We have had many threads on airports disappearing.
It would be interesting to know whether there is any way to run a GA airport without a load of businesses based there i.e. running purely on landing and parking fees, hangarage, the cafe, etc.
Here in the UK where airports don’t receive taxpayer money, this is a big problem. But the creation of a “trading estate” eventually threatens the airport because it makes it easy for property sharks to buy the site, close the airport and stick a load of houses on it.
I know many French airports for example get a taxpayer subsidy, but how does e.g. Zell am See manage to stay afloat? I’ve been told it is owned by a member of the Porsche (?) family, but they can’t just be pouring money in there for the fun of it. And what about Lausanne?
Turweston and Sywell seem to manage. As do loads of smaller strips. But you need an owner with capital to buy and hold the airfield.
Yes; what I was getting at is not the places where you need a pair of rubber boots to use the toilet or need a prop overhaul after a few visits 
e.g. as Elstree always was (haven’t been there for years). Obviously an unmaintained place, or a grass strip, can be run on very little money.
It’s the properly working hard runway places I was thinking of.
Assuming just for sake of the argument that the land is bought and paid for, it seems to me the major (hidden but fairly obvious) operating ‘cost’ of an airport is the loss of land rental income. Would it really be accurate to say that all land under European airports could be profitably developed, even if recognizing that is the case in southern U.K? Is it true for example in Croatia or other less populated places?
Obviously in the US individuals and communities own non-government landing facilities of one kind or another, with public use in some cases, but due to generally lower population density and some other factors there isn’t always a lot of pressure for the land to produce income. Also there’s not necessarily much out of pocket cost to leave it as it is, so little “pouring money in there”. How are the obligatory airport maintenance costs in European countries different ?
I don’t know what ‘properly working’ means. It’s a short strip of tarmac, not a machine. And fuel makes money, not the converse. In principle there’s surely not a lot of active participation involved?
It’s the properly working hard runway places I was thinking of.
Meaning grass runways cannot work “properly”? That’s a matter of semantics. My grass field does have a properly working toilet, you would actually be much frowned upon for wearing rubber boots there; and I have no memory of any prop strike, though shit of course will and does happen.
But yes, a certain level of upkeep will always be required and perhaps a return on investment too. It has to come either from third parties (public funds, rich keen landowner, …) or from the users – either paying or working unpaid, or both. Myself am in the last category, paying a very modest bit and assisting now and then in voluntary work.
The level of service you seem to require from an airfield is quite expensive and there are less and less pilots willing to pay that kind of money, making the prices go up and the aerodromes go away – I think that’s your annoyance.
It’d be interesting to make a list of the perceived operating costs and see which are actually necessary in many or most people and governments eyes. Here are some i can think of:
1) Runway repaving and maintenance, if required
2) Mowing and/or brush control
3) Fencing if required by law
4) Property Taxes if any
5) Hangar and other structure maintenance, if any
6) Staff, if any
Etc…. #2 seems to mandatory.
5) should be made up for by rent – indeed renting out hangar space is a prime source of income for a/d operators.
6) reminds of the ridiculous Flugleiterpflicht. Luckily Germany believes in voluntarism.
7) mandatory fire fighting equipment – in the Netherlands, or so I heard, and perhaps elsewhere. Includes trained and approved staff, periodical equipment checks &c, all to be paid for.
Somebody mentioned a while ago that they believed the ‘firefighting thing’ is an ICAO requirement, and I managed to restrain myself from saying that I’ve never landed at an airport with dedicated firefighting equipment 
Why can’t the same fire fighters and equipment that respond to any other fire (non-airport structure fires, car fires etc) in the area respond to airport fires equally effectively?
BTW, at my airport with 600 operations per day there is an occasional crash and fire on the runway, I’d guess one per year or two. The local firefighters come and put it out, and also the local paramedics if somebody is trapped and injured in the plane. Same as a car accident although less to burn.
Peter wrote:
Yes; what I was getting at is not the places where you need a pair of rubber boots to use the toilet or need a prop overhaul after a few visits e.g. as Elstree always was (haven’t been there for years). Obviously an unmaintained place, or a grass strip, can be run on very little money.It’s the properly working hard runway places I was thinking of.
Sure. I assumed that and both are excellent hard runway airports with good facilities. Turweston has a wonderful new tower with cafe and office space that puts Shoreham and most UK airports to shame. No IFR approaches but that is true for most of the UK.
So, how do they balance the books?
