This is just the most recent example.
Then there is strange stuff like this in France. And a more general loss of immigration facilities around France which badly affects one of the two biggest international-flying communities in Europe – the UK – which has been progressing for over 10 years.
So many airports have gone from €30 to €200+ over last 10 years. And I don’t mean the fraported Greek ones which went thus in one go.
Will this ever stabilise or even reverse, or will GA collapse to ultralights, flying within the country borders, below the radar, like it already has in Spain and Italy?
Peter wrote:
Will this ever stabilise or even reverse, or will GA collapse to ultralights, flying within the country borders, below the radar, like it already has in Spain and Italy?
The only way it will reverse is if it’s outlawed. And EASA would have the power to do this, by declaring outpricing a safety factor (airplanes not landing at the suitable airport because of outpricing) or the EU comission could by putting their foot down and declaring airports infrastructure which are open to everyone at reasonable rates.
Other than that, the most likely outcome will be that all large airports become inaccessible to GA who are not willing to pay these insane sums. I am loosing my homebase too, due to a massive (factor 20) increase of parking fees. IMHO, this is unacceptable but the consequence of airports being privatized and therefore turned into money making machines instead of infrastructure. Airport magagers generally hate GA and wish it eradicated with a passion. Quite a few I’ve come across can not even explain with any reason why, just “they have to go!”
Add to that, lots of “pilots” of airliners and large Biz GA which wish us to hell as well, even their smaller “brothers”. I’ve come across totally repulsive attitudes from some of those arrogant S.o.B’s after the crash of that Citation last week. The spite, drivel and pure hatred against “owner pilots” e.t.c. was surprising even to me. In the end it comes to “I want the sky to myself, everyone else fu.. off.”
The most likely scenario will be that 2ndary and small airfields will be all that is left to GA. Which means mostly VFR intra Schengen.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The most likely scenario will be that 2ndary and small airfields will be all that is left to GA. Which means mostly VFR intra Schengen.
And ? 
Already today 70-80% of those actually flying are either:
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Add to that, lots of “pilots” of airliners and large Biz GA which wish us to hell as well, even their smaller “brothers”. I’ve come across totally repulsive attitudes from some of those arrogant S.o.B’s after the crash of that Citation last week. The spite, drivel and pure hatred against “owner pilots” e.t.c. was surprising even to me. In the end it comes to “I want the sky to myself, everyone else fu.. off.”
I haven’t really experienced or seen that. I do see more and more that people, especially airport people, are more and more overturned by rules, regulations, security and “safety”. Of course everybody working at the airfield, or ATC, or the CAA or whatever are as safe as a person can be behind a desk. Then, what it boils down to for those people is that “safety” is nothing more than means for them to free their backs of responsibility in case something happens. Nothing inherently wrong with good safety procedures. But the fact of the matter is that flying is dangerous, private GA in particular. Getting rid of private GA therefore gives a huge safety benefit. It’s a risk vs benefit thing, and private GA is high on risk, low on benefit (not very willing to pay) That’s what we in other circumstances would call a PITA
It’s a mystery to me how this can be fixed in such an unprecedented risk averse society we have right now and where everything at the same time is ruled by money. The best for the time being is perhaps to create our own infrastructure.
Already today 70-80% of those actually flying are either [….]
That’s rather country-specific (maybe Norway-specific?). Some countries are largely certified (for reasons often already discussed e.g. easily ability to fly abroad) while some have largely collapsed into a “grass strip” community. The latter are not really concerned by this trend.
LeSving wrote:
Getting rid of private GA therefore gives a huge safety benefit.
For whom? Hardly the big iron.
That’s rather country-specific
Perhaps. But take a count of the aircraft produced (in total) each year on behalf of the LAA, and compare that with new produced certified (light GA aircraft) sold in the UK.
In Norway and in any direction as long as you can fly in a day or two, it makes no difference what you fly. Not if you stick to VFR. For IFR it has to be experimental or certified. We all use Avinor airport also. The only practical difference for us is less bureaucratic hurdles with non certified aircraft. It’s as simple as that.
For whom? Hardly the big iron.
For no one in particular. It’s a no brain, no headache kind of situation. Statistically it’s a fact that less private GA causes less accidents by private GA. Hence “safety” increases when private GA decreases. For the paper pushers administrating an airport, safety is not the issue in itself. The issue is for them to be able to clear their backs of responsibility for an accident. Accidents costs and are bad PR. Private GA is high risk and no benefit.
LeSving wrote:
The issue is for them to be able to clear their backs of responsibility for an accident. Accidents costs and are bad PR. Private GA is high risk and no benefit.
This may be an argument that even the most anti GA seat polishers have not yet thought of and I hope they won’t. Safety today can buy almost everything.
In most cases, it’s as you say money and secondly an often openly displayed hatred for small and medium GA. The money moniker goes into the direction that they will claim that it costs that if GA was levied a “fair” share of costs on landing fees, they would have to pay the same kind of fees airliners pay. So most airports intending to outprice GA will eliminate weight classes below say 20 tons, so anyone wishing to use the facility has to pay the fees a 20 ton airliner or large biz jet would pay.
The other bit reminds me of the so called “Fawlty Towers” syndrome: Like Basil Fawlty, airport managers could run their airports perfectly if it was not for the bloody customers who bother them all the time. That is why some airports rather accept empty aprons and 2 flights a day and forego any monetary gain GA could bring, to keep their quiet days. Some of those don’t even want heavy GA but only scheduled services which get their slots assigned at the beginning of the year and be done with it.
I hate to be repetitive but the major problem in my mind is that most airports do not see themselves as infrastructure for public transport but as a profit center where only those who bring the biggest profit with the least variation and least tendency to have individual wishes are served.
LeSving wrote:
The best for the time being is perhaps to create our own infrastructure.
That is largely what is happening. GA is pushed out of the public service airports onto privately owned grass and other strips, which then can do what they want with them. Again, the problem is that airports big and small are not regarded as infrastructure, but the small ones are generally regarded as a nuisssance.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
In most cases, it’s as you say money and secondly an often openly displayed hatred for small and medium GA. The money moniker goes into the direction that they will claim that it costs that if GA was levied a “fair” share of costs on landing fees, they would have to pay the same kind of fees airliners pay. So most airports intending to outprice GA will eliminate weight classes below say 20 tons, so anyone wishing to use the facility has to pay the fees a 20 ton airliner or large biz jet would pay.
@Mooney_Driver, these people usually shut up when I say that I’d be happy to pay per movement + per tonne + per person (as it is with any airliners) at some big place if I’m offered value for money or at least the same level of service as the airliners. Which is never the case – we are getting much less, in some cases no service at all (except for very basic one), and we are made to wait and that is for a quiet airport.
Same thing, for example, with enroute charges in the UK – a pilot of a 2T+ normally-aspirated non-pressurised aircraft is just screwed, as they depart from under London TMA under IFR FP and then the radar service terminated without an ability to join CAS or any reasonable server. Still paying for the (lack of) service for the whole route.
Just imagine for a second that an airliner is unable to follow the normal route in CAS and they follow one OCAS, does anyone REALLY expects them to be just left on their own?! No bloody way. In some cases I’d be happy to pay, what I’m getting for it? “radar service terminated”?!
I think the main reason is “us big boys and them non-posh aircraft”.
Peter wrote:
Will this ever stabilise or even reverse
Funny, because yes in some places it is reversing. Spain for instance. Several years ago I was planning trips but was blown away by airport charges. They easily turned out to be the biggest cost factor, so plans were changed significantly. Now I fly quite regularly, and airport charges are super stress-free, at least where I fly to.
Now as that’s my prime destination, and as I don’t “have to” land in places where I’m not welcomed, I don’t see this as a big factor so far….
Funny, because yes in some places it is reversing. Spain for instance. Several years ago I was planning trips but was blown away by airport charges. They easily turned out to be the biggest cost factor, so plans were changed significantly. Now I fly quite regularly, and airport charges are super stress-free, at least where I fly to.
We are always interested. Which airline airports in Spain do you fly to which are thus?
