Egregious FBO charges

[Clip4]

I'm going to have to disagree on this one, at least to a point. Yes, if you leave your plane on their ramp for more than a few hours, it's reasonable to pay for storage.

However, if you declare an emergency and drop down because of weather, medical emergency or a minor mechanical failure and have no choice as to where you landed, it's simply not OK for them to arbitrarily charge a landing fee or some exorbitant "ramp fee" at a public airport. Private airport? Sure - but that's not what we're talking about. Remember, the majority of these airports were built with the public's tax dollars.

That said, if they are nice and helpful it would be good form and polite to at least top off the tanks before you leave.

I have flown commercially as a Part 91 pilot and flown XC a lot for pleasure. In over 5000 XC hours, I have had 1 flight where diverted to an airport during an emergency with an expensive FBO. The ramp fees were expensive and the repairs were relatively very expensive. You understand this is not a common occurrence and suck it up.

As far as WX diversions, you did the flight planning and you are required to determine the alternatives if the flight cannot be completed as planned. If your only alternative is an airport with an expensive FBO, whose fault is that?

So far in 49 years of flying, I have never had to divert for a medical emergency and these events are so rare this less than a once in a lifetime issue / 10 pilots.

The vast majority of airports you land are of such low cost and extraordinary value you fail to appreciate it and expect it as the norm. If a once or twice in a lifetime fee is a deal breaker for you on an unexpected diversion, you really need to find a new hobby.

 

[Bob Noel]

It's interesting to think about when property must be posted "No Trespassing" and when rental/service rates aren't posted at all.

 

[Salty]

If a once or twice in a lifetime fee is a deal breaker for you on an unexpected diversion, you really need to find a new hobby.

It’s this kind of attitude that encourages this type of practice.

 

[Clip4]

It’s this kind of attitude that encourages this type of practice.

Oh please, tell us what you are doing to discourage this type of practice old wise one.

 

[dans2992]

Just to close the loop on this, I sent a nicely worded email to the owner of the FBO seeing if there was a deal that could be worked out. Forwarded it to his CFO who basically said that the only other thing they could do was rent me a tiedown on the ramp for $1300/mo, otherwise, $270 handling for each operation and $115/night.

For something the size of a PA46, I fail to see how this meets the "reasonable fee" requirements of the grant assurances. Am I wrong here? Also, the grant assurances require the fees to be "non-discriminatory". Does the fact that they discriminate against Jet A burning aircraft (of the same size as a comparable piston aircraft) come into play as "discriminatory"? My turbine aircraft imposes no more work on these guys than a piston.

I am aware getting that enforced would be an uphill/impossible battle, but I'm curious how this kind of thing squares with the grant assurances.

Anyone know the right contact at AOPA to discuss this with? Based on the way stuff like this is going across the country, I assume there's not much that can be done, but I'd like to at least try. Tax dollars going to support extreme profits for a single individual FBO owner strikes me as... concerning.

 

[DJTorrente]

Flight planning starts on a ramp and ends on a ramp. If your planing is the flight starts at the runway hold line you are a rookie. So if are a pilot who taxis onto any FBO ramp and doesn’t know the applicable fees before doing so, you now know why you are surprised by the fees.

And no, the FBO should not have to waive fees because you had an emergency. It’s possible your plane may be on their ramp for months if the engine ate a piston. You are going have to negociate those charges or take the wings off and get the plane off their ramp.

 

[Lindberg]

Just to close the loop on this, I sent a nicely worded email to the owner of the FBO seeing if there was a deal that could be worked out. Forwarded it to his CFO who basically said that the only other thing they could do was rent me a tiedown on the ramp for $1300/mo, otherwise, $270 handling for each operation and $115/night.

For something the size of a PA46, I fail to see how this meets the "reasonable fee" requirements of the grant assurances. Am I wrong here? Also, the grant assurances require the fees to be "non-discriminatory". Does the fact that they discriminate against Jet A burning aircraft (of the same size as a comparable piston aircraft) come into play as "discriminatory"? My turbine aircraft imposes no more work on these guys than a piston.

I am aware getting that enforced would be an uphill/impossible battle, but I'm curious how this kind of thing squares with the grant assurances.

Anyone know the right contact at AOPA to discuss this with? Based on the way stuff like this is going across the country, I assume there's not much that can be done, but I'd like to at least try. Tax dollars going to support extreme profits for a single individual FBO owner strikes me as... concerning.

Forget about grant assurances. If they charged your card without authorization, call your bank and contest them.

 

[dans2992]

Forget about grant assurances. If they charged your card without authorization, call your bank and contest them.

I own a home near the airport. I’d like the airport to be accessible at a reasonable price.

Doubt that’s going to happen though. I’ve been beating the bushes for a hangar, no luck so far.

 

[Walboy]

Ultimately pricing is classic supply vs demand. Doesn't sound like their demand is hurting at those prices.

 

[Hang 4]

Definitely not discrimination by an legal definition. Not particularly "fair" though as you point out. While it's a big $$ amount, I don't think the FAA, AOPA or others will have a lot of luck in changing it.

 

[dans2992]

What’s the legal definition of “discrimination” in this case? Charging minorities a higher ramp fee?

 

[Kevin Eggert]

I'm curious what they would have done if they didn't have an old record of your previous use of a credit card there. Would they have looke dup the tail number and mailed an invoice?

 

[Tusayan]

Ultimately pricing is classic supply vs demand. Doesn't sound like their demand is hurting at those prices.

That's because is isn't "classic supply versus demand", it is a taxpayer supported and government regulated quasi-monopoly. The problem here and elsewhere (e.g. Las Vegas) is that we and our GA lobbying bodies aren't forcing lazy Federal Government officials to do their job properly in regulating what will always, invariably be overpriced unless they do their job.

 

[Walboy]

That's because is isn't "classic supply versus demand", it is a taxpayer supported and government regulated quasi-monopoly. The problem here and elsewhere (e.g. Las Vegas) is that we and our GA lobbying bodies aren't forcing lazy Federal Government officials to do their job properly in regulating what will always, invariably be overpriced unless they do their job.

I suppose, but that's not the FBO's fault. The FBO negotiated themselves a deal and they're pricing accordingly.

 

[MauleSkinner]

we and our GA lobbying bodies aren't forcing lazy Federal Government officials to do their job properly in regulating what will always, invariably be overpriced unless they do their job.

Unfortunately “overpriced” is an entirely subjective threshold that is not defined anywhere in “their job.”

 

[dans2992]

Unfortunately “overpriced” is an entirely subjective threshold that is not defined anywhere in “their job.”

Disagree. FAA grant assurances say that prices must be “reasonable and fair”. However, they have explicitly said they’re not enforcing this.

So, it’s technically a “law”, just not enforced.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

the only other thing they could do was rent me a tiedown on the ramp for $1300/mo, otherwise, $270 handling for each operation and $115/night.

See this constantly.
Once an fbo/airport governance gets a taste of that jet money, they want the little guy to go away.
The free market forces (which I normally encourage and promote) in action at an airport, favors the wealthy.

 

[dans2992]

See this constantly.
Once an fbo/airport governance gets a taste of that jet money, they want the little guy to go away.
The free market forces (which I normally encourage and promote) in action at an airport, favors the wealthy.

Yep… however in this case, I’ll simply drive to/from the next nearest airport and “earn” $200/hr for driving - they make nothing.

They have plenty of empty ramp space. At a more reasonable price, they could have my business.

 

[Salty]

Yep… however in this case, I’ll simply drive to/from the next nearest airport and “earn” $200/hr for driving - they make nothing.

They have plenty of empty ramp space. At a more reasonable price, they could have my business.

Unfortunately, they can still nail all the transients that don’t know about their charges because they don’t make them public. It’s criminal.

 

[iamtheari]

100%. The one time i felt the most ripped off was when i landed at an airport i didn’t want to land at. I had to land there due to a malfunction. That’s when they tried charging me the “door opening fee”. On the other extreme, I once landed at Williston, ND and before leaving i noticed the fuel selector was leaking. The FBO’s mechanic fixed it (obviously they charged me for it) but they also kept the plane in the heated hangar free of charge for a whole week while I continued on to our vacation by car. Nice FBO vs. rip off FBO.

That must have been at KXWA. The FBO at KISN was, I think, #2 on AOPA’s watchlist for exorbitant fees. They would send you a bill for doing a touch and go. Sometimes, things can get better.

 

[Walboy]

That must have been at KXWA. The FBO at KISN was, I think, #2 on AOPA’s watchlist for exorbitant fees. They would send you a bill for doing a touch and go. Sometimes, things can get better.

Airport manager in my area was hit up by a company that would collect landing fees to include touch and goes on airport's behalf, presumably for a cut. There are a lot of training aircraft here, constant touch and goes. Kind of like cities being hit up by companies offering photo radar enforcement or red light enforcement. He told them thanks, but no thanks. Other airports have expressed an interest though, at least from what the manager said.

Wonder if this will become a trend?

 

[iamtheari]

Airport manager in my area was hit up by a company that would collect landing fees to include touch and goes on airport's behalf, presumably for a cut. There are a lot of training aircraft here, constant touch and goes. Kind of like cities being hit up by companies offering photo radar enforcement or red light enforcement. He told them thanks, but no thanks. Other airports have expressed an interest though, at least from what the manager said.

Wonder if this will become a trend?

In this case, there was no published landing fee. Just a greedy FBO.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Disagree. FAA grant assurances say that prices must be “reasonable and fair”. However, they have explicitly said they’re not enforcing this.

So, it’s technically a “law”, just not enforced.

What numbers are “reasonable and fair,” and how is that codified in the law?

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

That must have been at KXWA.

It was KXWA and the FBO was Overland. Super nice people, one of my favorite FBOs I've been to so far.

 

[dans2992]

What numbers are “reasonable and fair,” and how is that codified in the law?

See "Question 5" here: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...dance/QAs-FBO-Consolidation-Pricing-final.pdf

 

[MauleSkinner]

See "Question 5" here: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...dance/QAs-FBO-Consolidation-Pricing-final.pdf

Exactly my point. No formula for determining “fair and reasonable”, nothing other than making the fee schedule available for the airport authority to make that determination, and no guidance to the airport authority for making that determination. Subjective.

It also specifically states that charging different fees to different people does not by itself constitute unjust discrimination.

 

[iamtheari]

In my simplified lexicon, “reasonable” means there has to be a logical reason for it. What is the logical reason for the fee this thread is about? Probably “turbine aircraft and their crews and passengers require more space, effort, attention, etc. so we should charge them more.” It missed the mark for the OP but reasonable doesn’t mean you get a precise fit for every situation.

 

[Tusayan]

Reasonable and fair is the price the FBO would charge if the municipality (airport owner) had provided the option of parking on an adjacent ‘county ramp’, thereby preventing the FBOs government awarded monopoly. Anywhere this is an option for transient traffic the FBO cannot charge more than the market feels its extra services are worth, and the FBO will accordingly negotiate a land lease price that factors in its customers having another option, versus the FBO paying more to the municipality for a monopoly position that allows super high, unreasonable prices to the consumer. The basic problem is that the FBO and municipality (airport owner) are conspiring to create a monopoly and split the resultant unreasonable fees collected for using an airport that is largely given to them for free by the taxpayer.

To end the monopoly overpricing problem, and the associated FBO land lease overpayment payoff to the municipality, I think Federal taxpayer funded airports should mandatorily have a substantial amount of public parking on unleased airport property in addition to leasing land to FBOs. The direct cost of providing that option is close to zero (public airport land is/was mostly given to the airport owner) and competing with e.g. $5/night makes the FBOs earn their money.

 

[Kritchlow]

Curious about “no signs posting fees”??

You certainly don t expect signs on the ramp area like you would see standing tall at the grocery store, right?
You admitted you did not enter the FBO, which may have had the fees prominently posted.

Seems to me like you were trying to wiggle (steal) some free parking.

 

[dans2992]

Curious about “no signs posting fees”??

You certainly don t expect signs on the ramp area like you would see standing tall at the grocery store, right?
You admitted you did not enter the FBO, which may have had the fees prominently posted.

Seems to me like you were trying to wiggle (steal) some free parking.

If they want to collect a fee, they need to present me with an invoice. Nobody came over to offer services when I arrived or left. I left a note on the plane with my phone number. Nobody called.

 

[dans2992]

In my simplified lexicon, “reasonable” means there has to be a logical reason for it. What is the logical reason for the fee this thread is about? Probably “turbine aircraft and their crews and passengers require more space, effort, attention, etc. so we should charge them more.” It missed the mark for the OP but reasonable doesn’t mean you get a precise fit for every situation.

So, is $1 million “reasonable”? $2 million?

If there’s no limit and no rules, why even have “reasonable” in the wording?

 

[Kritchlow]

If they want to collect a fee, they need to present me with an invoice. Nobody came over to offer services when I arrived or left. I left a note on the plane with my phone number. Nobody called.

Lol!!! Did you really expect them to pull a note off your plane??
Did you tape it on..??

Oh my

 

[dans2992]

Lol!!! Did you really expect them to pull a note off your plane??
Did you tape it on..??

Oh my

It was in the window, along with the “brakes off” sign.

 

[Kritchlow]

It was in the window, along with the “brakes off” sign.

Just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Leaving a note in the window, yet avoiding entering the establishment.

 

[Lindberg]

Curious about “no signs posting fees”??

You certainly don t expect signs on the ramp area like you would see standing tall at the grocery store, right?
You admitted you did not enter the FBO, which may have had the fees prominently posted.

Seems to me like you were trying to wiggle (steal) some free parking.

For a parking fee? Absolutely. 100%. have you ever parked your car in a paid parking lot that didn't have the fees posted and visible before you parked? I haven't.

 

[Hang 4]

For a parking fee? Absolutely. 100%. have you ever parked your car in a paid parking lot that didn't have the fees posted and visible before you parked? I haven't.

Have you ever parked at an airport that had fees posted and visible before you parked? I haven't

 

[Anthem]

Reasonable and fair is the price the FBO would charge if the municipality (airport owner) had provided the option of parking on an adjacent ‘county ramp’, thereby preventing the FBOs government awarded monopoly. Anywhere this is an option for transient traffic the FBO cannot charge more than the market feels its extra services are worth, and the FBO will accordingly negotiate a land lease price that factors in its customers having another option, versus the FBO paying more to the municipality for a monopoly position that allows super high, unreasonable prices to the consumer. The basic problem is that the FBO and municipality (airport owner) are conspiring to create a monopoly and split the resultant unreasonable fees collected for using an airport that is largely given to them for free by the taxpayer.

To end the monopoly overpricing problem, and the associated FBO land lease overpayment payoff to the municipality, I think Federal taxpayer funded airports should mandatorily have a substantial amount of public parking on unleased airport property in addition to leasing land to FBOs. The direct cost of providing that option is close to zero (public airport land is/was mostly given to the airport owner) and competing with e.g. $5/night makes the FBOs earn their money.

The issue is that you want to treat this outside of the vacuum and leverage existing people that have a cost, for free - namely FBO staff. Lets work the numbers then - you will have to have a minimum of two people to work a separate security gate. The "ramp" that you now propose probably cant be used for renting to others as well. Since thats not a known cost we'll skip that for now. Assume 8k a month for two(and partial 3rd) people to be staffed their at all times to handle whatever traffic there is to let people out and let people in. You can argue a code key gate, but that isnt happening at any class B/C/D airports. So 8k a month for how many planes ? we're talking planes who arent going to fuel, or use the bathrooms. Because all of those will be subject to ramp/fuel fees at the fbo or you have to run a self service fuel farm. All this for how many "exceptions" that want no service and in/out access a day ? Perhaps many days that number is 0. Even at 5 a day, you're talking $50+ for cost recovery assuming that its a consistent 5 a day. You'll have to factor in rain days with no traffic and what not but yet you still have to pay the gate security staff.

You'll argue - well we can maybe piggy back this on to TSA. Good luck getting anyone from TSA to do it. Or existing airport personnel. . . Good luck there. Thats the whole point of them negotiating an FBO lease. So the entire premise of "reasonable" doesnt work in the math to do this.

And the irony of all this is that in most places - the fees ARE reasonable for piston aircraft. Even in most class B airports, ALL piston aircraft are for all intents and purposes being subsidized by the jet-a guys. Even if generally the turbine guys can "handle" the charges - the reality is that they are paying way more than their fair share compared to a piston regardless of the metric you use (sq footage, whatever). So anyone making the argument from a piston perspective is way way off base as compared to the jet-a crowd. Now if you're arguing for the jet-a crowd - Im sure they appreciate your concern. . lol

 

[Dana]

And BTW, most airports are government owned and operated. Meaning the Airport Manager and staff are city/county employees.

There are just under 20,000 airports in the US. Of these, about 4,000 are publicly owned, so hardly "most".

Well, yes, 15,000 of those airports are private use. Of the remaining 5,000 airports that are open for public use, about 4,000 are publicly owned, the remaining 1,000 are privately owned, so about 80% of public use airports are publicly owned.

I'd guess that the unreasonable fees are almost always at class D airports (about 500), so avoiding those probably also avoids the fees.

But, any fees for transient aircraft should be posted both in the A/FD as well as prominent signage, otherwise any fees should be disallowed.

 

[Salty]

Have you ever parked at an airport that had fees posted and visible before you parked? I haven't

Me neither. But then again most don't charge a fee for parking away from the main ramp and not using any services.

I don't think you should be charging a fee if you aren't posting it clearly online, in your business, and on the ramp where the "services" would be provided. The only reason not to do so is to trick people into owing your fee. If it were posted, it could be avoided and we wouldn't be complaining.

 

[Kritchlow]

For a parking fee? Absolutely. 100%. have you ever parked your car in a paid parking lot that didn't have the fees posted and visible before you parked? I haven't.

I have… car actually towed. Cahoots with tow company, but that’s a different thread.

What does that have to do with my post? I don’t see the connection.