Longmont KLMO Colorado Warning

murphey

murphey

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
11,965
Location
Colorado
Display Name
Display name:
murphey
Entire article is from Bill Ward on Facebook:

The City of Longmont seems like they will consider implementing landing fees at Vance Brand Airport (KLMO). At the 12/17/2024 city council meeting, the mayor made a motion to direct staff to come up with a landing fee schedule to “defray airport, construction, and maintenance costs.”
I do not believe that the reason the mayor gave for the landing fees is truthful. I believe that the landing fees are being considered to illegally get rid of flight schools, pattern work, and people practicing instrunment approaches. Why do I believe this- because last year there was an uptick in people coming to the city council meeting begging the board to implement the landing fees to stop flight schools pattern work. The only reasonable conclusion as to why the city would even be looking into landing fees is in response to the increased noise complaints front he people that live right next to the airport.

If anybody wants to learn more about the legal things airport sponsors can and can not do, a lawyer did a presentation at the 11/19/2024 city council meeting. I highly recommend listening to his presentation as it is very informative.
Here is the link to that meeting- https://www.youtube.com/live/Ob2Y5U3jA5Q?si=tsKrGhMIkA7Sbx1Q
His presentation starts at timestamp 1:48:01
 
Each airport can choose how they implement the fees.
If they want to protect the flight schools, they can waive the fees for their planes or only charge one fee per day.
 
MountainDude said:
Each airport can choose how they implement the fees.
If they want to protect the flight schools, they can waive the fees for their planes or only charge one fee per day.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. This is another example where the residents are complaining about the noise and flight patterns. Longmont, Superior and Broomfield are the 3 towns that are leading the charge to shut down Jeffco (now known as Rocky Mtn Metro) and now Longmont. Altho Longmont's been in their sights for a number of years.
 
murphey said:
… The only reasonable conclusion as to why the city would even be looking into landing fees is in response to the increased noise complaints front he people that live right next to the airport…
Click to expand...
There’s other reasonable conclusions to be had.

My old base implemented user fees because they’re an entirely private operation open to the public. For the services and improvements users wanted, the owners had to raise money to do that and a logical way was to implement landing fees.

Residents and tenants are waived one landing fee per day per aircraft. The flight school never was a big user of the airport for T&Gs prior to landing fee implementation for various reasons. Not sure how the flight school is treated for landing fees today.

I’m not a fan of user fees, but in some cases they are the best tool for certain uses.
 
Love rage-listening to these NIMBY meetings, makes for great podcast on my wretched drive back and forth to my work release duty location. Thank you for the link. A former squadronmate of mine lives in said town and I think bases his Epsilon there. Big $-bag Widget Captain now, father's a retired CA also based there and share a big hangar. I'll ask him and see what's the sentiment among tenants.
 
"Pattern Saturation" That's the buzz word from Florida Airport Managers. See we need landing fees to deter pattern saturation that can cause airplane collisions. It's a safety thing just like water availability in fire hydrants. See where I'm going. With Vector billing and collecting landing fees it's almost painless to implement. Also if said neighboring airport Institute landing fees and we don't then all the training aircraft will use our airport.
 
Would be cool if there was a rich benefactor who would leave an endowment to pay for landing fees, with a bonus payment to the top 3 students each quarter who make the most T&Gs. The city would be happy for the income.
 
Teterboro in NJ did this years ago and moved all the flight schools out. It became essentially a jet only airport. Not sure if it was driven by neighbors complaining. But TEB required a landing fee even if based.
 
Rgbeard said:
Vector will even bill you for a low approach. It happens. Beware.

If you don’t want the hassle of fighting an undeserved bill, best to stay > 5nm away.
Click to expand...
They should be told to place said bill somewhere anatomically difficult…
 
danhagan said:
Guess you could switch your ADS-B to anonymous prior to that low approach ... just saying ...
Click to expand...
No anonymous on 1090, and it's awfully hard to change your N number in flight (the system uses cameras too).

There's no (legal) way around it other than going to different airports.
 
Hopefully like the red light cameras they will see that the cost outweighs the benefit when they start losing revenue with GA avoiding to go there.
 
Rgbeard said:
Vector will even bill you for a low approach. It happens. Beware.
Click to expand...
I've heard stories of people getting billed for practice approaches, etc. But when you ask for the specifics and to see the invoice, the story suddenly changes.

And if it is really cold out, they may not be adjusting your ADS-B altitude correctly and they may think you landed. But they usually do not just use ADS-B, so just tell them to show you pictures of your plane on the runway or on the ramp. End of story.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Hopefully like the red light cameras they will see that the cost outweighs the benefit when they start losing revenue with GA avoiding to go there.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that is seen as a positive in many cases.

First, it's "We're using tax money to run an airport for the convenience of a few rich pilots! We need to charge fees!"

Then, as people avoid the fees, it's "We should just close the airport, nobody is using it anyway."
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Unfortunately, that is seen as a positive in many cases.

First, it's "We're using tax money to run an airport for the convenience of a few rich pilots! We need to charge fees!"

Then, as people avoid the fees, it's "We should just close the airport, nobody is using it anyway."
Click to expand...

Life is like a dentist appointment... you're dammed is you do and you're dammed if you don't...

Oye!!!!
 
This is just the beginning as I see it. People say ..well it's just $3 or whatever but as soon as they get in there they can start raising prices. I'm waiting for the day in the future where in order to get FF or ATC you need to provide your credit card number. I'm telling you it's heading this way and if we don't stop this now it will get way worse. Just my opinion but this is what you get with unbridled capitalism with no safeguards. Hell look at the car market where new Mercedes, Tesla and what not have paid subscriptions for car enhancements. It's only a matter of time before it gets filtered to other car makers.
 
francisco collazos said:
This is just the beginning as I see it. People say ..well it's just $3 or whatever but as soon as they get in there they can start raising prices. I'm waiting for the day in the future where in order to get FF or ATC you need to provide your credit card number. I'm telling you it's heading this way and if we don't stop this now it will get way worse. Just my opinion but this is what you get with unbridled capitalism with no safeguards. Hell look at the car market where new Mercedes, Tesla and what not have paid subscriptions for car enhancements. It's only a matter of time before it gets filtered to other car makers.
Click to expand...
If airports cannot operate without charging landing fees, they are more likely to close down.
Do we want to pay small fees and have access to 1000s of airports, or do we want to avoid the fees for now, wait until many of the airports close, then pay even higher fees in the remaining airports?
For example, I can go to Driggs and avoid paying $100s they charge at Jackson Hole. If Driggs closes down, that choice will be gone. Just thinking long term here.

Also, ATC charges in Canada are super small. I fly there a few times a year and my yearly fees re $30-50.
 
MountainDude said:
If airports cannot operate without charging landing fees, they are more likely to close down.
Click to expand...
Well there is the rub, I mean how do you know? Have you seen their financials? I bet most of this crap is just a money grab. They get a percentage of fees with literally no work from them at all.
 
What can this company do if you choose not to pay? Seems hard to step into a courtroom get a lawyer over $20-30? If home base well then it super sucks.
 
francisco collazos said:
I mean how do you know? Have you seen their financials?
Click to expand...
I've sat on Airport Planning Committees and have seen a big chuck of the budgets. Usually airports are trying for every penny they can get from the State, County or City that owns them.
Notrub said:
Seems hard to step into a courtroom get a lawyer over $20-30?
Click to expand...
If the lawyer is on staff and they *think* they have lots of legitimate outstanding fees, it might be worth it.

Someone here or somewhere else that they're debating Vector incorrectly charging them wrote in and immediately got a reply they would correct the error. I'd go one step further and CC whomever owns the Airport. Who knows what will happen if it becomes apparent that they are messing up more than is acceptable to the airport owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top