That’s exactly what it is.
Most of the “chinese takeaway” list posted by Buckerfan is a blatent con.
It is like Tirana LATI presented me with a similar list which included a charge for runway lights – in clear daylight conditions.
A friend of mine has just messaged me a copy of the bill from a recent landing at Ibiza (August 2018). Cirrus SR22, 3 POB, 1 nights parking…….wait for it…..941 Euros!!!!
Someone somewhere must have the authority to set these bills up this way – and my question is: why? What’s the point of charging 900€ fees for a Cirrus?
What’s the motivation?
As noted above, AOPA in the US is fighting a similar legal battle. It seems it’s not going without problems though; some of the alphabet soup organisations that had joined the fight are now pulling back. I’m sure that the fact that Signature sponsors some of them (Women in Aviation International) is just a coincidence. But some of their lawsuits have been dismissed, as well and coverage not entirely friendly
The downside of this action is that if it fails, we may suffer at the airports which are still currently affordable. Hence the importance of having a good legal team and choosing battles wisely ;-)
We can expect these companies to go on the defensive and try various tricks. If e.g. Fraport buy off the Greek aeroclubs they will defuse most of the local opposition.
we may suffer at the airports which are still currently affordable
I am not sure I see the reasoning behind that. It is something I have heard expressed before, and certain UK GA organisation(s) may be aligning along that line. But this is not an action over airport pricing. There is no way to make an airport reduce its prices. If say Biggin Hill airport wanted to charge everyone £500, absolutely nothing could be done. It is an action over handling agents which are abusing their monopoly position.
What’s the motivation?
It’s a good Q and probably the answers are multiple.
One situation I was aware of at “close range” is described here. Basically somebody manages to convince the management that GA is a hassle which the handler will buffer the airport from.
Another which was fairly well known locally involved a corrupt airport manager who used to accept bribes directly from visiting pilots (in return for allowing parking) but later realised this was dodgy (corruption is illegal in Europe, even in the southern bits 
) so a handling company fronts the operation and, it is reasonable to assume, the manager gets paid by them.
In some cases, probably the London Airports being a good example, the airport simply doesn’t want GA but doesn’t want to fight it out with the CAA, so they deal with it by appointing two handlers which agree under the table to both charge £500 or so.
Isn’t there some legio enormis about intrinsic value of goods and services?
How expensive (true cost) can it be to handle a Cirrus? Charging a thousand Euros for it they might as well charge a million! This is outrageous.
Peter wrote:
But this is not an action over airport pricing.
It is that as well. The description of the fundraising on the gogetfunding web site clearly says “landing/ parking/ handling” in several places.
It doesn’t really matter if it’s airport or handling prices. If there is case law saying handlers and airports can charge whatever they want (e.g. if we loose) then nothing will prevent reasonably priced airports and handlers to start charging more.
That argument assumes that airport pricing is currently constrained by fear of litigation. I don’t think that is the case at all.
Nothing prevents them charging more right now. The only reason every airport doesn’t charge €1000 is because it would lose business. Fortunately most airports are run by people who have some concept of “business”.
I think there are factors, so far hidden from view, which will in the long run produce big increases. For example much of France’s chamber of commerce funded scene is likely to explode one day. These things just happen faster in the UK because there is, for want of a better expression, less “social integration”, more “user pays” etc.
alioth wrote:
“Disbursment fee”? That sounds like a fee for collecting the fee!Seems they forgot to tax the Disbursment fee
