Landing fees to deter training school traffic

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I wonder what the effect on traffic would really be. The fees seem fairly small compared to the cost of training and so I imagine the schools would directly pass it on to the students and continue their level of operations.

This is also a serious issue in metro Phoenix. For the GA pilot flying as a hobby the traffic patterns at all local airports have become a nightmare.

Florida cities, county prepare to impose new fees on airport users

Airports located in one of the nation's busiest flight training corridors are preparing to impose more fees that will, if implemented, have serious consequences for flight training, flight schools, and local pilots.

www.aopa.org

 

[rotorwrench]

I wonder what the effect on traffic would really be. The fees seem fairly small compared to the cost of training

Allowing publicly funded airspace and airports to become fee-based is the beginning of the end for private, recreational aviation. The airlines have been quietly fighting for this for decades to as a method to "free-up" space/slots to further their expansion. A simple look to the EU or any country that operates a fee-based vs tax-based regulatory system, will demonstrate who controls what. If you value your hobby, I'd fight any attempt to implement landing, take-off, or enroute fees.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I agree that it would like end that way if we allow publicly owned airports to do this. I don't see it helping GA flying for the reasons I mentioned.

In a sense, hobby flyers are really riding on the edges of a much larger industry.

Of course, I don't really support the idea of publicly owned airports, but that is a whole 'nuther nut'.

 

[rotorwrench]

Of course, I don't really support the idea of publicly owned airports, but that is a whole 'nuther nut'.

Be careful what you wish for. Based on my experience, if non-Part 139 public airports, to include a number of “private” aircrafts, lost certain public-funding and its associated protections, 90+% of them would be sold to developers at the earliest convenience. So that would have you look for another hobby or be limited to basically ultralights, gliders, and LSAs operating out fewer and more remote areas.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think is is somewhat hard to predict, but you may be correct that it would dramatically reduce the number of places that GA aircraft could fly. Or it might be that it would just become very expensive to use larger airports.

In Phoenix I imagine Sky Harbor would be owned by some large corporation, possibly an association of the larger airlines. They might let you land there like they do now on the south runway for a large landing or ramp fee.

Others like Falcon Field might be owned by a consortium of the training schools there. Others like AkChin or Coolidge would be more questionable. They might also let you land there for a fee, probably less than Sky Harbor but not free.

What I personally support the government doing is based on a broad set of moral considerations, not simply my personal enjoyment. But in the meantime, while I am being forced to pay for it, I will enjoy it .

 

[rotorwrench]

I think is is somewhat hard to predict,

Not really. There have been 10-30 small GA airports closed every year for the past several decades. And the common thread through most closings is tied to how the airport was funded.

In Phoenix I imagine Sky Harbor would be owned by some large corporation,

Sky Harbor is a Part 139 certified airport. It will always be there and accept any aircraft thanks to its FAA funding.

And by developers I don't mean aviation developers. The airport will be repurposed with most becoming industrial parks, ie., no more aircraft. And once enough of these smaller airports are closed, then you may start to see restrictions, not just fees, placed on aircraft type operating at the larger airport. Ironically, its possible that an up-and-coming aviation industry might just breathe new life into some of the small airports: AAM/UAM/RAM transport with eVTOLs, eSTOLs, VTOLs.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Here is one relatively close airport that is thinking of this as well. I guess if what they want to do is discourage repetitive pattern work they could have an escalating fee schedule. $20 for the first landing by an owner in a day, double that for the next, and continue doubling. I think even Embry-Riddle and its students would quickly find this unaffordable. (Remember the parable about the rice grains and the chessboard.)

Transient Landing Fee System | Cottonwood, AZ

The Cottonwood Municipal Airport has been tasked with exploring the possibility of enacting landing fees for all transient aircraft. In February 2023, Vector Airport Systems and Virtower announced a global strategic partnership. The pairing of these two companies provides the technology for...

www.cottonwoodaz.gov

 

[rotorwrench]

Here is one relatively close airport that is thinking of this as well. I guess if what they want to do is discourage repetitive pattern work they could have an escalating fee schedule. $20 for the first landing by an owner in a day, double that for the next, and continue doubling.

Keep in mind, Vector/Virtower are private businesses out to make a profit and have developed a niche market. Unfortunately, most airport commissions are run by community leaders vs aviation professionals. Plus a number of small regional airport commissions have delusions of grandeur when told if they do X (limit private GA) then Y will come (121 pax/cargo ops) and you’ll make more money.

And while the FAA allows a wide latitude of self-governance over airports, it does not exempt the use of that facility and airspace per US law by its citizens.

So the use of references like Part 13 or Part 16 is simply a way to sound “authoritive” to get its way since 99.9% of the recreational aviation community has no working knowledge of these Parts or their rights in this matter.

Hopefully, the aviators of Cottonwood told their commission where to stick it and started a process to get better commission members elected to protect the aviation rights to their hobby and free navigation.