Jujupilote wrote:
do we know the business case of a standard (no-fee) US FBO ? Do they make all their money on fuel or are they subsidized? or do they pay a rent to the airport owner ?
The USA, being the cradle of aviation remains the most successful and accessible aviation environment in the world. It is efficient, safe, and accommodates all sectors of the aviation community. It thrives with activity and its spectrum of users span from the home built ultra-light and experimental community, recreational pilots, training schools, business jet users, airlines, to the military and even astronauts share the airspace. I have limited understanding of how USA airspace and infrastructure is funded, but it appears to be significantly aided by government as a part of the national transport infrastructure. Here in Europe things are very different. European ATC is either wholly or partly funded by Eurocontrol route charges imposed upon IFR movements, our airports are mostly owned or operated by commercial enterprises making various charges to cover their costs and satisfy shareholder returns. Sadly our European governments show little recognition of the benefits of any national airspace infrastructure beyond that needed for the airlines, and the airports see the commercial operators as a more lucrative source of revenue.
It needs to be more widely recognised that the recreational aviation community forms the grass roots of General and Commercial Aviation. We need to provide and maintain access to a stimulating recreational airspace environment for our youth to become pilots, engineers, traffic controllers or take up careers in the many other specialist professions in the aerospace sector. It’s essential that we fight to keep the cost of activity at this recreational level affordable to hobby flyers and private pilots.
I am not a supporter of state operated business, as an entrepreneur I do believe in free and open markets. However, it does seem that in the airport community greater regulation is needed to avoid excessive charges being made in virtual monopoly situations. In Cannes for example, Airports Cote Azur, since its state ownership was sold to new private owners three years ago, as part of the privatisation deal, limits were placed on the extent to which airport charges could be increased. Despite this regulation, the new owners policy has been to implement charges by stealth through the imposition of mandatory handling for most of the free hard parking area of the airport, and a “into tank fee” of €50 each time you buy their expensive fuel. Given that ACA airports reported profits of €98million in 2015 (40.4% EBITDA) I see little justification for them to impose new or additional charges upon light aircraft operators for services users don’t need or want, but are forced to take if they use the airport.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Is that for international flights or also for inner France flights? e.g. if i arrive from Chambery or Annecy and agree to park on the grass, do I still need handling?
Le Castellet LFMQ is by design the luxury airport of the Cote d’Azur.
It is obvious from their website
LEIB has indeed become prohibitive for most light GAAart
Jujupilote wrote:
is firefighting equipment a requirement for charter jets
I was an airline dispatcher and my job in that regard was to check what fire cover the airports we were using had. So I am not current on the requirements but as far as I remember it had to do with MTOW and class of airplanes. So I would say that it is very likely that it is.
@Flyingwineman, I understand that. My question was, is handling compulsory for inner French flights at this stage?
I know first hand what it is like when one’s homebase starts to price out GA. But often enough we don’t have a choice, as you have none. Me too, if I wanted to go to another airport for base, i’d face similar driving times so basically I have to put up with it.
Cannes however is not an airline hub. Their behaviour looks similar to other places like Samedan, where they focus on biz jets and feel that small GA has similar financial possibilities or rather wish them gone. This is unacceptable but unfortunately they own the place… so bad business is their choice.
Handling is not compulsory (at this stage) at Cannes for aircraft less than 3,500kg arriving from within France. Anything over 3.5tn and not based at Cannes is obliged mandatory handling. I fly to Samedan several times per month in the winter, and handling is NOT MANDATORY for aircraft less than 4,000kg. However, they will by default offer it and charge it if you don’t decline. The key is to specify NO HANDLING in advance by email when notifying Samedan Ops of your intended arrival. In the winter, with their significant snow fees and surcharges, it saves about 700sfr. At Samedan my total cost in the Conquest 1 (3.9tn) is a very reasonable 240sfr, and they are extremely welcoming.
ahh Cannes, what a wonderful airfield. Ran into battery issues there once, asked the local maintenance shop if they could recharge it for a couple of hours. Mechanic said “no problem”. Shop owner ran after me after it was done and asked me for one hour of shop time ..
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Cannes however is not an airline hub. Their behaviour looks similar to other places like Samedan, where they focus on biz jets and feel that small GA has similar financial possibilities or rather wish them gone. This is unacceptable but unfortunately they own the place… so bad business is their choice.
I hate paying high fees as much as anyone but unfortunately if the airfields are not receiving government money, how do you stop them? Unless it is anticompetitive or you nationalise them I can’t see how you prevent them making decisions that punish GA. Maybe you introduce price controlls on the basis it is national infrastructure but I doubt those will stand without CAT traffic.
JasonC wrote:
Unless it is anticompetitive
Flyingwineman wrote:
Handling is not compulsory (at this stage) at Cannes for aircraft less than 3,500kg arriving from within France. Anything over 3.5tn and not based at Cannes is obliged mandatory handling.
Ok, so the thing is to enter France elsewhere before proceeding to Cannes then and to depart via another French aerodrome. A bit stupid but feasible at least.
Flyingwineman wrote:
However, they will by default offer it and charge it if you don’t decline.
Ok, for a Conquest that may be. For me, Samedan has never tried to charge me handling but is very expensive in other charges such as overnight and in my case noise (Noise class B by Swiss FOCA Standards) so all in all I pay for my 1168 kg airplane about 180 francs for one overnight stop. Way too much imho. Most people I know either don’t go there at all, if so not in Winter and for less than 2 hours. 100$ Nutcake so to speak.
JasonC wrote:
if the airfields are not receiving government money, how do you stop them? Unless it is anticompetitive or you nationalise them I can’t see how you prevent them making decisions that punish GA.
There is two ways about it. First of all, quite some of them do receive subsidies so it may be an idea to talk to those who give them, but since those are politicians this usually won’t help. The other bit is to make them think.
Let’s say an airfield of the size of Samedan or Cannes decides to price out GA because they think them not worth the hassle. My answer to them is, what hassle. it is YOU who impose the hassle to us. In theory, all that happens is that small GA use an infrastructure which is there anyway for the desirable clients and gets you some more money. Granted, not that much, but hey, let’s say 10000 movements per year with 30 Euros fees is still 300’000 Euros plus what people consume in terms of restraurants, rental cars and regional hotels e.t.c. AND, you avoid pissing off voters and supporters when you need them to sign the next petition.
Fact is, all those airfields are there and their infrastructure are open for the biggies without a single small plane landing. So their claim that the small planes cost them extra is false to a large extent. They do use an infrastructure which is there anyway and they are willing to pay for this within reason. By imposing handling e.t.c. (which usually does not go into the airports pocketbook) they price out people who would help support the infrastructure even if it may be considered negligible. And to make it so all they need to do is keep a side door open for us and sweep the GA parking from time to time. Any maybe they can get some more cash from the Avgas franchise.
Deciding to price out GA is almost never a rational act. It is in most cases an act of irrational hatred by some jobsworth bureaucrat who for some reason hates small planes. Where it is rational, people will most of the time understand and be good about it as long as there are reasonable alternatives. But in the cases where there are not, such as in Ibiza, Cannes (Nice is not really an alternate is it) and Samedan, I would be supportive of an infrastructure law which forces them to accept small GA at rates which are in relation to the work they generate to the airport.
It works in many places, it works in most of Eastern Europe so why does the Western part try to be smart with us…
Simultaneously both franchsiees colluded to impose crew and pax screening charges at exactly the same price
This cartel seems standard. Here in the UK, the “London Area airports” do the same, with Harrods Handling and Signature…
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Ok, so the thing is to enter France elsewhere before proceeding to Cannes then and to depart via another French aerodrome. A bit stupid but feasible at least.
A few weeks ago we considered going to San Sebastian. They stated that handling was mandatory if coming from a “non-police” airfield, even from within Schengen. What are they afraid of .. ?
Maybe we should start a non-profit, pilots-only car rental company that would leave car/electric bikes at smaller fields, making them as convenient as the larger ones .. For Cannes, Cuers is a no-hassle alternative (if you’re ok parking on dirt), but the last-mile problem is very real there.
