Recreational aircraft landing fees - feedback needed please.

[pmccarthy]

My late friend Alan flew his 172 to Norfolk Island. See http://theblacksheep-theuglyduckling.blogspot.com/p/solo-to-norfolk-island-1996.html

[Ian]

A number of single engine planes have gone across the pacific. Lots of water there too.

A Long-ez would have the range. Not that I'd be that comfortable doing it in a single.

 

[Geoff_H]

Some years ago the  Mooney club was looking at flying to New Zealand. Port Macquarie to Lord Howe to Norfolk island to top of North Island of New Zealand.

We also considered East Timor but you can't get avgas there.  I looked into shipping 44 gallon drums to their but our contact there was not interested in doing all the paperwork for the importation.

[Geoff_H]

The Mooney I used to own had been flown to Australia via Canada, Europe, down through the middle east and India, Indonesia, new guinea and Darwin then down to Perth.  

[djpacro]

Moorabbin simply had enough of RAA pilots avoiding payments and I can understand that having read a large number of online posts from pilots who avoid paying any landing fee whatsoever. 

Quote

Unless otherwise agreed in advance by MAC, the Airport Access Charges will apply ..... Itinerant (visiting) aircraft. MAC may (at its sole discretion) waive certain Airport Access Charges and Reserved Parking Charge for some categories of itinerant aircraft in order to encourage airport visitation and use of commercial facilities.

 

[kgwilson]

Maybe they had pilots avoiding paying fees. The $5.00 fee at our aerodrome via the honesty box is avoided by some. It costs us hangar owners around 50k a year to maintain our aerodrome & that is with volunteer labour. Now details of RA aircraft are provided to Avdata so that shouldn't happen. The approach of posting such obscene fees though does not bode well with anyone in my opinion. All it will do is give the Aerodrome a bad name and it will become a pariah of Aerodromes not just from the RA side but GA as well. 

[skippydiesel]

59 minutes ago, djpacro said:

Moorabbin simply had enough of RAA pilots avoiding payments and I can understand that having read a large number of online posts from pilots who avoid paying any landing fee whatsoever. 

 

Me thinks you not only exaggerate horribl (the number),  you also oversimplify the reasoning - all any of us (I suspect you included) want is to be treated consistently fairly - is this too much to ask/expect from our public entities (private & public)?????

Edited April 3, 2022 by skippydiesel

[onetrack]

Quote

If you ever get to Christmas Island you won't get a joyflight around the island. I was wondering why until I looked into the charges.

Basically a light plane is charged the same as a 20T airplane per movement.

I can understand that someone with say a 4-seater or a chopper, would be keen to find a market in the tourism industry on Christmas Island for joyflights around the Island - because there's basically only one beach, and the few "roads" around the Island are actually just overgrown tracks, where the crabs will mug you at every chance.

 

However, it's not just light aircraft landing fees on Christmas Island (or Cocos-Keeling Islands either, too) that are the cost problem.

The cost problem with these Islands is that because they're Australian Territories and each has to be supplied from Australia - and the nearest "resupply" port is regarded as being Fremantle - virtually everything that goes to these Islands has to be shipped in by sea - from Fremantle - and only one company has the contract to do this.

 

As a result, the cost of everyday items on these Islands is over-the-top - and the shipping is only done every few weeks - and the shipping is limited in size, thanks to the limitations of the jetties at each of the Islands. There is only one public jetty and one landing access point at Christmas Island. The other jetty is a dedicated phosphate mine loading point.

 

Commercial flights to both Islands are now down to 2 a week, and each flight has severe limitations on what they can carry by way of freight. The flights rarely have empty seats. A few perishables make it to the Islands on each flight - but typically, a lettuce costs around $10-12 at each Island, and fuel cost is more than double the cost of what is, here in Australia.

 

On Cocos-Keeling, the Govt decided the jetty needed an upgrade in 2008, because the old one was falling down and it couldn't handle anything much by way of heavy items. The initial costing was $28M for the new jetty - it ended up costing $43M by the time it was completed in 2011! And that only got them a basic concrete jetty. They have two mobile cranes for unloading containers and heavy items.

 

To give you an idea of the problems, the Govt abandoned a 15 tonne Caterpillar dozer in good condition on Cocos, left to rot alongside the new jetty - because it was deemed uneconomic to ship it back to the mainland.

 

So, in this context, landing fees would actually be the least of the problems of any joyflight tourism operator on these Islands. Parts, service, maintenance, the cost of Island living, and a limited labour force would be the major costs and hurdles. The Islands grow little food (apart from coconuts) because of their poor soils.

This seems a little counter-intuitive, because Christmas Island exports bulk rock phosphate - but the phosphate is locked into the rock, and has to be mined, whereas all the Islands topsoils are actually quite infertile.

 

The stupidity of the Islands supply arrangements can be viewed in the context that Cocos-Keeling Islands are only 900km from Indonesia - but they're 2700kms from Fremantle. The cost of shipping one 20 foot shipping container to Cocos-Keeling is now around about $10,000 - so that's on top of the cost of the 20 tonnes of goods inside. Let alone the 6 week wait while your goods are shipped.

 

http://islandshipping.blogspot.com/2013/10/cocos-keeling-islands.html

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by onetrack

[djpacro]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Me thinks you not only exaggerate horribl (the number),  you also oversimplify the reasoning - all any of us (I suspect you included) want is to be treated consistently fairly

1. There has indeed been a large number of such posts over the years.

2. Ask the airport management for their reason and compare with what I stated.

3. “consistently fairly” is not what airport managements have experienced over the years trying to invoice RAA registered aircraft cf VH aircraft.

[Kenlsa]

We manage our airfield for the council, they are happy with this as they keep any interaction with us to a minimum. If we don’t go to them with any headaches, they will allow us to operate.

 

We don’t charge landing fees for sport aircraft as we expect a reciprocal fee  waiver from others at their fields.

 

we charge any commercial flight $10 per engine.

 

We also charge our private owners (90 of us) $50 per year landing fee. This is separate from our hangar site cost.

 

But a quick napkin cost structure of the NON FLYING portion of our operations is substantial.

 

Rates, insurance, maintenance and salary for a site manager is over $100k plus volunteers who slash, repair fences etc

 

Note this does not include any flight operation that is double that amount.

 

This seems to work for us as everywhere in our normal flying destinations are reciprocal…..all good.

 

BUT, just think of a council that RUNs the operation that doesn’t have a reciprocal agreement with other sites (why would they as they are the council) they have to get get their $100 plus cost back somehow. They are not going to throw away rate payers cash.

 

I often hear that visiting pilots spend up BIG in town adding to the council and business coffers but I have yet to observe many/any calling a taxi to get a pub meal, shopping etc.

 

Most just grab a coffee and leave, putting it a a destination in their log book.  The only exception I have noted is if it is a major event that most fields only conduct every 2 years.

 

The money must come from somewhere.   $100k has to be recouped somehow. User pays.

 

Ken

 

[skippydiesel]

 

Paying (some) ridiculous fees to land/use what were public airfields is but a symptom of a greater malaise.

 

It seems to me that Australia had the potential to steer a rational (ha!) course between the socialist welfare state (high taxation) and conservative economic rationalism (user pays & high taxation). What we have instead is a dogs breakfast where there is little or no understanding of economic/social synergy and the concepts of stand alone/ user pays pretty much rules the day. A demonstrably failed philosophy.

 

The most extreme example of user pays, is the good old USA. What a social & economic disaster it is - do we really aspire to this sort of nightmare?. The huge population (that is a market unto itself as well as the World) is the only thing that stops the USA disintegrating (it will happen one day).

 

Some of the Scandinavian countries (many similarities with Australia - small population, hostile land mass, etc) demonstrate the success of the socialist welfare state (may be a bit too lefty, not sure I want to go there either)

 

There must be a better way, where those in power do not sell off our/public assets, for a quick cash grab and then force us to pay again, to use those same assets we have already & continue to pay for through multiple levies .

 

I have no objection to paying landing fees to privately owned airfields or even a fee to public airfields, that recognises the difference in utilisation (wear/tare/space/ services/etc) between a sub 600kg aircraft, - 6 tonne -  40 tonne plus. If its going to be user pays, charge a fee commensurate with the utilisation.

 

Rant over.

[Ian]

In many cases the solution similar to Grafton is good outcome.

You have a low cost lightweight airfield which caters to smaller planes and GA and a high cost airfield which caters to RPT.

The GA airfield is not security controlled and runs with minimal interference and keeps the costs low.

The costs associated with the requirements of RPT are clearly only associated with the requirements of RPT flights.

 

Contrast this with Canberra Airport which has created a situation where real estate interests actively compete with aviation businesses. Bunnings, Costco and Government offices dominate the landscape and google maps show over 20 aircraft parked outdoors in the weather. The closest airports are Goulburn 100km or Cooma airport 130km both of which aren't GA friendly.  For example a "grass light recreational aircraft permit" fee is charged regardless as to whether the aircraft is parked on the grass or in a hangar, and the fee is over $3000 per financial year.

The local government doesn't wish to change this status quo even though there's a demonstrated requirement to control fires in the national park to the southwest and firefighting aircraft have had incidents over the city itself. ACT Government has essentially become captive to property development and is committed to squeezing as many people into the smallest slum possible.

 

 

[spacesailor]

As a failed airman !

AND.

Looking at the ridiculous cost to use any airfied, l may just put my two aircraft out for council cleanup. 

It will save my sanity & the family ,s ,problem of dumping my junk when my time has expired. 

Yes l did start a smaller, lighter HB, thinking  ' IF ' .

BUT

An IC engine, or Battery power , is still over Raa,s , 95_10 design parimiters.

spacesailor

Edited April 4, 2022 by spacesailor
Missed word

[turboplanner]

41 minutes ago, Ian said:

In many cases the solution similar to Grafton is good outcome.

You have a low cost lightweight airfield which caters to smaller planes and GA and a high cost airfield which caters to RPT.

The GA airfield is not security controlled and runs with minimal interference and keeps the costs low.

The costs associated with the requirements of RPT are clearly only associated with the requirements of RPT flights.

 

Contrast this with Canberra Airport which has created a situation where real estate interests actively compete with aviation businesses. Bunnings, Costco and Government offices dominate the landscape and google maps show over 20 aircraft parked outdoors in the weather. The closest airports are Goulburn 100km or Cooma airport 130km both of which aren't GA friendly.  For example a "grass light recreational aircraft permit" fee is charged regardless as to whether the aircraft is parked on the grass or in a hangar, and the fee is over $3000 per financial year.

The local government doesn't wish to change this status quo even though there's a demonstrated requirement to control fires in the national park to the southwest and firefighting aircraft have had incidents over the city itself. ACT Government has essentially become captive to property development and is committed to squeezing as many people into the smallest slum possible.

 

 

The squeezing as many people into the smallest slum possible is Local Government originated; the objective is more Rates income. It's common in Melbourne where the quarter acre block was everyone's dream, and which today produces Rates of approximately $1800/year, is bought for $1.2 million, razed to the ground and a two story complex of 10 units is sold by the developer for a handy profit and the new owners pay about $1200 Rates each, so around a 7 fold increase on the same street and sewage infrastructure. It's passed off as Affordable Housing (which is a Millenium standard - at one stage a developer in Northern Scotland put 16 inappropriate units on an estate, and sweetened the pie by describing it as contributing to Affordable Housing, because one unit was a minimal shack.

Where all the cars in the old quarter acre block standard were housed off-street, all cars in the 10 units - 20 to 30 plus caravans, boats etc are parked on the street because the required 2 car garage is built to be used as an extra room.

 

This policy shifts to Industrial Zones where the zones are now build up against residential zones with just a high concrete wall between, and often offensive industries are sited right in among the food producers.

 

That has its repercussions, but it will probably be a couple of generations before people get sick of it and start spreading out again.

 

We are not short on growth zones, just that this model makes a lot of money for a lot of people......which is another reason for Local, State and Commonwelth Governments to stand back.

 

Over the years on this site we've heard about the crazy situation in Canberra, and also other airfields you used to have nearby, so I have a lot of sympathy for you. Take a look at the information on Moorabbing where the Council has finally come out fighting after mild objections for a number of years. Mooney Valley Council is also hardening its approach to Essendon Airport where some industries on the field are not allowed across the boundary street. You may find some contacts who can help you.

Edited April 4, 2022 by turboplanner

[trailer]

How much do landing fee collection companies retun to the airport owner as a percent? Does anyone know?

[Old Koreelah]

Like far too much government financial details, that’s probably commercial in confidance. Which is a good way of conceiling mismanagement of public assetts (and straight corruption) from the taxpayer.

[Flightrite]

I emailed MB airport to confirm their Ldg fees for non VH registered aircraft (sport registered aircraft, her words), the girl highlighted, in yellow $545!
WTF?

You would rather crash outside the airport boundary if ya lost ya donk than glide into that grubby corrupt joint!

[turboplanner]

Waraton's request for information is dated October 20, 2021 for a presentation to the local Council.

Hopefully he got it done long ago and is reaping the benefits.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep Turbs, there are 150sq m blocks at Palmerston which were sold for 150,000 dollars, while there is nothing but worthless land (5 cents a sq m I guess ) for thousands of km to the E thru to the SW.

I enjoyed telling about this back home, as evidence of the corruption of the NT govt,  but  then the same thing happened at Blakeview, just north of Adelaide.

On the old quarter acre block, you could keep chooks and grow veggies. These new slums will become death traps one day.

[waraton]

38 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Waraton's request for information is dated October 20, 2021 for a presentation to the local Council.

Hopefully he got it done long ago and is reaping the benefits.

Wishful thinking unfortunately turboplanner but hopefully some progress to be made after recent change of councillors who seem more flexible in their views and open to listen. The benefits of an airfield to a community are far more reaching than just a profit making enterprise, an observation which is hopefully being recognised with the recent Moorabbin fiasco. User pays must include the community who benefit in ways that don't make it to a balance sheet. 

 

The question posed by trailer about how much money gets scoffed by collection companies is an interesting one and a point which seems to without an answer. I suspect it is the lions share which would negate many benefits of the fee for service model. Right wrong or indifferent landing fees are regularly avoided by people not making calls or avoiding the field altogether and I don't see that changing.