Landing Fees

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, BrendAn said:

are they really that desperate for money. 

Just greedy 😈

[skippydiesel]

45 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

always your response.  commercial should pay.  rec pilots pay through shire rates and large hangar rents and other things i am sure.

Its a disturbing phenomena: -

 

Asset's (airfields) formally owned by the Federal Government (the people of Australia) have been divested (did we have a say, did we care?)

 

The airfields with the most economic potential, sold or possibly leased for generations to come,  to big business/developers (these would be most of the State Capital and some of their satellit fields) with the bulk of the remainder being gifted to Rural Councils.

 

Those that remain with the Councils, are still the public assets of the ratepayers of that Council area.

For the most part these airfields are an actual asset/benefit to the community they serve, allowing for emergency response aircraft, RPT, pilot training, aircraft servicing, agricultural aircraft, ait shows,  fuel, accomodation, tourism, etc

Despite, these  benefits, many (not all) Councils have seen fit to charge private pilots (Landing & other Fees), to access their field.

Fees range from say $10/landing to a rumoured several hundred dollar. The lower end may seem inconsequential, until multiple landings are made on a long trip. Then they certainly become a significant factor in the flight plan budget/expenditure).

 

I agree that these airfields should be maintained and that cost money. The rate payers of that Council area are already paying & benefiting.

Commercial aviation should be paying a sum commensurate with their financial gain, in using an airfield. This (I hope) is likly to be already happening, through individual contract.

We private pilots, as tax & rate payers, are already contributing our bit, why should we be asked for more?

 

For the most part our small aircraft contribute next to nothing in wear & tare (similar to motorcycle on a public road). I guess if we access secure overnight parking, a fee may be fair (like car parking).

 

All levels of our government, have been infected with the concept of User Pays as the only economic model.  Reasonable at first glance, plays into the hands of the greedy, who do not see that some system benefit others, such that the viability of both are enhanced  ie Synergy (an airfield bringing security, wealth, employment, etc to an area, without it, all would be poorer).

 

Some Councils have stooped so low , they sell off the publicly owned airfield (Goulburn NSW) or sections of it to developers.  In some instances the developed, sections compromise aircraft safety (Bankstown NSW) AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAS LET THEM DO IT.

 

To the best of my knowledge,  Councils who charge, for access to a publicly owned airfields,  have done so unilaterally, without good grounds and consolation with our representative bodies (democracy in action ?) AND OUR GOVERNMENT HAS LET THEM DO IT.

 

Cant just blame the Government - we the Australian proletariat, have in our complacency/apathy, shrugged our collective shoulders and uttered those immortal words "she'll be right mate" 😈

 

[BurnieM]

Not quite right. Councils were given the airfields whether they wanted them or not.

Most councils started from zero knowledge managing an airfield and many do not have much more now.

Cheaply run airfields have maintenance costs starting from $150,000 per year and going up.

Many (most?) councils view them as just another cost.

Unless there is a pilot or aviation business owner on council many are allowed to run down.

Stupidity happens ie Goulburn.

 

[danny_galaga]

Luckily my airfield, Boonah is well maintained. There are landing fees. If you have a plane hangared there you pay a yearly 'club' fee. That's not the word, but it escapes me right now, might be something like Boonah Airfield Association or something. 

 

But there are a few random locals agitating to close it down. So it survives in ten year blocks as far as I can tell. 

Edited August 13 by danny_galaga

[Thruster88]

39 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

Luckily my airfield, Boonah is well maintained. There are landing fees. If you have a plane hangared there you pay a yearly 'club' fee. That's not the word, but it escapes me right now, might be something like Boonah Airfield Association or something. 

 

But there are a few random locals agitating to close it down. So it survives in ten year blocks as far as I can tell. 

That would be a good reason not to give up flying Danny, the airfield needs you and other like minded people to keep going.

[skippydiesel]

10 hours ago, BurnieM said:

Not quite right. Councils were given the airfields whether they wanted them or not. I didn't suggest otherwise

Most councils started from zero knowledge managing an airfield and many do not have much more now. Agreed

Cheaply run airfields have maintenance costs starting from $150,000 per year and going up. Nobody disputes airfield have maintenance costs, but should private pilots , usually in very small aircraft be contributing?

Many (most?) councils view them as just another cost. Yes  rather than a posative investment that benefits their community

Unless there is a pilot or aviation business owner on council many are allowed to run down. Certainly could be part of the problem.

Stupidity happens ie Goulburn.

 

 

[facthunter]

Expecting to use something and Pay nothing when it's occupying valuable land and has considerable running expenses is Cloud Cuckoo Land, stuff. I' ve gone to Meetings over Kyneton and contributed (scarce)  Money  to Pt Cook. Telling some of you which way is up shouldn't bring forth Personal insults. Nev 

[BrendAn]

14 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Expecting to use something and Pay nothing when it's occupying valuable land and has considerable running expenses is Cloud Cuckoo Land, stuff. I' ve gone to Meetings over Kyneton and contributed (scarce)  Money  to Pt Cook. Telling some of you which way is up shouldn't bring forth Personal insults. Nev 

Saying you always have the same response is hardly an insult.

How come my shire never slugged us with landing fees until last year.

4 or 5 ultralights flying on the weekend occasionally is hardly worth the effort. A data probably make more than the council.

I am flying off a farm now anyway so it doesn't concern me any more. 

If you think it's a good thing to deter new pilots from practising touch and goes, I disagree.

[facthunter]

You are Verballing me to draw that Inference.. Knock it off and play fair. Nev

[BrendAn]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

You are Verballing me to draw that Inference.. Knock it off and play fair. Nev

I have had enough of you sooking over nothing. Same as having a go at me last night. I didn't insult you.

I can't say anything without getting some crap from you.

[facthunter]

It's only responding your bad behaviour. The fix is easy. Don't make  up things I did NOT say. Nev

 

[facthunter]

Who is sooking.?  Is that not an insult? You don't even seem to know when YOU are doing it. Nev

[BurnieM]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Cheaply run airfields have maintenance costs starting from $150,000 per year and going up. Nobody disputes airfield have maintenance costs, but should private pilots , usually in very small aircraft be contributing?

 

If a small regional airport has;

- no scheduled services

- 200-ish landings a year

- 1 medivac every 2 years

- 100 landings/takeoffs for a bushfire emergency every 10 years

 

Who should pay ?

 

The medivac/bushfire response is a benefit to the community so say the council could pay 50%

The biggest user is still private aviation. Could 15 plane owners contribute $75,000 per year for a basically maintained rural aerodrome ?

 

This is a pretty typical example.

 

Edited August 14 by BurnieM

[skippydiesel]

BrendAn

 

"I am flying off a farm now anyway so it doesn't concern me any more. "

 

You may or may not aspire to go on a flying trip - think of all those airfields, that are jumping on the money (not) truck, that you may want/have to land at ,  that are going to impact your budget significantly . In short support the greater good, even when you may not benefit yourself.

 

"....my shire never slugged us with landing fees until last year" 

 

How are they collecting?

• Direct bill ?
• Third party contractor?
• Donation?
• Other ?

😈

[T510]

53 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

I have had enough of you sooking over nothing. Same as having a go at me last night. I didn't insult you.

I can't say anything without getting some crap from you.

Just put him back on ignore, he rarely posts anything relevant and expects other posters to do what he says and not what he does.

 

The only downside is you still see his comments when he is quoted.

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

15 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

 

If a small regional airport has;

- no scheduled services

- 200-ish landings a year

- 1 medivac every 2 years

- 100 landings/takeoffs for a bushfire emergency every 10 years

 

Who should pay ?

 

The medivac/bushfire response is a benefit to the community so say the council could pay 50%

The biggest user is still private aviation. Could 15 plane owners contribute $75,000 per year for a basically maintained rural aerodrome ?

 

This is a pretty typical example.

 

Fair comment.

 

Is your example actual or speculative. If actual please provide location.

 

I guess the owners (Council) will have to weight the benefits & opinions of their ratepayers, against the cost.

 

Having access to an emergency response airstrip, may be viewed by the community as essential - bit like a sports ground.

 

$75,000 per annum /15 aircraft = $ 5,000/aircraft - Check out the join & annual fees for Wedderburn NSW & Mittagong NSW - pretty much in the same ball park.

 

The question is what if any fee should be charged to visiting private aircraft ?

 

What, no agricultural activities?

 

 

Edited August 14 by skippydiesel

[BrendAn]

47 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Who is sooking.?  Is that not an insult? You don't even seem to know when YOU are doing it. Nev

You are always sooking

[BrendAn]

7 minutes ago, T510 said:

Just put him back on ignore, he rarely posts anything relevant and expects other posters to do what he says and not what he does.

 

The only downside is you still see his comments when he is quoted.

 

 

 

 

Good idea. I will go back to ignore.

If you tick all the boxes you won't see anything just his name.

[facthunter]

You 2 should be ashamed of yourselves. You behave like a Lynch Mob. Nev

Edited August 14 by facthunter

[BurnieM]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Fair comment.

 

Is your example actual or speculative. If actual please provide location.

 

I guess the owners (Council) will have to weight the benefits & opinions of their ratepayers, against the cost.

 

Having access to an emergency response airstrip, may be viewed by the community as essential - bit like a sports ground.

 

$75,000 per annum /15 aircraft = $ 5,000/aircraft - Check out the join & annual fees for Wedderburn NSW & Mittagong NSW - pretty much in the same ball park.

 

The question is what if any fee should be charged to visiting private aircraft ?

 

What, no agricultural activities?

 

I was using Tumut and even after a big resealing project with new aprons and taxiways (which you would expect to reduce costs for the next few years) the council are still budgeting $150,000 per year for maintenance.

Fortunately Tumut has the forestry industry driving the ongoing maintenance of this airfield (even tho they seem to be reluctant to put any of their own money into it).

 

Ratepayers tend to go with councils that say this is a cost we cannot afford right up until they need the airport but this 'essential community asset' driver does not last for more than a year or two.

 

A landing fee of $15-20 would be reasonable for most small regional airports.

My understanding is if you do touch and goes for up to 30 minutes this counts as 1 landing at most airfields.

Special fees and inconsistencies across different airfields cause confusion and animosity between airfield owners and the GA community. I do not know how to solve this as some (many?) airfield owners do not seem to be interested in talking with other airfield owners.

 

 

NOTE THIS IS A LANDING FEE POST IN THE LANDING FEE THREAD. Anything else does not belong here.

 

Edited August 14 by BurnieM

[T510]

My local field does not charge landing fees, you do need to request permission if you want to land and we are limited on the number of movements a year.

 

We also have a limitation on the number of aircraft. It costs $40 a week for a hangar site (if you have a hangar) and when there is a hangar slot available for aircraft storage it tends to go for around the same amount per week. Probably part of the reason there is a waiting list.

 

We share the workload of maintaining the grass runway and are careful not to chew it up when it gets a bit wet.

 

 

 

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, BurnieM said:

 

I was using Tumut and even after a big resealing project with new aprons and taxiways (which you would expect to reduce costs for the next few years) the council are still budgeting $150,000 per year for maintenance.

Fortunately Tumut has the forestry industry driving the ongoing maintenance of this airfield (even tho they seem to be reluctant to put any of their own money into it).

 

Ratepayers tend to go with councils that say this is a cost we cannot afford right up until they need the airport but this 'essential community asset' driver does not last for more than a year or two.

 

A landing fee of $15-20 would be reasonable for most small regional airports.

My understanding is if you do touch and goes for up to 30 minutes this counts as 1 landing at most airfields.

Special fees and inconsistencies across different airfields cause confusion and animosity between airfield owners and the GA community. I do not know how to solve this as some (many?) airfield owners do not seem to be interested in talking with other airfield owners.

 

 

NOTE THIS IS A LANDING FEE POST IN THE LANDING FEE THREAD. Anything else does not belong here.

 

you have too much money if you think 15 to 20 is fair. it puts people off from practising their touch and goes.  the dollars add up quick at those rates.

i guess if you are taking off to go somewhere and return later its not so bad.

but for myself being a new pilot i spend my time practising mainly.

Edited August 14 by BrendAn

[Kiwi]

7 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

 If you have a plane hangared there you pay a yearly 'club' fee. That's not the word, but it escapes me right now, . 

I think they call it an "Annual Access Fee"
All the hangars are on council leased land or assess the airfield from private land. 

[BrendAn]

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

BrendAn

 

"I am flying off a farm now anyway so it doesn't concern me any more. "

 

You may or may not aspire to go on a flying trip - think of all those airfields, that are jumping on the money (not) truck, that you may want/have to land at ,  that are going to impact your budget significantly . In short support the greater good, even when you may not benefit yourself.

 

"....my shire never slugged us with landing fees until last year" 

 

How are they collecting?

• Direct bill ?
• Third party contractor?
• Donation?
• Other ?

😈

evil avdata are shire of wellingtons debt collectors.

[Moneybox]

We've been waiting since we applied in January to erect a hangar at Wongan Hills even though we had a verbal approval to start with. The airport had to be valued so that they could work out the annual cost of a 10 year lease. Eventually they responded with a lease fee of $1200 a year which I accepted, then they had to advertise in case somebody objected. That was some weeks back, meanwhile I've ordered the hangar minus a door that I'll most likely build myself.

 

There are no landing or parking fees at YWOH.