Egregious FBO charges

Anthem said:
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
Click to expand...

I’m based at a public 600 operations/day airport with two public parking ramps that have likely 200 aircraft capacity. They are well used, few people in actuality need the services of an FBO. Access to public parking is by gate code, the usual radio frequency method, and payment is cash into a box. There is a light rail station across the street and Uber is easy.

Fuel is available from two different providers/trucks on the field, and two self serve pumps. Extra pricing for the truck pays for the drivers, and they deliver anywhere on the field.

There is also one large full service FBO for those who need it, and it has lots of people and plenty of business from companies and others interested in paying for what they want to buy, versus having other transient aircraft who have no interest subsidize them. It’s on the other side of the airport from public parking with secure entry, nobody wanders by to use the bathroom. I buzz in and get picked up there by my employers jet when making business trips. It all works fine. Anybody who doesn’t want to use the FBO or enter its ground leasehold doesn’t, no FBO monopoly, and this is most people.
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
Well just how and where would they put the signage ?
Click to expand...
Something tells me that if they wanted to they could somehow solve that problem.


Redlands-Airport-Noise-Abatement.jpg
 
Tusayan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ever parked downtown in any major metropolitan area. Find a lot of free parking, even on the taxpayer funded streets?

Another thing I'd note, if the FBO is granted exclusive use of the ramp space by their lease, that ramp is not funded by FAA grants. Either the Airport or the FBO is paying for that pavement.
 
Hang 4 said:
Have you ever parked at an airport that had fees posted and visible before you parked? I haven't
Click to expand...
Many times. At least on the automobile side of things. Every parking ramp I have been to has a fee structure posted before getting the ticket at the gate.
 
Anthem said:
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
Click to expand...
No need for a security person. There's your first bad assumption. Code posted on the inside for re-entry. Done.
 
Last edited:
Anthem said:
will never pass for any controlled field. lets propose to do this at La Guardia. . . see how far you get.
Click to expand...
Plenty of controlled airports have minimal perimeter security. I can think of at least 2 local Class D airports where I can very easily walk or drive onto the ramp without the need for a badge, code or opening a gate. Those with airline service are a different matter, but not every controlled airport has "controlled" access to the ramp.
 
Anthem said:
will never pass for any controlled field. lets propose to do this at La Guardia. . . see how far you get.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t make a lot of sense but maybe what you’re trying to say is that where GA is mixed with CAT, ramp security is a greater challenge? The way that is normally addressed is with separate GA parking, a security perimeter around the CAT terminal area and simpler security measures for the rest of the airport. There aren’t in any case many US airports used by GA where mixing security with CAT is an issue.

Otherwise I think most reading here will have visited many ATC controlled fields where punch pads and codes for access to public transient GA parking works just fine. It’s more the rule than the exception in which a monopoly FBO situation exists. The issue is that the exceptions are very problematic.
 
Last edited:
Anthem said:
a code key gate, but that isn't happening at any class B/C/D airports ...
will never pass for any controlled field
Click to expand...

Agree with Ed, brad33 and Tusayan.

It is not unusual for gate code posted for transients ramp access (re-entry), even at Class D airports.
For scenario described in post #200, required 'security staffing' (and corresponding cost), does not appear to be an accurate assumption.

Anthem said:
... in most places -the fees ARE reasonable for piston aircraft. Even in most class B airports ...
Click to expand...
Revisit this assumption after flying piston aircraft into ... Logan, LGA, etc. ;)
 
Anthem said:
will never pass for any controlled field. lets propose to do this at La Guardia. . . see how far you get.
Click to expand...
I've been to a number of controlled fields where there has been a code on the gate to get back in after hours. No reason it couldn't apply to attended hours either. So no idea where you are getting your "never."
 
EdFred said:
Not when he bills me in 15 minute increments for every phone call!
Click to expand...
If an individual called every day, it could very easily be interpreted as just whining about the money. If someone paid their attorney to make the calls, it would more easily be interpreted as trying to ensure that the applicable laws are being followed, and money is not the primary issue.
 
Anthem said:
if you want to nit pick - sure. Almost never, and even rarer at airfields with commercial aviation present. Its certainly not common at controlled fields and it wouldnt apply to many other airports that have any decent amount of airline service - which is usually where these "egregious" or "unreasonable" examples arise.
Click to expand...
These were airports with airline traffic. Your descriptors of never and rarely are way off. Maybe you just need to travel more.
 
Controlled Airport - Airport having a control tower

Commercial Airport - Airport have scheduled airline service

Commercial airports typically have higher security requirements. Controlled airports are usually the cause for heightened security. An airport can be one, both, or neither.
 
midwestpa24 said:
And BTW, most airports are government owned and operated. Meaning the Airport Manager and staff are city/county employees.
Click to expand...
Our airport (KAUW) is owned by the city, but the airport manager and staff are NOT city employees. Well, I should say the airport manager is an unpaid city employee. The city does not operate the airport; the FBO has a contract to provide instruction, airplane rental, and the exclusive right to pump fuel. The manager oversees hangar rentals, but the rent is paid directly to the city, not the FBO.
 
Anthem said:
So if “rarely” is way off - then there isn’t any point to have this discussion. As way off of rarely would be what? Widely available. And if GA access with keycode is wide available at airline airports - then what are people complaining about ?

Ok people - EdFred says gate access is widely available at airports with airline traffic. Not sure what tree you guys are barking up with this….
Click to expand...
You realize there is a huge gradient between almost never and widely available, right? No, of course you don't.
 
Anthem said:
You do realize there is NOT a huge gradient from "way off" "rarely" to "widely available", right ? No, of course you dont. . .
Click to expand...
Actually there is. Sorry that you don't have as much of a vocabulary or the math knowledge as the rest of us.
 
Anthem said:
I fly in to KTEB all the time. Singles are like $40 ramp (waived with gas) and $20 a night. For being as close as it is to NYC - thats totally "reasonable". Twins are $60 ramp / $30 nightly. KTEB does charge a security and landing fee ($32 I believe). But again - you cant park a car in NY for $30 nightly (well you can, but its pretty rare and difficult).
Click to expand...
Signature at KTEB charges $8.80/gal for 100LL. (At nearby KMMU, they charge $8.90 -- but they have no competition at KMMU. But I digress...) Also nearby, KCDW charges $6.87/gal. $2/gal. diff. * 20 gal min. == $40 "ramp" fee... more if you fill the tanks.

As for comparison to Manhattan parking, while it may be as close as one can get in an ASEL, Teterboro sure ain't Manhattan. After paying for a parking spot in Manhattan, I'm usually not a 30-minute cab ride from my final destination.

I'll grant you its not a mortgage payment or anything. But if it was, it would be self-defeating -- no one at all would pay it. At the margin, event additional dollar in fees is one less pilot. Every one less pilot is the closer we drive this hobby we love into extinction. I don't want aviation relegated to the "Force", only practiced by Jedi priests.
 
Most US airport land was given the current owners by the Federal Government, as is the annual maintenance cost of runways and taxiways, with a limitation on the gifts that the entire plot of land be reserved for aeronautical use and thereby not subject to the same market forces that create land and rental values just outside the airport fence. What's happening at some airports is contrary to that direction: local government airport land owners are conspiring with their lessees to extract and split exorbitant rents from a regulated monopoly asset, using market value outside of the fence to defend their improper pricing. FAA is to blame for allowing it.
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
Most US airport land was given the current owners by the Federal Government, as is the annual maintenance cost of runways and taxiways, with a limitation on the gifts that the entire plot of land be reserved for aeronautical use and thereby not subject to the same market forces that create land and rental values just outside the airport fence. What's happening at some airports is contrary to that direction: local government airport land owners are conspiring with their lessees to extract and split exorbitant rents from a regulated monopoly asset, using market value outside of the fence to defend their improper pricing. FAA is to blame for allowing it.
Click to expand...

I've been lurking this thread and I kept thinking of land grants and the philosophy behind such efforts, especially when it came to public education institutions. Your comments beat me to it.
 
Is there any reasonable justification to charge turbines more when they have similar footprint/weight as some of the pistons?
 
dans2992 said:
Is there any reasonable justification to charge turbines more when they have similar footprint/weight as some of the pistons?
Click to expand...
I think there are, but I don't know if they equal all that much more money.

I think in general they are heavier
More wear on ramp​
Need heavier equipment to move​
Increased liability
More expensive to pay for repairs when you break them​
More likely to kill someone with it​
Customers are higher maintenance, typically require more services (Nuisance tax)

But the real reason is because the owner has to have lots of money.
 
dans2992 said:
Is there any reasonable justification to charge turbines more when they have similar footprint/weight as some of the pistons?
Click to expand...

It an easy way for FBOs to capture consumer surplus ("the monetary gain obtained by consumers because they are able to purchase a product for a price that is less than the highest price that they would be willing to pay"). It's also why the sales process at car dealerships works the way it does (and why we love it so much).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus
 
When I build GoFly International Airport and BBQ Shack, it’s gonna be 8k long, lighted, RNAV, ILS, 1.89 JetA, 1.99 AvGas, no landing fees, free parking, free crew car, free hangars when available, and 2 for 1 beverages and rib plates on Friday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top