Ryanair was recently sentenced in France to a large fine by a court because they hired local people in Marseilles airport under Irish contracts and/or regulations. They did not pay for exemple the French social security. I can't remember the fine exactly but it was several millions euros. It is true that many regional airports now try to attract low cost companies. Therefore they build terminals, hire firemen, crew a tower etc... And then because the low cost company does not want to pay for it, they charge the money on other users : GA, taxpayers etc... There was (still is) a debate here to know whether tax money should be used to help an irish company get huge discounts from airports operators. It looks like blackmail to some people. Chambery LFLB is an exemple of a quiet airfield turned in the last few years into a not GA friendly one because they invested a lot to be able to welcome charters in winter (for people going to ski in the nearby resorts). Now it is almost impossible to go to Chambery with your light aircraft in winter. Use of the airport is restricted by Notams and taxes are unsanely high.
But is Bristol getting any taxpayer money? If no, they have exactly zero incentive to have anybody flying in for free. Maybe Ryanair just get a deep discount... but even that needs to be set at a level which at least covers the airport's costs. The airport has zero interest in helping the local economy.
They do have an incentive to keep their own local economy going though (the departure lounge retail economy). No high flow of passengers, fewer shops interested, therefore an inability to charge profitable rent rates for people to run the various retail establishments inside the airport. The airport can give a very keen price to Ryanair (with little or no direct profit from the actual airline operation) if they can make it up by keeping their own local economy (the airport lounge retail economy) vital and producing worthwhile rents and other fees. And also pass on some of the costs of the discount they gave to Ryanair to the passengers themselves (i.e. the fee for being picked up or dropped off in a private car, which in an airport very poorly served by public transport is likely to be the main way people get to and from the airport).
I'm only hypothesising here - I've not looked at Bristol Airport's accounts - but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the above were true or mostly true.
I wonder what the actual deal with Ryanair is.
At taxpayer-funded airports, it is "obvious" that the local government subsidises the airport, to get the tourists to spend money locally, and MOL knows this.
But is Bristol getting any taxpayer money? If no, they have exactly zero incentive to have anybody flying in for free. Maybe Ryanair just get a deep discount... but even that needs to be set at a level which at least covers the airport's costs. The airport has zero interest in helping the local economy.
You get to see other bizarre money making schemes in Ryanair-served airports - for instance see the £4 "pay to jump the queue in security" thing at Liverpool.
Everybody is at it. Easyjet (my favourite short haul) is running scams like £10 easy boarding, even when you have pre-booked the seats online.
I think part of the problem once an airport attracts Ryanair is that Ryanair and their friends drive a very hard bargain (give us low/no landing fees or we go elsewhere and your airport will go bust). My suspicion is that once an airport has made deep discounts to Ryanair it will just make it back up in some other way. For example, see Bristol Airport with its extremely high GA landing and handling fees. They even hit car drivers - if you go to Bristol Airport to pick someone up, you get charged £1 just to drive past the front of the terminal and not even park. Airports without Ryanair tend to let you do that for free. I suspect the airport had to start doing that to recoup the deep discount they gave to Ryanair (so the £1 that Ryanair gets to knock off the fare just gets paid by the passenger some other way - or the passenger's family when they go to pick them up from the airport).
You get to see other bizarre money making schemes in Ryanair-served airports - for instance see the £4 "pay to jump the queue in security" thing at Liverpool.
Yes - let's please keep this to stuff which has some chance of happening. Parliamentary democracy is not perfect but we can't change it. Clearly the best solution would be to dig out Joseph Stalin, modify his DNA so he loves flying in little planes, and put him in charge of Europe, but the technology to do that isn't around yet, either.
I too think that the biggest single issue is that airports become centres for empire building, and they either attract Ryanair (etc) or they close under the massive fixed costs of millions spent annually on staff and infrastructure.
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.
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
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 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.
@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..
