Legal action against pricing of some airports/handlers and funds gathering

Peter wrote:

For example much of France’s chamber of commerce funded scene is likely to explode one day

In France, we have seen one dominant operator, EDEIS quietly pick-up about 20 regional airports :

Angoulême, Annecy Mont Blanc, Auxerre Branches, Bourges, Châlon Champforgeuil, Cherbourg Maupertus, Dijon Bourgogne, Le Havre Octeville, Mayotte, Nîmes Alès Camargue Cévennes, Reims, Rouen, Saint Martin Grand Case, Tarbes Lourdes Pyrénées, Toulouse Francazal, Tours Val de Loire, Troyes, Vannes Golfe du Morbihan .

Despite rumors that price gouging was sure to follow, this has not been the case, at least for now.

Snoopy wrote:

What’s the motivation?

Not a lot to think about, there is a fraction in airport operators who look at GA as unwanted hassle or, as one guy described it to me, cancer. They have no legal way of saying stay out, so they price out. That is quite easy, because as opposed to official airport fees, handling fees are not subject to approval by the CAA. So they make handling compulsory for “security” reasons and then charge silly fees to keep GA out.

There are airport managers and book keepers who don´t even want biz jets, just scheduled services they can calculate out over the whole season, with fixed slots and fixed charges and so on. Anyhing non-scheduled already bothers them. That as that they are in the wrong place is not something to occurr to them. Fawlty Towers at large: They could do a great job if it were not for those fussy customers who actually want something of them.

I guess the legal way is the only one to actually challenge that, but I am not holding my breath: The enemy is very clever when it comes to manufacturing costs which they will claim in court they have to charge in order to actually survive. And it may even have some truth in it in some places, as in relation to a 747, small GA never can recover cost if it is calculated that way. The only way to disprove that is that GA is basically using a facility which exists also without it, so it can´t be made to pay for overhead they don´t need nor want. Of course the best way would be to reach a point where handling has to become volontary and not compulsory, that would blow the whole GA banning scheme out of the water mostly.

But we have to face it, GA and particularly small GA is not wanted at most big airports, not at all. So we basically have to fight our way in where there is no alternative.

The result of the US lawsuit is disappointing but not unexpected. It may actually have done GA a bad disservice, as now other FBOs will know they can get away with monopoly abuse. But no risk, no results even if they are not always the ones we expect.

If e.g. Fraport buy off the Greek aeroclubs they will defuse most of the local opposition.

BTW I have an update on that. Corfu Aeroclub which sued the company and the case went to the local Court,not only were ridiculed ,but the Court decided that the case is bigger than of local interest and they should reapply to Athens or German courts.In the meanwhile they all lost their PPLs,the plane Airworthiness and the free access to it.
I dont know ANY other aeroclub of taking measures against them;on the contrary most remain grounded or the more lucky ones moved to other locations with many new infrastructure problems.
Monitoring the FlightRadar and listening daily the VFR INFO freq,I can only see the same 3-4 planes taking of from Megara and doing circles without any remote landings.

That’s unbelievable, Medflyer.

The local court really told them they should apply to a German court? In the early days of the Fraport discussion here, one big (former) poster angrily complained that Fraport are nothing to do with Germany; they merely have a head office there Anyway that suggestion doesn’t make sense; it is in Greece that this is going on.

Sounds like Fraport crushed the locals.

What happens with all the corroded engines?

Yes I think most GA in Greece is now local flights, up and down. Very sad. The various little islands (e.g. Milos, among many) are still accessible but their timetables mean that a day trip is not possible, which jacks up the cost and dramatically reduces the number of passengers available for cost sharing.

A couple of comments:

In the US AOPA has had a number of victories against FBO’s which were trying to charge excessive prices. Not all, but a good number. The legal approach they are trying to use is much weaker than than which is being tried here by Bart IMO.

As I understand it, the core of the case that Bart’s lawyers are investigating is not abuse by Handling Agents, but is instead abuse of monopoly position by airports in setting of fees that affect GA. IE the idea that an airport which is geographically isolated be dint of being the only one on an island, or the only one for a region, has a natural monopoly and that cannot be abused. This is conceptually in breach of EU law.

Paul Beckwith

Yes; there is no practical way to sue an airport. Well, you can try, with lots and lots of money, but somebody the size of Fraport will just crush anybody trying, simply by engaging their lawyers.

The key to this action is over the abuse of monopoly.

Interesting that not just handlers but whole airports can be found to be in breach of EU regs, but I expect these lawyers to know how this works…

Funnily enough the UK is not going to benefit from this, as of 2019 But the UK is mostly two extremes: airports charging say £30 (which is boycotted by most of UK GA participants on the UK aviation chat sites, but IMHO is a perfectly reasonable fee for a place with a hard runway etc) and airports charging a few hundred (which are de facto closed to piston GA). In between are a few charging say £50-80; this is OK for a very occassional visit but cripples their local community.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

There are airport managers and book keepers who don´t even want biz jets, just scheduled services they can calculate out over the whole season, with fixed slots and fixed charges and so on.

This sounds more like an ideology and not anything of practical benefit to the airports.
There is a runway and most airports aren’t running at capacity at all. Even taking into account Pareto‘s principle this is insane.
A small GA plane does not put wear on the infrastructure (runway damage, pavement wear etc.).
It doesn’t need handling… chocks one can install themselves and walk out of the airport.
It is insane to price out anything that brings revenue to a business.

Michael wrote:

n France, we have seen one dominant operator, EDEIS quietly pick-up about 20 regional airports :
Angoulême, Annecy Mont Blanc, Auxerre Branches, Bourges, Châlon Champforgeuil, Cherbourg Maupertus, Dijon Bourgogne, Le Havre Octeville, Mayotte, Nîmes Alès Camargue Cévennes, Reims, Rouen, Saint Martin Grand Case, Tarbes Lourdes Pyrénées, Toulouse Francazal, Tours Val de Loire, Troyes, Vannes Golfe du Morbihan .
Despite rumors that price gouging was sure to follow, this has not been the case, at least for now.

I know about Annecy in particular as we used to go there a lot.

Years ago it used to cost less than 50 Euros for a small Citation. Then they introduced mandatory handling and it adds around 500 Euros in handling fees. The handling agents do nothing for us, passengers walk into the terminal carrying their own bags, just as before. The airport fire brigade do the fuelling just as before. Our flight plans are filed before we leave England. The value we get from having a handling agent is precisely nothing.

Annecy is an example where I think they would successfully argue that they have limited capacity and hence must price it accordingly in the winter season.