Yes; salaries/wages are by far the biggest thing.
But also the hardest to reduce once they are in place, obviously. Before it closed, Plymouth airport reportedly had 56 staff. 56 - for exactly what? There were no paying passenger flights by then. I don't even think there were any AOC flights.
A hard runway, once built, takes very little maintenance if used by light GA. Obviously stull like lighting etc needs maintenance but all this comes to almost nothing compared to the huge cost of employing people.
No, but electric has the great benefit of not being controllable in the way any fossil fuel is. That's the beauty of it. Electric energy can be generated easily in numerous different ways. The lovely thing is that they don't fully realise the beast they've created. Tesla and the electric car is all fun and games as long as it's niche - even subsidising it (California gives it a $7500 environmental rebate). Similar scenarios exist in Europe. Before they know it, half the fleet will be electric and their precious fuel taxes will dwindle. Musk's prediction that in 20 years time there will be no pure fossil fuelled cars is probably true. At least the majority. Of course they will fight back and raise energy taxes in a panic when they realise their tax base is gone, but the reality is the cat is out of the bag - they can't tax all means of power generation. Solar, wind, stream - they simply can't control all of that. It's the Trojan horse.
And that will happen to aviation as well, just a little further down the road. It is inevitable that transportation will have to take place in the air to a grater degree at some point. When you get enough critical mass for aviation, real change will happen. I personally can't wait.
A few months ago I went to a presentation by a top level researcher in the electric car business.
His view was that taxes elsewhere will definitely see massive tax rises once electric cars threaten the hydrocarbon fuel tax take. It may not be on electricity itself (which is hard to do because it is used domestically) but will probably be road pricing (with GPS track logging, etc). In aviation, they would just impose route charges on everybody.
Anyway, the battery technology is nowhere near being any good. State of the art batteries are about 45 times heavier than the equivalent fuel. It may be a solution for a subset of PPL training (circuits etc) but there is absolutely nothing even remotely on the horizon which might work beyond that. It might work on cars because weight is not much of an issue there.
MooneyDriver - well said! In Europe at least, the abolishment of individual freedoms seems to be the overarching goal of all governments, no matter at which level - from village to the EU.
TThierry - it works that way in the US. Credit card operated fuel station, pilot controlled lighting. At some places a little - unlocked! - lounge with a computer to get the wx. Would be looted in under half an hour in France or the UK.
Adam - I think MooneyDriver has it. The anti-airport brigade hate the freedom of flight. Noise is only a smokescreen.
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan on government.
@mooney driver
For the sake of a bit of debate, sharpening the mind:
I think you are exaggerating. We live in democracies in Europe, and clearly senseless measures that restrict personal freedom to a large extent won't make it. Btw, even politicians who propose 10 GBP a litre for car fuels would not be that stupid shooting themselves (and their family and friends) in the foot. Apart from losing the next elections, you'd be left with empty pockets, a wife that divorces you and no more friends ;)
Do you really think we are on the radar screen in a serious way? That influential and serious politicians lose sleep over this insignificant activity?
You also mention 'ever increasing taxes on boats and aircraft'. What aircraft taxes are you referring too, and what increases? Not on the purchase of an aircraft AFAIK.. As to boats, where I live the politicians just took a sensible decision by removing the 12% tax on buying a yacht. The idea is to stimulate people buying them and creating economic activity here. Same on cars, Spain has a program to subsidize the scrapping of old polluting cars if you buy a small, economic one. So: a cleaner environment and economic activity.
I hope that I am not alone in thinking that not Everything Goverment is evil. :)
Having said that, I can relate to the frustration of our collegueas at Bromma and hope they find a way out..
@Aart In that spirit then, paraphrasing your words- Senseless measures that restrict personal freedoms for a minority for the economic benefit of a majority WILL make it. And democracies favour the majority who drive cars rather then fly GA...
I agree that governments don't care much for GA. I think they see it as a marginal economic activity rather then underpinning an entire aviation industry. They have other priorities and frankly so do most of those who vote for them. One UK pilot is a member of our parliament, Lembit Opik (he flies a Mooney :)). Lembit often writes articles for UK 'Flight Training News' magazine on such themes.
We as individuals have organisations to join to campaign on our behalf and need to get more involved. Of course it's easier and more fun for us to rant here instead:) Even easier to say "it will be okay" and marginalise those who speak up against the ever encroaching status quo.
Some examples of in/direct aviation tax/cost hikes:
So you condone buying a new car and ditching the old working one by increasing the tax take from even fewer workers... Well, it's a re-distributive approach common in Euro land....Has it worked? I am not holding my breath for a similar scheme to replace flying spamcans:)
Regarding the supposed 'environmental benefits'- do you refer to fuel savings rather then the costs of extracting, manufacturing and dumping raw materials? Generally it is hard for a simpleton like me to understand how encouraging spiralling 'consumption' is good for the environment. Modern cars are manufactured for a shorter life to reduce purchase price.
Senseless measures that restrict personal freedoms for a minority for the economic benefit of a majority WILL make it. And democracies favour the majority who drive cars rather then fly GA...
Hence the concept of a constitutional republic, to protect individuals from the improper and ultimately nonproductive tyranny of the democratic majority. All that stuff was worked out in the 18th century or before and is well known, but the issue in my mind is that EU politicians and functionaries do not want to learn those lessons. Not in their direct interest.
Regarding the supposed 'environmental benefits'- do you refer to fuel savings rather then the costs of extracting, manufacturing and dumping raw materials? Generally it is hard for a simpleton like me to understand how encouraging spiralling 'consumption' is good for the environment. Modern cars are manufactured for a shorter life to reduce purchase price
I agree completely and back it up by generating only one bag of trash/rubbish every week from my house. I also, and without going into excruciatingly boring detail, refuse to buy new disposable stuff. My disdain for the current environmental movement is quite comprehensive. That aside, European 'environmental' policy is In my opinion driven mainly by energy security issues, which would be fine if government called it what it is. Instead they preach a new state religion to the gullible, using time tested techniques of indoctrination.
Aart,
We live in democracies in Europe, and clearly senseless measures that restrict personal freedom to a large extent won't make it.
Don't count on it. Firstly, I can debate alone your assessment that most of Europe live in democracies. That depends strongly how you define democracy. Have most of European countries have freely elected parliaments? Yes they do. So the basically are representative democracies in which the people have a say every 4-5 years or so by electing or removing parliamentarians. Not really a massive influence, is it, especially seeing how most parties move in the same direction anyhow?
Do most of them have properly separated legislative, judicative and executive processes? Well, yes on a national level. However, this process has been severely impacted by EU law these days, which overrides national law and therefore has not a lot of democratic attributes. Quite some of those legislative processes are not up to democratic standards at all, nor are the judicative processes.
And moreover, what democratic legitimation does the EU itself have in particular the EU commission and furthermore their agencies like EASA? Yes, there is a European Parliament but what real influence has an EU citizen got over the policies and rulings the EU commission as well as the EU courts have? Quite some countries have found out recently that they can easily be totally overruled and in fact have given up their sovereignty.
Real democracies are countries which know direct democratic tools like referendum and initiative. The only one in Europe that I am aware of which has these tools is Switzerland. And despite the fact that our politicians have tried and tried, Switzerland has resisted the temptations of the Eu for the very reason that it would end this democratic process. Yet, due to bilateral agreements with the EU, they are already partly curtailed. But the Swiss population had got a very direct influence over it's parliament and government and exercises it at least 4 times a year in referendums over a lot of issues. Therefore, as opposed to most other countries, it does not matter to that degree who sits in parliament as the last word is not given by that government.
Just think about it. How many of the more controversial legislations would have been passed in the EU, if the EU leadership would have to ask the people for consent? How many national decisions would pass? And if they were legitimized by a referendum, would acceptance be larger? The same goes for the US: Were national referendums being held on important issues such as Obamacare, would we still be seeing scenes as we did in the last weeks?
The EU does in my view not qualify at all as a democratic entity and due to its overruling capability has a very undemocratic impact on their member countries and even some of the non member countries who have to accept EU law as their own.
So are European citizens living in a democracy? Not really. They live in semi-autonomous republics which are ruled by one large bureaucratic entity, which in turn is ruled by the stronger countries of the EU. Add to that the monetary policy makers of the Eurozone and you end up with an organisation which has invalidated most of the democratic processes which usually characterize a democracy.
So will "senseless measures which restrict personal freedom" really not make it? Quite a few have. EASA is full of senseless measures. And maybe you'd like to ask Cypriots, Greeks and others how much they feel they live in a democracy? Remember what happened when Papandreu proposed a national referendum on their EU dictated saving measures? The EU came down on them with a sledgehammer and threw them out.
But that is quite a large discours of the actual problem.
Btw, even politicians who propose 10 GBP a litre for car fuels would not be that stupid shooting themselves (and their family and friends) in the foot.
Don't bet on that! The lady who's just done this in Switzerland happens to be the most popular minister our country has and she's getting a lot of support from green and other interest groups. She has just risen the price of the motorway vignette in clear violation of the conditions in which that law had been passed. We'll know in November whether the people will support her in this, as there is a referendum up. Equally, if I read comments on proposed new taxes on aviation such as some which ardove has just listed up here, there is a frighteningly vocal lobby for them. Jealousy and envy are powerful political instruments and the European Left know how to exploit it. Mind, even Switzerland might now pass a law limiting management salaries now. Just imagine the impact that would have. Again, we shall know in November. The same kind of folk want to impose massive road pricing AND at the same time rise commute prices on trains and busses! Their motive? They wish to stop commuting and force people to live where they work. Um, yea, right, what if there is no jobs to be had? And no flats or houses where the jobs are? What do they care.
Do you really think we are on the radar screen in a serious way? That influential and serious politicians lose sleep over this insignificant activity?
Loose sleep? No. Use it in their panem et circenses ploys to tell the “people” they do something against the stinking rich exploiters, hell yea. We are a sitting duck and easy target. Politicians love that. Some are more obvious than others, but they are one and the same at heart.
What aircraft taxes are you referring too, and what increases
Fuel primarily. The fuel price has almost tripled since I started flying, quite a lot of that are taxes. And as I said, there is more where that came from. Good for you if where you are living there are people concerned with reviving the economy. Where I live, the opposite is true. There are forces in our country which want to force us into the EU. They know exactly they can’t do that while we still have one of the strongest economies in Europe and the highest standard of living. So they sabotage that, try to smash to bits our industry, bancs and lifestyle so they can then make the population see the “light” of the saviors in Brussels. If you think that sounds like treason on a large scale, so do I. Just ask the Bulgarians how they get along after they sold their country, for one. Quite some people there are quite livid about the fact that their saving accounts got fleeced by 10% recently on order of the EU. Again, democratic? Someone picks your pocket and you can’t go to the police? It is nice to hear that Spain has finally noticed they need to do something to revive the economy. Hopefully, the EU won’t smash their plans on that. They can, you know.
Best regards Urs
Isn't all this slowly drifting away from the original topic (what can be done to prevent the closure of airports) towards some political argumentation? I don't think that the solution is political only. In my opinion, there is money involved too. Simple, basic airfields can survive with a low traffic and low taxes. Airfields providing too many services cannot because they cost too much to run. And I think that too many airports provide much too many services as far as light GA is concerned. Which makes them vulnerable.
