Malta Luqa LMML

what_next wrote:

I don’t really understand why people always compare Europe to the United States. The way airports / airfields are funded is completely different. The way workers, especially unskilled ones are treated is completely different. The line boys of your US handling agent probably live in a trailer just outside the airfield and when they have caries, their teeth simply fall out (seen a lot of those in the US). The Maltese handling employee can afford to live in a house, send his kids to school and even university and when he gets caries, a dentist will look after it. Paid in part with my handling charges.

So how much does RyanAir pay their people especially pilots? What about Wizz Air? Any of the discount carriers? While Im at it what about Iberia and Aegean?

A line Boy is not a career in the US. Its a starter job which leads of other aviation jobs.

I have emailed AOPA Malta (yes there is one), pointing them to this thread, highlighting the fact that the airport is not appearing welcoming to light GA and asking:

“Is handling really mandatory for light aircraft arriving from the EU (VFR/IFR)?
Someone quoted a handling charge of 150euros. Is this a typical price for handling?
Do locals have to pay handling too or is there a way to avoid it?”

Response was:
“Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Handling is only mandatory in Malta for non locally registered aircraft.
Cost are expected to be around 100eur to 150eur depending on which handler you choose.

We are raising awareness about the lack of a GA friendly environment to the appropriate authorities."

I think it’s a shame that it’s so expensive and there is no alternative. Malta is a great place to visit and is a very scenic place seen from the air and ground.

Personally I see nothing wrong with handling. They are providing a good service. What I have a problem with is that it’s mandatory. In my view one should be able to choose either a VIP service or a do it yourself approach.

I think the situation in Malta can easily be resolved at least for aircraft arriving from the Schengen area. As they should be able to exit from the small security gate next to the GA parking instead of getting transport to the main terminal. One should be able to arrange fuel himself too by just calling appropriate number.

Regarding tourism in Malta @what_next is right that the Maltese infrastructure is strained under the heavy influx of people arriving. This year they are expecting almost 2M tourists. This in a country with only a 400k population. Right now Malta is also spending loads on upgrading infrastructure to cope. My guess is that the tourism authority would also be trying to attract higher end tourist (quality instead of quantity). It’s in their interest to make Malta appear GA friendly.

@C210_Flyer Malta’s industry is not just based on tourism. It used to be that way, but in the last 10-20 years there has been a push to diversify. The economy has seen a huge increase in pharmaceuticals, online gaming companies, financial service and fisheries. But it’s also true that tourism is huge and one of the main industries.

Full disclosure: I am Maltese, grew up in Malta but moved away 15 years ago to the UK, now living in Portugal.

Malta is one of the Med destinations currently regarded by the BBC TV / Daily Trash audience as “safe” (along with Majorca etc) so vast numbers of tourists who would have previously gone to Greece (and especially the eastern Aegean islands) are going there instead. Business on e.g. Lesbos is about 80% down on 2015, because of the refugee problem (which is no longer present but most people don’t know that).

Greece is obviously hoping this will change back to the more normal times but it may not happen in 2016 because the usual airlines have cancelled most of the usual flights for this season, so the only way to reach the affected islands is via Athens, which is a load of hassle and usually costs a load more.

what_next wrote:

I don’t really understand why people always compare Europe to the United States. The way airports / airfields are funded is completely different. The way workers, especially unskilled ones are treated is completely different. The line boys of your US handling agent probably live in a trailer just outside the airfield and when they have caries, their teeth simply fall out (seen a lot of those in the US). The Maltese handling employee can afford to live in a house, send his kids to school and even university and when he gets caries, a dentist will look after it. Paid in part with my handling charges. I have no problem with that at all.

This is not true. I learned to fly at Houston Gulf airport, one of the linemen owned a 50% share in a Cessna 140 with me and lived in a house. (He’s now an airline pilot). OK, so that’s an extreme example, but a line boy is a starter job – kind of like the aviation equivalent of kids working in McDonald’s.

The people at Signature at Kansas City didn’t have caries, were dressed smartly, and lived in houses and provided excellent service. Signature catered for big jets down to light singles and only charged for services rendered. In other words, for a light single, the FBO only charged about $15-$20 worth of fees (if you include the mark-up on their European priced fuel as part of the fees), which is proportional for the FBO taking out the hassle of getting a rental car and a hotel.

As a European example, I can spend a long weekend at Gloucester (EGBJ), spend about the equivalent of 30-35eur. on fees (which includes the landing fee) to land and park at a good quality airfield, maintained in good condition, with staff that don’t have caries and who do live in houses, with things like a rental car desk available right there, with staff that will fuel your plane while you’re away so you don’t have to do it when you get back. What justifies and makes value for money three digit fees just for handling for parking a light single for a couple of days – especially if an entire country has no alternative – including the alternative of not requiring handling?

I’m aware that airports here are funded differently, but here we’re talking about the handling agent, not the airport (which already got its fee from you landing).

alioth wrote:

This is not true. I learned to fly at Houston Gulf airport, one of the linemen owned a 50% share in a Cessna 140 with me and lived in a house. (He’s now an airline pilot). OK, so that’s an extreme example, but a line boy is a starter job – kind of like the aviation equivalent of kids working in McDonald’s.

Hey thats what I said! Except you said it more eloquently. However to dispel such myths the truth has to be repeated and told over and over and over again for generations to come.

I hate it when confronted by hard facts they disappear into the woodwork. I like a good debate win or lose. However I would rather win.

geekyflyer wrote:

Regarding tourism in Malta @what_next is right that the Maltese infrastructure is strained under the heavy influx of people arriving. This year they are expecting almost 2M tourists. This in a country with only a 400k population. Right now Malta is also spending loads on upgrading infrastructure to cope.

Having lived in a well to do Tourist town I can tell you that if a place has such a large population influx than its probably a place I would stay away from. Especially if Low Cost carriers are a large portion of the flights. Not to be a snob but I would rather not fight the crowds, getting a table at a good restaurant or staying at a place with either 4 or 5 true stars. Im referring to and thinking Friedrichshafen star ratings.

Emir wrote:

So you would stay away from Rome, Paris, London, Istanbul, Barcelona etc. Intresting opinion … Scenic locations attract people and crowds can’t be avoided if you want to see them.

Personally, for the most part, yes. For example, I far prefer Zaragoza to Barcelona. Barcelona is catering a lot for the tourist and all that entails. I enjoyed visiting Barcelona when I did but I was glad it was just a couple of days – enough to get the feel of the place but not long enough to get tired of the endless crowds (and the pick pockets and thieves). Zaragoza does have tourists, but only a small fraction of Barcelona and as such is much more pleasant to actually do tourism in, and all the restaurants/bars etc. are catering for the locals rather than catering to the foreign tourist, so you learn much more about the place the city is in. Also, the people there will speak Spanish to you. Try to speak Spanish in Barcelona and you’ll get English back, partly because of the Catalan separatists, but partly because they are trying to cater to the international tourist and think it’s being helpful to speak to me in English, when for me personally it’s not helpful.

Many places that are not “touristy” are still very scenic and often have interesting things to do, and you get to see the region for real, not an image projected to cater for the international tourist. They may not appeal to most tourists, but what usually appeals to a typical holidaymaker usually doesn’t appeal to me.

Emir wrote:

So you would stay away from Rome, Paris, London, Istanbul, Barcelona etc. Intresting opinion … Scenic locations attract people and crowds can’t be avoided if you want to see them

Yes What Alioth said. Or Ibid.

I dont take my vacations when the world is on vacation during the same time period. Yes its something you hope you will grow old enough to do and be able to enjoy.

Not only are you paying significantly more during “high season” but everything is more difficult, from getting reservations at a good restaurant to hotel accommodations, to “tourist fatigue” by the locals.