees and minimum landing fees which brings the total to about £75-£250 per landing/parking.
If GA thinks of boycotting an airport that charges £15-£25, think again. These airports are run for GA and run on moderate means. Not going there means the airport will likely close down and disappear for good.
If GA thinks of boycotting an airport that charges £75-£200. think again. The numbers of movements are small and the income earned from it is small. You achieve nothing other than to completely lose an airport that you have access to. The airport bosses will see this as a win for them, thus paving way for their fees to go up further. You've now given up the airport to market its business to other heavier, higher-revenue traffic. You are better off at an organized campaign to government/airport bosses to bring charges to more realistic levels.
The bottom line is that GA needs basic transport infrastructure to connect people and places. And boycotting is not the way to do it.
1) No government subsidy for airports. Therefore there IS a landing fee (say £15-25) to cover costs and to ensure the airport remains profitable.
2) Airports that support commercial flights who cannot care less about GA. Their objective is to maximize returns for investors and GA is not one of such flights. They may be busy at certain times of the day but not busy enough. They have handling fees and minimum landing fees which brings the total to about £75-£250 per landing/parking.
If GA thinks of boycotting an airport that charges £15-£25, think again. These airports are run for GA and run on moderate means. Not going there means the airport will likely close down and disappear for good.
If GA thinks of boycotting an airport that charges £75-£200. think again. The numbers of movements are small and the income earned from it is small. You achieve nothing other than to completely lose an airport that you have access to. The airport bosses will see this as a win for them, thus paving way for their fees to go up further. You've now given up the airport to market its business to other heavier, higher-revenue traffic. You are better off at an organized campaign to government/airport bosses to bring charges to more realistic levels.
The bottom line is that GA needs basic transport infrastructure to connect people and places. And boycotting is not the way to do it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points,
But we all boycott some airfields when they are too expensive for the facilities or when it is made abundantly clear that GA is being discouraged.
Plymouth, for example, was not always the most welcoming of airfields and imposed security and other procedures well beyond its needs. I used to contrast the way that they made things difficult for us whereas Gloucester in recent years has become a much more friendly destination and richly deserves its new reputation.
I know of at least 3 airfields I used to visit that I no longer go to. I would love to use them again but I won't until they change their mindset (and mandatory handling charges).
But we all boycott some airfields when they are too expensive for the facilities or when it is made abundantly clear that GA is being discouraged.
Plymouth, for example, was not always the most welcoming of airfields and imposed security and other procedures well beyond its needs. I used to contrast the way that they made things difficult for us whereas Gloucester in recent years has become a much more friendly destination and richly deserves its new reputation.
I know of at least 3 airfields I used to visit that I no longer go to. I would love to use them again but I won't until they change their mindset (and mandatory handling charges).
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is the "business model" of airfields in the UK.
An airfield uses a lot of land, and airfields are counted as "brownfield" which means they can be built on. Given the choice between a couple of dozen GA visitors a day, prepared to pay (say) £15 each and (maybe) a few larger jobbies at £100 and (maybe) buy a few hundred litres of fuel (with all the palaver of Government regulation on fuel) - offset by the cost of an A/G operator or a FISO and maybe a fireman or two, and the CAA's and OfCom's charges for licences...
...or sell the site for a few million as building land:
you have to be dedicated to running an airfield. Look back at the number of airfields (even municipal ones) that are now housing estates, and the writing is on the wall.
The USA has a different model: airfields are essential transport infrastructure and are needed, so they are funded out of a central pot. Landing fees? What are they? The USA also has a lot of spare land lying around.
HMG isn't going to fund airfields - they see them as a source of taxation while they're there and a source of more taxation when they change role to building site.
I suspect (with some but incomplete statistics) that there are far more farm strips in the UK than every other sort of airfield added together. That's certainly the case in the little corner where I am. It's the way it's going to go, I suspect.
An airfield uses a lot of land, and airfields are counted as "brownfield" which means they can be built on. Given the choice between a couple of dozen GA visitors a day, prepared to pay (say) £15 each and (maybe) a few larger jobbies at £100 and (maybe) buy a few hundred litres of fuel (with all the palaver of Government regulation on fuel) - offset by the cost of an A/G operator or a FISO and maybe a fireman or two, and the CAA's and OfCom's charges for licences...
...or sell the site for a few million as building land:
you have to be dedicated to running an airfield. Look back at the number of airfields (even municipal ones) that are now housing estates, and the writing is on the wall.
The USA has a different model: airfields are essential transport infrastructure and are needed, so they are funded out of a central pot. Landing fees? What are they? The USA also has a lot of spare land lying around.
HMG isn't going to fund airfields - they see them as a source of taxation while they're there and a source of more taxation when they change role to building site.
I suspect (with some but incomplete statistics) that there are far more farm strips in the UK than every other sort of airfield added together. That's certainly the case in the little corner where I am. It's the way it's going to go, I suspect.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is the "business model" of airfields in the UK.
It's the way it's going to go, I suspect.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 11th Dec 2012 at 11:48.
Originally Posted by soaringhigh650
But only for the recreational flyer on a burger run. But the sole use of farm strips is short sighted. It doesn't work for proper transport for business and vacation, as it shows in Italy.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEP GA is not "proper transport" over here, it is recreational.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And should it be made proper transport?
You'd have to fix the weather first!
Then you'd have to fix the £3/minute hire costs, down to a few pence to compete with the likes of easyJet (so the toy-aircraft-from-farm-strip brigade are still waaaay too expensive).
Then it might be worth worrying about the landing charges.
(I have used an SEP as "proper transport" in the UK. Twice, in twenty-something years of flying. (And I've failed more than twice, because of weather.) Both times it won only because the north-west quadrant of the M25 is usually a disaster, and because I chose not to care about the cost.)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Within England, air transport of any sort is of marginal value. For 'most weather' GA it is even worse. There are a limited number of airfields located near any place you are likely to want to go, the vaguely economic ones have no lights, limited hours, no approaches. Some of this is driven by regulation, some by tradition, and some by an industry strategy to make money by high margin rather than high volume (Gloucester seeming to be a notable exception with lights, approaches, friendly environment, reasonable fuel, reasonable landing, no mandatory handling).
London to Birmingham is too close
London to Manchester means landing in Liverpool or at the main (and frequently expensive) international airport.
The South into Scotland mostly has 'Bend Over Here It Comes' pricing (other than Cumbernauld which is quite convenient for my work).
I use a SEP for transport to Rotterdam, Carlisle, Glasgow (Cumbernauld), Dublin (Weston), and Newcastle. All of which are more convenient to get to from South West London by GA than by any other means.
The level of landing charges and mandatory handling in some of these places is rather high for the service (Rotterdam is expensive, but I use the facilities quite extensively so it is not that bad).
London to Birmingham is too close
London to Manchester means landing in Liverpool or at the main (and frequently expensive) international airport.
The South into Scotland mostly has 'Bend Over Here It Comes' pricing (other than Cumbernauld which is quite convenient for my work).
I use a SEP for transport to Rotterdam, Carlisle, Glasgow (Cumbernauld), Dublin (Weston), and Newcastle. All of which are more convenient to get to from South West London by GA than by any other means.
The level of landing charges and mandatory handling in some of these places is rather high for the service (Rotterdam is expensive, but I use the facilities quite extensively so it is not that bad).
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd have to fix the weather first!
Then you'd have to fix the £3/minute hire costs
There are a limited number of airfields located near any place you are likely to want to go, the vaguely economic ones have no lights, limited hours, no approaches.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we choose to fly ourselves because it is fun. The state has no business raising taxes to subsidise the pleasures of a tiny minority.
Which is precisely why I object to the huge subsidies to "The Arts"
NEVER been to one of those caterwauling contests...sorry, "the Opera"...'cos I don't see the elitist ticket price as being VFM (value for Money)
Likewise "fairies" *jigging about AKA "the Ballet" ....An oblong of stacked housebricks, a dirty bed, a pickled dead animal....I think I've subsidised the lot.
Oh, and the school bus...spent the last 50 years subsidising that, I can count my rail and bus journeys combined , on the fingers of one hand, during the same period. but still I paid the compulsory subsidies.
Like it or not, we all subsidise another minority ,somewhere along the line.
"The Arts" gets up my nose as an Elitist, "luvvies" indulgence...so why shouldn't GA, Yachting, Historic car and Motorcycle-racing etc. be subsidised as well.
* OK, I know it was a cheap jibe and they really fxx-up their bodies and joints in the name of "Art"....so, ask a dinghy sailor about "Enterprise Knee"
Cambridge on the other hand, from the website, looks bonkers expensive for an SEP, or is there some special deal I'm missing? We've wanted to fly there several times, but then I see the landing and parking fees, and drive, or go to Oxford instead. So Cambridge get zilch.
CAFC | Home
Trev
Originally Posted by soaring650
And should it be made proper transport? If so you need to think about how to fight off improper costs hard rather than keeping it the preserve of a recreational game of the elite and wealthy and hence your "hobby" never takes off.
Remote areas that would benefit most from air travel simply lack the footfall to fund the infrastructure. Populated areas already have road & rail links as well as access to commercial air travel. Anywhere you can easily fly yourself to is usually easier, quicker or cheaper to get to some other way.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackpool fiasco
It's not the landing fee at Blackpool that I object to it is the compleat stupidity of the way they do business.
I go to the landing fee office and pay, telling them I need fuel and asking if I can pay at the fuel pumps.
I taxi across the field to the pumps and fill up........then I am told that I have to go back to the same office to pay for the fuel.
The half hour of effing about results in me missing a business meting at the end of the day.
They seem to go out of their way to inconvenience the customer making Blackpool a place I won't go unless I have to.
I go to the landing fee office and pay, telling them I need fuel and asking if I can pay at the fuel pumps.
I taxi across the field to the pumps and fill up........then I am told that I have to go back to the same office to pay for the fuel.
The half hour of effing about results in me missing a business meting at the end of the day.
They seem to go out of their way to inconvenience the customer making Blackpool a place I won't go unless I have to.
Living in Wales, having access to a plane actually reduces the 'cabin fever' by quite a bit. London is a 6 hour round trip away rather than 16 hours by train. I haven't been to Penzance yet, but again it's likely to be a lot more pleasant by plane.
Some parts of Scotland are quite well served by small airfields and I have met people in remote areas who used their aircraft to get around - my impression is that it's the more populated parts e.g. Edinburgh that are expensive or difficult to get to.
I have no objection to paying £15 for a landing fee to support a local airport. I don't see any justification for flying being subsidised in the UK, and the irony is that it's often those airports that have been subsidised for the purposes of developing passenger services and tourist revenue that become prohibitively expensive to GA.
For me, it's not a question of 'boycotting' in the same way that I'm not boycotting Extra by not buying an Extra 300. I can't afford either. If I were to fly to such an airport, it would likely double the cost of the trip, and I find flying just barely affordable anyway.
Anyway, I don't see any reason why an airport cannot charge a high price to an international Citation using the expensive ILS and ATC infrastructure, whether or not it charges a low price to a VFR pa28.
Some parts of Scotland are quite well served by small airfields and I have met people in remote areas who used their aircraft to get around - my impression is that it's the more populated parts e.g. Edinburgh that are expensive or difficult to get to.
I have no objection to paying £15 for a landing fee to support a local airport. I don't see any justification for flying being subsidised in the UK, and the irony is that it's often those airports that have been subsidised for the purposes of developing passenger services and tourist revenue that become prohibitively expensive to GA.
If GA thinks of boycotting an airport that charges £75-£200. think again. The numbers of movements are small and the income earned from it is small. You achieve nothing other than to completely lose an airport that you have access to. The airport bosses will see this as a win for them, thus paving way for their fees to go up further. You've now given up the airport to market its business to other heavier, higher-revenue traffic. You are better off at an organized campaign to government/airport bosses to bring charges to more realistic levels.
Anyway, I don't see any reason why an airport cannot charge a high price to an international Citation using the expensive ILS and ATC infrastructure, whether or not it charges a low price to a VFR pa28.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try landing a helicopter at some of the hotels near Blackbushe, Stoke Park demand £ 500! I took a passenger there for a conference recently, he had 12 rooms booked for 5 days, if he had left his car in the car park a uniformed flunkey would have collected his bags, I landed him on a patch of mud near the first tee, he carried his own bags and was livid when he found out about the landing fee.
Some hotels charge £50, others free if the pax are staying, one in Devon robs you of £250. For Stoke park money I expect radar, full ATC, fuel, fire cover and a dolly to carry the bags.
And no they're not my helis, just my job, £20 for landing my Condor seems a bargain when you look at the huge overheads involved in owning/running an airfield. I've always found Blackbushe very welcoming, in fact even Elstree has a lighter side, Biggin great, Barton fantastic with really interesting stuff tucked in hangars, Southend
. If you're going to Blackpool then handling is worth having if you use Hangar 3, their bill is not too eye watering and there is none of the ridiculous security.
When my boss looks at the expenses for running the jet every year his biggest gripe is landing fees avreage last year £ 1017 per landing.
SND
Some hotels charge £50, others free if the pax are staying, one in Devon robs you of £250. For Stoke park money I expect radar, full ATC, fuel, fire cover and a dolly to carry the bags.
And no they're not my helis, just my job, £20 for landing my Condor seems a bargain when you look at the huge overheads involved in owning/running an airfield. I've always found Blackbushe very welcoming, in fact even Elstree has a lighter side, Biggin great, Barton fantastic with really interesting stuff tucked in hangars, Southend
. If you're going to Blackpool then handling is worth having if you use Hangar 3, their bill is not too eye watering and there is none of the ridiculous security.When my boss looks at the expenses for running the jet every year his biggest gripe is landing fees avreage last year £ 1017 per landing.
SND
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, I don't see any reason why an airport cannot charge a high price to an international Citation using the expensive ILS and ATC infrastructure, whether or not it charges a low price to a VFR pa28.
I don't see the US government subsidizing $800 every time I fly my PA28 into JFK.
The FAA gave 87 New York State airfields a total of $131 million in the fiscal year 2011; JFK picked up nearly $4 million.
Assuming you flew your PA28 in once a day, that would be just under $11,000 per landing.
Assuming you flew your PA28 in once a day, that would be just under $11,000 per landing.