CAP 667 9.2(c)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The service station analogy is very imperfect.
It is a condition of the company getting the franchise that they provide free parking and toilet facilities. It's a straight commercial deal and reflected in the price you pay when you spend more than a penny.
Mike
It is a condition of the company getting the franchise that they provide free parking and toilet facilities. It's a straight commercial deal and reflected in the price you pay when you spend more than a penny.
Mike
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an idea then. How about airfields increase the cost of GA landing fees for everyone, to cover free precautionary landings? I guess the increase would be pretty small, given how few of said landings take place each year. Doesn't look like it would work at somewhere like Luton though, where the cost is high and GA landings are so few. Mind you, my offer covered Luton!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As my home airfield (and workplace) features in the 'name and shame' list, here's my twopenneth...
Its a sad fact that some individuals DO abuse the system. I'm aware of four occasions in the last year or so when aircraft have been unable to land at airfields or strips in the vicinity of mine due to FORECAST poor weather.
In one instance, the pilot had made several phone calls from abroad, throughout the course of the day, to check our weather. Our METAR's and TAF made it patently obvious that there was no way on earth he'd be able to land at his intended destination about 15 miles down the road, which has no facilities. A couple of hours later he calls up 'diverting' to us due weather at his strip. He completed an Instrument Approach to one of our Licensed, illuminated runways and landed without incident. He then proceeded to throw his toys out of the pram when we dared to charge him a landing fee, claiming 'weather diversions should be free etc...'. This isn't a one off either. As I mentioned earlier I've spoken to another three aircraft who've all 'tried it on'....I'm sure there have been many more.
OK, that's not a huge sum money for us to lose but do not underestimate the cost of providing the level of service that we do. We provide a Licensed facility with full ATC including Radar, 3 runways, lighting, navaids and fire cover. The annual wage bill for ATC and AFS staff to meet the minimum levels as specified by the CAA's ATC and Aerodrome Licensing documentation is almost £500K. We're very busy, handling over 80 000 movements per year, but the maths is simple...to cover the staffing costs alone, we'd need to charge at least £12 for every landing. Our four flying clubs couldn't absorb that when circuit bashing. Factor in the additional costs associated with the upkeep and maintenance of the 400 acre site, the insurance bill, which has leapt by 120% since 9/11 and the small matter of actually trying to make a profit for the shareholders and perhaps you'll get some idea of the problems we face.
Our particular situation is not unique. We have a thriving 'Corporate' market and some limited Commercial passenger services but GA will always be our primary revenue stream. Our runway lengths preclude high yield scheduled and IT traffic, so we're always fighting a battle to make the books balance. The CAA are compounding the problems. Aerodrome Safeguarding (working with Planning Authorities to stop Joe Bloggs building a block of flats on your climbout) and Instrument Approach design are just two recent examples of additional responsibilities which are being 'passed on to industry' and Security at GA fields is the next shadow looming on the horizon.
I won't deny that there is a margin on fuel sales, Jet A1 particularly, but even so, the revenue derived from flying operations simply doesn't cover the costs. Fortunately, we have a large portfolio of real estate (a business park) which makes up the shortfall. Across the industry, this is commonplace. Even Heathrow and Gatwick make more money from passengers and concessions than from aeroplanes.
What's the answer? We could downgrade the service levels but we'd lose the commercial traffic, become unlicensed but we'd lose the trainers, sell the whole place for real estate...then you couldn't divert there however cr*p the weather was.
Let's be honest. We all on the lookout for a good deal, that's why the freebie vouchers in Pilot and Flyer are so well used but what does the industry gain out of it? My airfield has participated in the Pilot free landing promotion on two occasions. We've been inundated with new visitors, who freely admit that they're impressed with our facilities but probably wouldn't have come if they'd had to pay a landing fee. We've picked up a small amount of repeat business and fuel sales but from a purely accounting perspective, it's cost us money. I'm as guilty as the next man having used vouchers at Oxford and Enstone last week, but are we doing more damge to GA by expecting something for nothing?
You plan to fly from A to B where you'd expect to pay a landing fee, what's the difference if you end up at C?
The final irony for me is that we participate in a ridiculously expensive hobby where we are happy to pay over £100 per hour to hire a club spamcan but we're bemoaning paying probably less than £20 in the vast majority of cases.
On the one occasion I've had to divert (alternator failure when VMC on top) I'd have happily paid the fee at Bournemouth, because the service I received was worth every penny.
Maybe I'm a coward but I just can't imagine a situation where I'd put the cost of a diversion ahead of safety of me and my passengers.
IMHO, Mr. Strasser could do better with his time and effort attempting to instill those 'culture changes' at the training stage than this pointless 'crusade'
As a final noteworthy point, when my airfield did offer a concession of a free landing to aircraft declaring an emergency and a 50% reduction for genuine wx diversions, Mr. Strasser declined to add our name to the list.
Its a sad fact that some individuals DO abuse the system. I'm aware of four occasions in the last year or so when aircraft have been unable to land at airfields or strips in the vicinity of mine due to FORECAST poor weather.
In one instance, the pilot had made several phone calls from abroad, throughout the course of the day, to check our weather. Our METAR's and TAF made it patently obvious that there was no way on earth he'd be able to land at his intended destination about 15 miles down the road, which has no facilities. A couple of hours later he calls up 'diverting' to us due weather at his strip. He completed an Instrument Approach to one of our Licensed, illuminated runways and landed without incident. He then proceeded to throw his toys out of the pram when we dared to charge him a landing fee, claiming 'weather diversions should be free etc...'. This isn't a one off either. As I mentioned earlier I've spoken to another three aircraft who've all 'tried it on'....I'm sure there have been many more.
OK, that's not a huge sum money for us to lose but do not underestimate the cost of providing the level of service that we do. We provide a Licensed facility with full ATC including Radar, 3 runways, lighting, navaids and fire cover. The annual wage bill for ATC and AFS staff to meet the minimum levels as specified by the CAA's ATC and Aerodrome Licensing documentation is almost £500K. We're very busy, handling over 80 000 movements per year, but the maths is simple...to cover the staffing costs alone, we'd need to charge at least £12 for every landing. Our four flying clubs couldn't absorb that when circuit bashing. Factor in the additional costs associated with the upkeep and maintenance of the 400 acre site, the insurance bill, which has leapt by 120% since 9/11 and the small matter of actually trying to make a profit for the shareholders and perhaps you'll get some idea of the problems we face.
Our particular situation is not unique. We have a thriving 'Corporate' market and some limited Commercial passenger services but GA will always be our primary revenue stream. Our runway lengths preclude high yield scheduled and IT traffic, so we're always fighting a battle to make the books balance. The CAA are compounding the problems. Aerodrome Safeguarding (working with Planning Authorities to stop Joe Bloggs building a block of flats on your climbout) and Instrument Approach design are just two recent examples of additional responsibilities which are being 'passed on to industry' and Security at GA fields is the next shadow looming on the horizon.
I won't deny that there is a margin on fuel sales, Jet A1 particularly, but even so, the revenue derived from flying operations simply doesn't cover the costs. Fortunately, we have a large portfolio of real estate (a business park) which makes up the shortfall. Across the industry, this is commonplace. Even Heathrow and Gatwick make more money from passengers and concessions than from aeroplanes.
What's the answer? We could downgrade the service levels but we'd lose the commercial traffic, become unlicensed but we'd lose the trainers, sell the whole place for real estate...then you couldn't divert there however cr*p the weather was.
Let's be honest. We all on the lookout for a good deal, that's why the freebie vouchers in Pilot and Flyer are so well used but what does the industry gain out of it? My airfield has participated in the Pilot free landing promotion on two occasions. We've been inundated with new visitors, who freely admit that they're impressed with our facilities but probably wouldn't have come if they'd had to pay a landing fee. We've picked up a small amount of repeat business and fuel sales but from a purely accounting perspective, it's cost us money. I'm as guilty as the next man having used vouchers at Oxford and Enstone last week, but are we doing more damge to GA by expecting something for nothing?
You plan to fly from A to B where you'd expect to pay a landing fee, what's the difference if you end up at C?
The final irony for me is that we participate in a ridiculously expensive hobby where we are happy to pay over £100 per hour to hire a club spamcan but we're bemoaning paying probably less than £20 in the vast majority of cases.
On the one occasion I've had to divert (alternator failure when VMC on top) I'd have happily paid the fee at Bournemouth, because the service I received was worth every penny.
Maybe I'm a coward but I just can't imagine a situation where I'd put the cost of a diversion ahead of safety of me and my passengers.
IMHO, Mr. Strasser could do better with his time and effort attempting to instill those 'culture changes' at the training stage than this pointless 'crusade'
As a final noteworthy point, when my airfield did offer a concession of a free landing to aircraft declaring an emergency and a 50% reduction for genuine wx diversions, Mr. Strasser declined to add our name to the list.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrcross "Rustle's narked 'cos 2.4 tonnes costs when you land it..."
This isn't about me and mine, it is about right and wrong.
It is wrong to charge someone for a precautionary landing. Period.
Personally I couldn't give a toss if it costs a tenner or a "monkey" to land because my cost of getting airborne dwarfs 99% of landing fees...
matspart3 "Maybe I'm a coward but I just can't imagine a situation where I'd put the cost of a diversion ahead of safety of me and my passengers."
Neither can I.
So that's okay then.
Because I am responsible. Because I want to investigate that "funny noise" and be sure. Because I must only be looking for a "good deal" that fully justifies charging me whatever you like plus handling, plus, plus.
The opponents to this scheme all rely on pilots being totally unprepared for flight, and being dishonest "cowboys" who want nothing more than to rip-off poor airports in the most cavalier fashion they can.
The proponents start from the premise that sometimes, no matter how vigilant your preparation, no matter how many barf-bags your passengers are carrying, sometimes sh1t happens.
Ne'er the twain shall meet.
This isn't about me and mine, it is about right and wrong. It is wrong to charge someone for a precautionary landing. Period.
Personally I couldn't give a toss if it costs a tenner or a "monkey" to land because my cost of getting airborne dwarfs 99% of landing fees...
matspart3 "Maybe I'm a coward but I just can't imagine a situation where I'd put the cost of a diversion ahead of safety of me and my passengers."
Neither can I.
So that's okay then.
Because I am responsible. Because I want to investigate that "funny noise" and be sure. Because I must only be looking for a "good deal" that fully justifies charging me whatever you like plus handling, plus, plus.
The opponents to this scheme all rely on pilots being totally unprepared for flight, and being dishonest "cowboys" who want nothing more than to rip-off poor airports in the most cavalier fashion they can.
The proponents start from the premise that sometimes, no matter how vigilant your preparation, no matter how many barf-bags your passengers are carrying, sometimes sh1t happens.
Ne'er the twain shall meet.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK.
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion for what it's worth is, that if you take off, and can't land were you had intended, for whatever reason,you cough up the landing fee, whether you like it or not. It was your choice to depart in the first place, you could have stayed on the ground if the weather was looking dubious.Could the "free" landings encourage more people to take the chance and go, knowing it won't cost so much for a diversion.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rustle
"The opponents to this scheme all rely on pilots being totally unprepared for flight, and being dishonest "cowboys" who want nothing more than to rip-off poor airports in the most cavalier fashion they can."
I disagree. I fully accept that things can and do go wrong, even for the most prepared pilots, but why should someone else pick up the tab?
Nothing comes for free. If you use a facility, what's wrong with paying for it?
I also know for a fact that there ARE pilots out there who are cowboys who haven't done any proper planning since their NFT. Sadly, IMHO, they're not a small minority. Whatever frequency you're working this weekend, you'll almost certainly encounter one or more of them!!
maggieoneato
Interesting thought...could this scheme actually encourage the dreaded press on-itis?
"The opponents to this scheme all rely on pilots being totally unprepared for flight, and being dishonest "cowboys" who want nothing more than to rip-off poor airports in the most cavalier fashion they can."
I disagree. I fully accept that things can and do go wrong, even for the most prepared pilots, but why should someone else pick up the tab?
Nothing comes for free. If you use a facility, what's wrong with paying for it?
I also know for a fact that there ARE pilots out there who are cowboys who haven't done any proper planning since their NFT. Sadly, IMHO, they're not a small minority. Whatever frequency you're working this weekend, you'll almost certainly encounter one or more of them!!
maggieoneato
Interesting thought...could this scheme actually encourage the dreaded press on-itis?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
matspart3 We provide a Licensed facility with full ATC including Radar, 3 runways, lighting, navaids and fire cover
Sounds like Gloucester (??)
If it is Gloucester let's look at the surrounding (inst. approach) airfields and who isn't participating and who is.
Gloucester, Filton, Cardiff, Exeter, Birmingham - all have decided not to participate.
Bristol, Lyneham, Brize, Bournemouth, Yeovilton, Boscombe do participate in FOC diversions.
Last time I flew into Gloucester it cost me <£20 for landing.
Last time into Bristol it cost me >£50 for landing and "handling".
So Bristol can waive £50, but Gloucester won't/can't waive £20
(So who will be first to say that if Gloucester charged £50 they could afford the odd FOC diversion?
Before you do though, just think about how much Luton charge and how many FOC diversions they allow...)
-----------------
"Nothing comes for free. If you use a facility, what's wrong with paying for it?"
Deserves a thread of its own this one.
Shall we talk about night flying in > 2T aircraft in the open FIR (F&G)?
Sounds like Gloucester (??)
If it is Gloucester let's look at the surrounding (inst. approach) airfields and who isn't participating and who is.
Gloucester, Filton, Cardiff, Exeter, Birmingham - all have decided not to participate.
Bristol, Lyneham, Brize, Bournemouth, Yeovilton, Boscombe do participate in FOC diversions.
Last time I flew into Gloucester it cost me <£20 for landing.
Last time into Bristol it cost me >£50 for landing and "handling".
So Bristol can waive £50, but Gloucester won't/can't waive £20
(So who will be first to say that if Gloucester charged £50 they could afford the odd FOC diversion?
Before you do though, just think about how much Luton charge and how many FOC diversions they allow...)
-----------------
"Nothing comes for free. If you use a facility, what's wrong with paying for it?"
Deserves a thread of its own this one.
Shall we talk about night flying in > 2T aircraft in the open FIR (F&G)?
