pilotrobbie wrote:
What shall consist of this letter? Lille’s Importance to light GA in this region of France Safety of Diversions? Pilots are mostly IR or very skilled Understand the increase in cost but not 175% for aircraft <2T
I think it makes sense to send an e-mail to LFQQ OPS first to confirm if it is permanent, if it is correct, while pointing out that it was not like that earlier this year.
And if all correct, then as above?
Personally, I would simply ask if this price increase is correct and if so why the increase is so big.
The other factors IMO will hold no weight with the airport management.
arj1 wrote:
I think it makes sense to send an e-mail to LFQQ OPS first to confirm if it is permanent, if it is correct, while pointing out that it was not like that earlier this year.
And if all correct, then as above?
Yeah, I guess that would make sense. Need evidence that it is indeed correct and or permanent.
gallois wrote:
Personally, I would simply ask if this price increase is correct and if so why the increase is so big.
The other factors IMO will hold no weight with the airport management.
Why do you think it wouldn’t be right to point these out? I think they hold value as to why we want the price as it was, even if they added an inflationary charge.
Culture 🙂
I don’t say it wouldn’t be right just that those items in your list hold no weight with the people you are dealing with.
arj1 wrote:
I think it makes sense to send an e-mail to LFQQ OPS first to confirm if it is permanent, if it is correct, while pointing out that it was not like that earlier this year.
Draft Email: All, let us know your thoughts, please.
Dear Ops,
Please may you confirm if section (4) GENERAL AVIATION is correct for Private aircraft under < 2T? It states 79,00 for Private and 39,50 for Technical. This was originally 23,58 for Helicopters and < 2T and Technical was 11,80 for Helicopters and < 2T There has been a substantial increase and removal of the Aeroclub.
Can you please kindly confirm this is correct?
This is the response I got from Ops.
pilotrobbie wrote:
This is the response I got from Ops.
Being published absolves them from giving any additional explanation. How convenient 
Emir wrote:
Being published absolves them from giving any additional explanation. How convenient
So now we proceed to writing a letter to the Director of the Airport?
So now we proceed to writing a letter to the Director of the Airport?
For what purpose? You asked a simple question (are the rates correct) and you got your answer. “The correct rates are those published on the website.”
That answer is 100% correct and appropriate to the question asked.
If you want a different answer, then ask a different question. If you want to make an argument for why you think the airport should charge lower rates for this category, then make that argument. Don’t expect them to be mind readers and understand why you are asking the question and don’t expect them to make your argument for you.
Be more direct, but make sure your points are convincing from their point of view. Your previous suggested arguments were why YOU would want lower charges. Your arguments should show why THEY should want lower rates if those arguments are to be effective.
@dublinpilot makes a good point. The French are particularly noted for only answering the question they are asked.
Have you or anyone else tried LFQT as POE.
