I landed at Dulles and paid $25 (but I bought fuel).
I did La Guardia few years ago in a C152. Was something like 200$ for landing and 2 days parking
Romain
JasonC wrote:
I landed at Dulles and paid $25 (but I bought fuel).
Which probably means that the landing fee was $25 and the FBO waived their handling fee cause you bought fuel from them.
Romain wrote:
I did La Guardia few years ago in a C152. Was something like 200$ for landing and 2 days parking
And I’ll bet that some $180 goes straight to the FBO where you parked and since you didn’t up-lift a ton of fuel, you got to pay it.
Just to point out that there are Landing Fees and there are Handling fees.
We can’t afford to lose the business. Ban all circuits and training, and try to reduce the number of GA aircraft here, and for goodness sake when we’re expecting in a CAT in the next 30 minutes get everyone out of here! We won’t really miss the GA income but we’ll miss that CAT if we lose it because of GA!”
I am sure this is very true but it leads to the Q of why does GA interfere if there is one CAT movement per hour.
I don’t know if the UK has the monopoly on “B52 circuits” (ones which almost require the carriage of a French passport, if flying around Shoreham 
) but maybe these sorts of PPL training practices are the real problem. A GA plane can get into an ATZ and be on the ground in a few minutes so won’t hold up anybody, and if there is a conflict it can fly an orbit. So… the problem must be that
If the GA pilot is reasonably capable, there is no problem. Many European airports manage it. I have been to countless ones which fit everybody in. The USA has no issue, but the US PPL is a lot more rigorous in training pilots to “fit into the situation”. I think the PPL training over here has produced a generation of pilots who can’t deal with anything busy or remotely complicated and
Obviously B52 circuits make the PPL more accessible because less training is required. But it paints GA into a corner where nobody who has CAT movements wants it – because it is perceived as causing havoc.
That has been stated. The landing fees are often reasonable (and regulated), the handling is not, and since it can be mandatory, is the way to keep small GA out.
I don’t buy the “CAT will have to take the long way because a C152 is doing circuits” argument – I got my PPL at EPMO, which is also used by Ryanair a few times a day. TWR would know CAT was coming in and just tell us to speed up the circuit or go hang out at the VFR holding points for a few minutes. No harm, no foul. The one time someone from our ATO landed gear up in an Twin Comanche Ryan had to hold till they cleaned it all up, but hey, LOT landed a 767 gear up at WAW in 2011 – stuff happens. EPLL is similar, with an ATO, an aeroclub and several airlines getting along just fine.
Peter wrote:
So… the problem must be thatmassively oversized circuits are being flown (and you can’t put a 737 on final when there is a C152 flying a 3 mile final), and
asking GA to fly an orbit for separation is deemed dangerous because the pilot might lose control and kill himself (as happened at Southend EGMC a few years ago)
I think you can add to that controllers or ATC systems that over control. For example, in class D airspace commercial IFR traffic is only entitled to info on VFR traffic. But controllers say that they have to separate or they are in trouble. This reduces the space between them.
Also the controllers have difference experience with GA. For example when I used to operate out of Dublin, I could tell which controllers would fit me in, even if it was unconventional (but legal and safe) and those who needed massive separation. For example, one day I was on a very wide base (I was returning to the field to land…not on a circuit!). I was asked to orbit. When I was almost finished the first orbit I was asked if I could see the RyanAir on final. When I reported that I could, I was asked if I was happy to maintain my own separation? When I agreed, I was told that I could position behind it. Now this whole idea of an orbit to identify an aircraft for separation was stupid. Even if never given the orbit, and I’d tried my best, and tried to project it’s path, I’d never be able to go fast enough to intercept it and hit it.
Some of the controllers were experienced enough with GA to recognise that and just organise the orderly flow. Others thought we had the performance of an F15 and the mind-set of a kamikaze and they tried very hard to keep us away from CAT.
Same for departure. Some just fitted it into the gaps between CAT asking for an immediate turn after take off and not affecting the flow of CAT at all, and others wanted to give us the same spacing as an airliner.
I suppose it become self fulfilling. Remove most of the GA and then the controllers don’t have much experience of it and are more conservative of controlling it.
@dublinpilot If they can’t handle one or two CAT movements per hour and squeeze some GA in between, they are IMHO quite incompetent. Of course, GA (and the same goes for CAT) could still manage to disrupt CAT but such events should be rare. They might think GA is not worth the hassle, but they should be able to manage it.
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
My perception is that all it needs is a law that defines public infrastructure as a term and then declares airports and airfields of any size public infrastructure. Being public means that everyone has a fair use right and needs to be charged proportionally.
Yes, that would be a MAJOR step in the right direction. And the opposite has happened with privatisation of this infrastructure, which in many cases have been built and maintained with public money but now are withheld from the public by the companies who run them.
But I would say that this will not necessarily stop the abuse we face by GA haters, as they sit in governments as much as in private companies. In order to do that, you would have to impose a rulemaking by the CAA’s towards the airports handing out maximum taxes they are allowed to charge GA. And that is a very difficult thing to do.
Peter wrote:
It has to be purely stupid management. In some cases (e.g. Aberdeen) the indications are that the management has literally been seduced by the sound of a jet engine and women in high heels stepping out (Donald Trump and his escorts in that instance) and they regard piston GA as “dirty” (a word actually used).
I’ve had GA been referred to as “The cancer which infiltrates our airport and keeps us from operating properly”. So I’ll take “dirty” any time.
Some airports will look at it this way and the management simply say, GA is not worth it as long as we have only ONE airliner per day. Others go further and say GA makes up keep infrastructure open and don’t pay the full cost. If an airport has 2 airliners per day who pay 6000 £ each landing and ATC fees, 2000 £ in passenger fees plus some 5000 £ handling (arbitrary numbers, they can be much higher at certain airports) for a 100 ton machine, then a 1 ton machine should pay at least 60£ landing and 50£ handling plus 20£ pax fee per pax, and we exactly land at the fees we see at some airports, up to 200 £ for a rotation. If they allow a small GA flight to operate for 20£, then their argument will be that one airliner pais the equivalent of 650 GA movements, which will make all the bean counters cringe and cry vengance. That they will loose these 20£ if they ban them will occurr only to the most “scroogy” of them and those will of course cry for “fair” taxation of GA. One guy once explained to me that he felt that the minimum charge the airport should bill anyone is for 50 tons, because below that it was not worth even typing the registration into the cash desk… it is this kind of arrogance which at times leaves me speechless but sometimes doesn’t and will usually result in major disagreements. But I understand that this is exactly what some airports such as Frankfurt have done. Actually, this kind of calculation is how Samedan got rid of all the small GA too, by taking their biggest Biz Jet and telling investors, bring one of these per WEEK and we make more money than with all the cockroaches during the whole season. By now that has self-fulfilled but it was a balant lie when first introduced.
Some of the “Ryan Air” type airports with 2-3 movements a day do claim they keep the infrastructure open for us, instead of closing down after the schedule, send all the people home and bring them back for the 2nd one in the evening. Some airports actually do that. Greece comes to mind, where the airports only open when there are airliners. Most however don’t but they are open anyhow, so the argument fails. Likewise, GA usually does not need handling, it is forced onto them by either the handling agents who want to exploit them or by the security nazis who will insist that GA goes through the same process as the airliners and therefore have to finance the machines and personel used to the same degree.
The other airports will claim that they simply have no capacity. That is wrong most of the time or it is self inflicted or a consequence of overregulation. Almost NO airport has no capacity the whole day, most have capacity either during off peak hours as well as, if adequately managed, during peaks too. The trouble in that regard is that airport management like airliners because they run predictable schedules and are regulars. They are already weary even of business jets because these don’t declare their program a year in advance but turn up when their owners need them, they are GA after all. So I have heard folks even wanting to get rid of those as well, simply because they do not fit into their plan economy. They are happy with their 5 scheduled services per day because they know exactly how much they will have earned per day and can do their budget and bookkeeping by copy/past, while GA makes them actually work extra for what they feel is insufficient compensation.
The other opponents are airlines, who go ballistic every time they see a small plane. I’ve had really severe discussions with some of these folks and actually friendships formed during my airline years break over such totally childish behaviour. At my homebase, it goes that far that ATC controllers, who are really trying to accomodate to their best of their considerable ability, feel forced to explain on radio to every airliner at a holding point WHY they will let a GA take off or land before them. There are ample reasons for this: If the airliner is not released by the center yet, if the airliner itself has not reported ready, if there is traffic which stops the airliner but not the VFR plane, e.t.c. Personally I find it an absolute arrogance and insult towards the ATCO’s that some airline pilots will write a report EVERY TIME they see a GA plane. I’ve heard that, many times, on the radio and I get angry every time. I’ve seen it also happen that ATCO’s try to “hide” small GA until the airliner is gone, even though there was ample spacing and separation between the two.
Consequently, airport management who have to answer these reports and who get presented the Cato quote at EVERY occasion by these people. “Moroever I consider that General Aviation (Carthage) must be banned (destroyed)”, will eventually yield and try to achieve this, mostly by pricing out GA, as most CAA’s will not allow them to actually legally ban it.
Personally, especcially in Europe, i don’t see a solution to this as the fronts are usually very much set in stone. Either you get the 1 airliner vs 500 GA movements argument or you get the capacity lies or you get the “not worth it” argument. Frankly, my take is, that what has to happen is that secondary airports need to increase their usefulnes by increasing opening hours (6am to 22pm would do), get night, IFR (via LPV and GPS approaches) and proper FBO’s who work pretty much the way as they do elsewhere. That however would mean that smaller airports around big cities need protection from land developers, anti noise leagues and, not least, a clear order that their license will only be renewed if they are willing to share their infrastructure without PPR, horrendous club fees and other protectionist garbage which make them even more unattractive than some of the expensive majors. Stefan sais it: Any airport should be regarded as public infrastructure, those who insist that they don’t want that, should pay for the privilege or be denied the license alltogether but in any case loose all financial support if they have any. If these smaller airfields would get the proper incentives, possibly financed by getting the banning larger airports to contribute, we would probably end up with a lot of attractive smaller airports. Whereever there is no alternative, the regulator should set the conditions of use for the larger airports and stop them from banning, out-pricing or otherwise harrassing any user of that facility.
