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.