How can we "encourage" AOPA to do better?

[wsquare]

@MichiPilot. Educate me. And don't forget the major source of funding for public airports, Airport Improvement Funds (AIP), dished out by the FAA, with the source of funds being the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (largely funded by Av fuel excise tax in the case of GA sources), and a small percentage of matching funds from the local public entity - usually derived from taxes, and/or hangar rents. But I'm all ears if you know a different way. How about putting some time into your keyboard, and educate me, and others that may be interested? The bottom line is that public airports are funded by taxes, and a private enterprise that takes advantage of the public infrastructure by imposing landing fees is simply grifting off the GA aviation community. Tell me your version of how airports are funded, and if you enjoy letting people reach into your pockets and pull out $10 bills.

 

[midwestpa24]

@MichiPilot. Educate me. And don't forget the major source of funding for public airports, Airport Improvement Funds (AIP), dished out by the FAA, with the source of funds being the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (largely funded by Av fuel excise tax in the case of GA sources), and a small percentage of matching funds from the local public entity - usually derived from taxes, and/or hangar rents. But I'm all ears if you know a different way. How about putting some time into your keyboard, and educate me, and others that may be interested? The bottom line is that public airports are funded by taxes, and a private enterprise that takes advantage of the public infrastructure by imposing landing fees is simply grifting off the GA aviation community. Tell me your version of how airports are funded, and if you enjoy letting people reach into your pockets and pull out $10 bills.

I'll take a stab at it, having two decades experience running airports in addition to flying.

Yes, AIP provides infrastructure funding to airports. But it only pays for Capital improvements, only for eligible projects, mainly pavement and other safety related improvements with a few exceptions. There is also never enough to go around and do everything.

What it doesn't contribute one penny to is operations and maintenance. It doesn't pay for crack sealing, mowing grass, plowing snow, fixing fences, paying the light bill, etc. Airports have to have revenue to keep the place open. They can do that from revenues from the tenants and users of the airport, or tax dollars from the local city and county, usually a mixture of the two. Increasing those local tax dollars are getting harder to get. Taxpayers would rather fund parks, public safety, etc, than have their property taxes fund "the rich man's country club" many non aviators see the airport as. Airports don't usually close due to a lack of AIP money, but they do when they can't afford to maintain and operate the airport anymore.

As with most things, it isn't that simple.

 

[Datadriver]

The reality of the situation is that GA will die and is currently in the process. Business aviation / charter is the only thing in "general aviation" that will continue for some time. AOPA will continue to shift more toward business aviation and will similarly die off. Be real folks...look at any airport, EAA event. What do you see? Old white dudes. All of this outreach is useless.

It is true that all we see are old white dudes. But the opposite COULD also be true : the GA market has always been old white dudes.

 

[MichiPilot]

@MichiPilot. Educate me. And don't forget the major source of funding for public airports, Airport Improvement Funds (AIP), dished out by the FAA, with the source of funds being the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (largely funded by Av fuel excise tax in the case of GA sources), and a small percentage of matching funds from the local public entity - usually derived from taxes, and/or hangar rents. But I'm all ears if you know a different way. How about putting some time into your keyboard, and educate me, and others that may be interested? The bottom line is that public airports are funded by taxes, and a private enterprise that takes advantage of the public infrastructure by imposing landing fees is simply grifting off the GA aviation community. Tell me your version of how airports are funded, and if you enjoy letting people reach into your pockets and pull out $10 bills.

Read the post that just accurately laid it out.

 

[Barrett50]

@MichiPilot. Educate me. And don't forget the major source of funding for public airports, Airport Improvement Funds (AIP), dished out by the FAA, with the source of funds being the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (largely funded by Av fuel excise tax in the case of GA sources), and a small percentage of matching funds from the local public entity - usually derived from taxes, and/or hangar rents. But I'm all ears if you know a different way. How about putting some time into your keyboard, and educate me, and others that may be interested? The bottom line is that public airports are funded by taxes, and a private enterprise that takes advantage of the public infrastructure by imposing landing fees is simply grifting off the GA aviation community. Tell me your version of how airports are funded, and if you enjoy letting people reach into your pockets and pull out $10 bills.

I'm not defending any kind of landing fee. As a small airport manager/owner/line boy/investor/administrator/groundskeeper/pilot I have no interest in charging a landing fee for my location. There are some complexities in the finances of small GA airports. There are various classes based on size of runway, and operations per year. Airports get funding from the feds based on these classes. One of them most have heard of are 'reliever' airports which are usually run by private corp, muni, county, or state around major hubs. For Atlanta, we have Fulton, and Peachtree/Dekalb. These two places get a LOT of GA activity, and they likely get millions every so often from feds to upgrade and improve facilities, including local FBO structures, upgraded weather reporting, and parking, etc.

Moving down the scale, GA airports which are NOT reliever and have a fairly low volume of traffic are rarely, almost never eligible for federal improvement tax funded grants. I don't even bother to apply, because I'll just get shot down. There are state DOT aviation dept grants that MAY help defray the ongoing costs, and improvements, and in the past 7 years, I've applied for several and have gotten a total of $3130 for tree removal, some wire restringing, a new segmented circle and windsock pole.

The vast majority of money incoming from small airports is through the fence income. We get rents from people who have a hangar on our field, and choose to use the runway(not like they can takeoff from the hangar like a Maule). We also sell shares in our LLC so that members of the LLC have a voice in how the place is run. We have meetings, discuss finances and take votes just like a real business, but I can tell you, money to run a muni, or private owned airport is tight. In 2020, the county came to me in Oct and said they had about 400k Lbs of small ag and about 11,000 Gal of emulsion if I wanted to recoat the runway. YES! There was no money for new paint, and nothing for upgrading the parking area but the leftovers from the county highway dept became ours due to it just sitting there rotting in a pile. The county and me were out there for 6 solid days cleaning up cracks, removing lumps, and getting ready for new chip seal coat. It worked great, and we thanked the county many times.

Other small sources of income are parking fees only for overnight guests at $10/night, up from $8/night four years ago. We get a bit of money for the helipad being used as lifeflight, they do pay a use fee, not a landing fee because we paved the helipad, and moved some trees and wires for them. I think we get $25 for each lifeflight op.

This is way off the subject of AOPA, but I can tell you from my experience, AOPA has zero interest in small rural low use GA airports. I noticed this back in the 80s and once in a while they might have a focus story on some out of the way airport of interest. I recall a story years ago on Gold Beach OR, as it is literally up against the Pacific ocean, and next to a major river estuary. It was a cool story, but mostly fluff. I keep my runways open because I like aviation and I've decided to give back in a way I enjoy, and I'm good at. I'm going to apply for a state grant in 2025 for $22k to repair, and improve my small pilot lounge. The total cost of the project is $48k, and I'm going to try to get the county to pony up $10k or so, the rest will be borne by the LLC, investing in our own personal property, which the public is allowed to use for aviation purposes. The reliever airports, and other large muni/county airports get all the fed funding. Joe Bagadonuts in No-Name state airport doesn't get squadoosh from the feds, and not much from the state.

 

[Ed Haywood]

What it doesn't contribute one penny to is operations and maintenance. It doesn't pay for crack sealing, mowing grass, plowing snow, fixing fences, paying the light bill, etc.

I'll bet insurance ain't cheap.

Our fuel pump went out recently. Parts were $10K. And runway lights are crazy expensive and always going out.

 

[wsquare]

The two posts by @midwestpa24 and @Barrett50 are very instructive. The scenario @Barrett50 describes is classic, and likely represents a great majority of small GA airports. But this situation brings the question: If a landing fee system were installed at the type of airport that is described -- small, barely hanging on, will pilots pay the extra landing fee to land there? Or perhaps the question is, would a company like Vector find it profitable to set up, maintain and service a system at the type of airport described? My inclination is the answer is "no".

And yet very interesting dynamics. Suppose airport as described by @midwestpa24, apparently successful at AIP funding, decides to put in landing fee system. Pilots start to "avoid" the airport, and elect to take their landings to other nearby airports. Now, the @midwestpa24 airport sees reduced takeoff/landing count, and becomes less competitive for AIP funds (example to the extreme: why would FAA make a large investment of AIP funds in an airport that averages 60 TO/LD per month?). At the same time, the other neighboring airports see their counts increase, due to lack of landing fees, and become more competitive for AIP funds. There are a lot of dynamics and unintended consequences that could stem from landing fees.

All of this, and much more that hasn't been debated on user fees, presents an excellent opportunity for AOPA to ENGAGE in the issue. Where is AOPA? Oh, if you check their current advocacy web page, you will see that:

AOPA calls for dialogue as Bahamian government holds fast on fees​

OK, so AOPA is pushing back on the Bahamian government fees!! Is this a joke? But I did read somewhere that AOPA was going to write a letter about the landing fees. Follow the money, folks...

 

[hindsight2020]

Put up outlet mall styled vendor spaces in the adjacency to the ramp, use the rents from the non-flyer normies to help fund the O&M. Rent out the runway and close that sucker occassionally to bring the normies in. Car shows, whatever. Call it a flying rec park, conflate the image into a multi-use venue. Figured doing something about economies of scale is better than to complain about lack of economies of scale in perma-feedback loop.

The most valuable part of the airport is the acreage these days. They're coming for it anyways, might as well flank the effort by conflating the aviation use with the normie use, before they roll up the runway and put up another 40ft frontage sardine can inefficient as hell R1 subdivision.

It would also get more foot traffic and help the imaging issue against 'rich man club' aspersion; a well-earned one I might add, given the leopard-ate-my-face marketing positions outlined/advocated for earlier in the thread.

At the end of the day, quantitative easing has been the death to this Country's prosperity and (generational) upward mobility. This goes beyond aviation. AOPA can't do ish about that.

 

[wsquare]

Current poll - 85% say AOPA needs to do more for GA with their $50 million annual budget. Wonder if AOPA is even on this aviation site - maybe seeing a message, if even a bit uncomfortable.

Quantitative easing. Global economics. Forget AOPA - we might as well stay home, put on the VR goggles, and fly the Microsoft simulators.

 

[midwestpa24]

Now I will add one thing, as an airport manager I do not like Vector solutions and any other third party collection agents. They are all scams to me, no different than those operating traffic cams. There are better ways for us to generate revenue than driving off customers for a small percentage of a fee. Most of our revenues come from hangar, business, and land leases, as well as fuel flowage fees.

Also for what it's worth, I do get a little bent out of shape when it is insinuated that airport managers do these things out of greed. As a public airport manager, I am a lowly civil servant, a city employee. If we land one more plane or sell another gallon of gas, I receive no personal benefit outside of keeping my job for the next year. I do this job for two reasons, keep a roof over my head and because I am passionate about aviation and my airport.

 

[hindsight2020]

Quantitative easing. Global economics. Forget AOPA - we might as well stay home, put on the VR goggles, and fly the Microsoft simulators.

I didn't suggest nihilism. I did offer one idea to improve the economies of scale on the micro. But the macroeconomics are also the truth. And people are staying home and playing DCS, instead. Recreational budgets on an inflation adjusted basis are down (proxy: personal savings rate). I don't say that to carry water for AOPA, I merely can hold two true thoughts in my head at the same time.

AOPA has an advocacy client base, it's just not the one people on here think it is, or should. They're fake populists; they're also not the only ones in the political/DC center of gravity guilty of that bait and switch. That too is a statement of fact, not a statement of advocacy/bootlicking for AOPA.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

How many landings a year do you do? 20?\50? At $20 each it’s a rounding error in the budget. Most flyers will only hit these a couple times a year anyway

How many landings a year does a Young Eagles pilot do? Monthly events, 10 times apiece at $20 is $2400. Goodbye, Young Eagles.

Meanwhile, the guy who flew a plane across the country gets charged the same amount.

Now, if only we had a way of charging those two pilots based on their usage of system resources... Maybe we could make it proportional to the amount of fuel they burn...

another unpopular opinion coming: pilots are the whiniest bunch of people on the planet. I don't like paying fees either, but an airport collecting fees to support the airport's operation is hardly some evil money grab. How do we all think the airport is funded? How do we think airports pay match on a grant if applicable? Then at the same time we get ornery when a city decides to close an airport...

We're whiny because most of us can probably barely afford it already, and we've watched GA shrink like mad ever since we learned to fly.

You have just defined the Cirrus business plan. And it worked.

It's amazing to me how the entire rest of the industry can look at Cirrus' success and seemingly think "Gee, how do they do that? I have no clue! Must be some kind of magic!" and then just continue preaching to the choir.

Yes, AIP provides infrastructure funding to airports. But it only pays for Capital improvements, only for eligible projects, mainly pavement and other safety related improvements with a few exceptions. There is also never enough to go around and do everything.

What it doesn't contribute one penny to is operations and maintenance. It doesn't pay for crack sealing, mowing grass, plowing snow, fixing fences, paying the light bill, etc. Airports have to have revenue to keep the place open. They can do that from revenues from the tenants and users of the airport, or tax dollars from the local city and county, usually a mixture of the two. Increasing those local tax dollars are getting harder to get. Taxpayers would rather fund parks, public safety, etc, than have their property taxes fund "the rich man's country club" many non aviators see the airport as. Airports don't usually close due to a lack of AIP money, but they do when they can't afford to maintain and operate the airport anymore.

Isn't there a different pool of money that gives airports of a certain size $150K per year (IIRC) for funding operations?

Moving down the scale, GA airports which are NOT reliever and have a fairly low volume of traffic are rarely, almost never eligible for federal improvement tax funded grants. I don't even bother to apply, because I'll just get shot down. There are state DOT aviation dept grants that MAY help defray the ongoing costs, and improvements, and in the past 7 years, I've applied for several and have gotten a total of $3130 for tree removal, some wire restringing, a new segmented circle and windsock pole.

There is a local GA airport that is the 2nd smallest paved field of the 11 within 30nm of the downtown area, one of two with no approaches, and is privately owned, and they managed to get a federal grant to get their runway repaved.

 

[midwestpa24]

How many landings a year does a Young Eagles pilot do?
Isn't there a different pool of money that gives airports of a certain size $150K per year (IIRC) for funding operations?

Nope. The $150k figure is what certain smaller airports receive from AIP as annual "entitlement" funding, meaning dollars they know they will get. That money is still part of AIP and only used for eligible infrastructure projects, not ops.

 

[Dana]

Put up outlet mall styled vendor spaces in the adjacency to the ramp, use the rents from the non-flyer normies

But the outlet malls are closing, too.

How many landings a year does a Young Eagles pilot do? Monthly events, 10 times apiece at $20 is $2400. Goodbye, Young Eagles.

I would think an airport hosting a YE event would waive landing fees for the day.

If a landing fee system were installed at the type of airport that is described -- small, barely hanging on, will pilots pay the extra landing fee to land there? Or perhaps the question is, would a company like Vector find it profitable to set up, maintain and service a system at the type of airport described? My inclination is the answer is "no".

I presume Vector and such use ADSB information to send the bills? A lot of those "small barely hanging on" airports are used by planes with no transponder or ADSB.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I would think an airport hosting a YE event would waive landing fees for the day.

I doubt that's allowed with Vector there - Vector wants to make their money too. You'd have to get both to agree to waive for the day.

I presume Vector and such use ADSB information to send the bills? A lot of those "small barely hanging on" airports are used by planes with no transponder or ADSB.

I thought I saw somewhere that they also put up cameras that read tail numbers.

I wonder how many people are going to start turning off their transponders in the vicinity of these airports, making this a safety hazard...

 

[MauleSkinner]

How many landings a year does a Young Eagles pilot do? Monthly events, 10 times apiece at $20 is $2400. Goodbye, Young Eagles.

And goodbye proficiency. That’s roughly $200/hour to practice landings, in addition to the airplane and possibly instructor.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Wonder if AOPA is even on this aviation site - maybe seeing a message, if even a bit uncomfortable.

There’s somebody from AOPA who shows up periodically in these threads to parrot the AOPA party line.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

I wonder how many people are going to start turning off their transponders in the vicinity of these airports, making this a safety hazard...

And risking a violation of 91.215 (c).

 

[AV8R_87]

Martha says hi.

 

[wsquare]

Upon considering the posts by @midwestpa24 and @Barrett50, I am inclined to reconsider my position on landing fees -- using a different "fee model". The smaller GA airports are the bread and butter of GA. It is clear there are some fiscal challenges, and GA needs these airports to remain open for a viable GA system. Perhaps these types of airports, can join together in a "small GA airport network", and operate under a different "landing fee model" that is friendlier to both the GA pilots and the small airports.

Maybe this model is one where the landing fee would be in the range of $5.00, with $4.75 going directly to the "small GA airport network", and only 25 cents to the company collecting the fee. Then set a maximum threshold for monthly fees for each GA pilot/aircraft (across all small GA airports that joined together in the network), so that there is an incentive for remaining current. Maybe the maximum monthly fee could be set at $20 or so. Also, allow for landing intensive events such as Young Eagles to be exempt from the fee structure. Also, some thought would need to be given to flight training schools. Then, the revenues collected could be divided up between the airports in the small GA airport network, with a base amount going to each airport, and the remaining amount provided to each airport based on total number of landings.

This is different than landing fees of $10 and $20, at larger muni airports, in which $1.00 to $2.00 per landing goes to some large corporation, rubbing elbows with the few large FBO companies. In other words, a landing fee model and system that provides some added revenue for the small GA airports, without breaking the bank of GA pilots that like to frequent these types of airports. Just thinking out loud on this. Where is AOPA to help engage in this issue, to dialogue, to develop ideas, to find solutions that help support GA? Oh that's right, AOPA is working aggressively on fighting fees that the government of Bahama wants to impose on aviators that fly to the Bahamas (the story is on the AOPA web page). Now I'm beginning to question my AOPA membership.

 

[Stevel]

Upon considering the posts by @midwestpa24 and @Barrett50, I am inclined to reconsider my position on landing fees -- using a different "fee model". The smaller GA airports are the bread and butter of GA. It is clear there are some fiscal challenges, and GA needs these airports to remain open for a viable GA system. Perhaps these types of airports, can join together in a "small GA airport network", and operate under a different "landing fee model" that is friendlier to both the GA pilots and the small airports.

Maybe this model is one where the landing fee would be in the range of $5.00, with $4.75 going directly to the "small GA airport network", and only 25 cents to the company collecting the fee. Then set a maximum threshold for monthly fees for each GA pilot/aircraft (across all small GA airports that joined together in the network), so that there is an incentive for remaining current. Maybe the maximum monthly fee could be set at $20 or so. Also, allow for landing intensive events such as Young Eagles to be exempt from the fee structure. Also, some thought would need to be given to flight training schools. Then, the revenues collected could be divided up between the airports in the small GA airport network, with a base amount going to each airport, and the remaining amount provided to each airport based on total number of landings.

This is different than landing fees of $10 and $20, at larger muni airports, in which $1.00 to $2.00 per landing goes to some large corporation, rubbing elbows with the few large FBO companies. In other words, a landing fee model and system that provides some added revenue for the small GA airports, without breaking the bank of GA pilots that like to frequent these types of airports. Just thinking out loud on this. Where is AOPA to help engage in this issue, to dialogue, to develop ideas, to find solutions that help support GA? Oh that's right, AOPA is working aggressively on fighting fees that the government of Bahama wants to impose on aviators that fly to the Bahamas (the story is on the AOPA web page). Now I'm beginning to question my AOPA membership.

Your model has merit, but the specific numbers mentioned would only be possible under a very limited set of circumstances.

On-site infrastructure would have to be inexpensive or provided by the airport or group of airports.
Paper billing would be a no-go as would just about anything that requires any per-transaction human intervention on the part of the vendor.

There just isn't that much that could be accomplished for $0.25/landing and still have any chance of making even the smallest profit. I understand that most invoices would be for multiple landings, but on average, not a large enough multiple to make it work for that amount.

 

[midwestpa24]

Your model has merit, but the specific numbers mentioned would only be possible under a very limited set of circumstances.

On-site infrastructure would have to be inexpensive or provided by the airport or group of airports.
Paper billing would be a no-go as would just about anything that requires any per-transaction human intervention on the part of the vendor.

There just isn't that much that could be accomplished for $0.25/landing and still have any chance of making even the smallest profit. I understand that most invoices would be for multiple landings, but on average, not a large enough multiple to make it work for that amount.

Honestly in my experience, landing fees are hard to manage and collect from small aircraft. That is where Vector has found a niche, although still not one I support. Their overhead is too high for the money being charged. Similar to a toll bridge I know of. The toll has been $1.00 cash forever. When COVID hit, they went to license plate detectors and auto billing. Now it's $1.00 + $6.00 service charge, no option to pay cash anymore. $7.00 hit for the user, yet the bridge still only collects $1.00

There are other ways the airports can generate revenue from operations, such as fuel flowage fees. Our airport currently collects $.10 of every gallon sold by our FBO. The FBO builds it into their fuel price, collects, and remits it to the airport as part of their operation. It is a user fee that doesn't require much effort to track and collect. Granted those that don't buy fuel here don't pay it, but they are likely buying their gas at an airport somewhere, unless they are running car gas.

 

[Ghery]

I hate landing fees. Fortunately, in 24 years I've yet to run into one. Must fly to the right places. I've yet to find a way to avoid gas taxes, however. I don't fly commercially, so I'm stuck paying them. Yes, in this state the commercial operators are free of the tax, only us recreational fliers are stuck with them. At least our club finally beat the tax man who forced us into paying sales tax on club dues and aircraft expenses and forced him to refund what we had paid.

 

[Clip4]

@MichiPilot. Educate me. And don't forget the major source of funding for public airports, Airport Improvement Funds (AIP), dished out by the FAA, with the source of funds being the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (largely funded by Av fuel excise tax in the case of GA sources), and a small percentage of matching funds from the local public entity - usually derived from taxes, and/or hangar rents. But I'm all ears if you know a different way. How about putting some time into your keyboard, and educate me, and others that may be interested? The bottom line is that public airports are funded by taxes, and a private enterprise that takes advantage of the public infrastructure by imposing landing fees is simply grifting off the GA aviation community. Tell me your version of how airports are funded, and if you enjoy letting people reach into your pockets and pull out $10 bills.

I will try to educate you. The major source of funds for airport improvement and ATC services comes from FAA trust funds, None of the money required for the operational cost of an airport comes from those trust funds. Some states also have trust funds to help pay for infrastructure. These programs seldom pay for all the cost of airport improvements.

The operational cost and a portion of improvement cost for the airports is funded by rent, airport flow fees, ramp fees, landing fees and local tax subsidy.

The reality is the vast majority of GA operations involve only 250 airports with the biggest complaint today is that dirty rotten FBO that charged $50 just for pulling on to the ramp. The reality is the dirty rotten FBO may be nothing more than a contractor providing FBO services for the airport. They simply provide FBO services to the level provided in the contract. collect the fees they are paid to collect and remit.

If they are not a contractor, they may be paying a millon $ in rent to the airport for the facility you expect to use for free. And no, the airport isn’t going to build and maintain a ramp for free parking.

 

[Dana]

A local airport near me (42B) has a $10 honor system landing/parking fee, there's a drop box and envelopes near the gate you walk through to go into town (there are several restaurants and a theater within 1/4 mile). I don't know what percentage of pilots pays the fee, but I'd guess it's high for transients who go through the gate and low for local pilots who land and take off again without leaving the airport grounds. It may be they collect more from partial participation than they would with enforced 100% payment with processing expenses taken out.

Other than that, there are only two airports where I've ever had to pay a landing or ramp fee. One (KHFD) waived it with a 10 gallon fuel purchase (they cut me a break on that because the tank in the plane I was flying at the time only held 7.5 gallons), and the other (26N, on the NJ shore) I don't blame them because it's a crowded airport where lots of people fly in to go to the beach for the day.

A lot of airports charge for parking more than 1-3 hours or so, and I don't think that's unreasonable, either.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

A local airport near me (42B) has a $10 honor system landing/parking fee, there's a drop box and envelopes near the gate you walk through to go into town

I once landed at Cable, Wisconsin. The FBO manager was mowing grass along the runway, and rode the mower over to chat. There was a sign next to a drop box that said Parking $5.00. I pulled a five out and tried to hand it to her, and she said, "Put it in the box. I like a surprise now and then."

 

[wsquare]

Yo @Clip4. Yer behind the curve. I've already been educated. Now we're on to the next stage - finding solutions that make sense for small GA airports and flyers. Found this document by EAA. https://www.eaa.org/eaa/automated-landing-fees

This document seems to do a good job of describing the salient points made by @midwestpa24 and @Barrett50. The article seems to convey a message that there is nothing EAA can do to help with landing fees, and that it is strictly a "local" issue. Not sure I agree with this. There are many efforts that can be initiated, across local, county, state and federal levels. It seems as though both AOPA and EAA are washing their collective hands of this issue. I recall the "No ATC Fees" effort that involved rallying a great number of members to push against ATC fees. This effort involved substantial education of members, so that the members could push back in an informed manner.

Where is the education about "landing fees"? How do these systems work? How do the landing fee systems work from a technical perspective? How much money do the contractors extract off each landing fee? How long is a typical contract duration for landing fee systems to be installed at an airport? What is the decision making process for accepting a landing fee contractor? Who are the companies that are working with the landing fee contractors (for example, I was surprised to see that uAvionix is a partner with Vector systems). Who are the different landing fee contractors, and where are the companies based (USA or foreign owned)? Where are landing fee systems currently installed? How many at Class B airports? How many at Class C airports? How many at Class D airports? How many at smaller GA airports? Is there a standardized and reliable method that a pilot can determine, in advance, that there are landing fees at a given airport? Can AOPA and EAA and members press our representatives to make ADSB more private? Can AOPA and EAA rally members, in an educated and coordinated manner, to press our representatives to push back against landing fees at small GA airports? And many more questions.

Maybe the thread title should be "How can we encourage AOPA and EAA to do better?" Especially with respect to landing fees.

 

[MountainDude]

If small airports cannot survive without additional revenues, then we must come up with solutions that work for pilots and airports. I am fine paying $10 landing fees if they go to the airport ops; I am not fine if $1 out of that $10 goes to the airport. Also, if the airport administers the fees, they can also easily waive them for special events (YE) or reduce them for training (max fee per day, for example).

What kind of a system could airports use to enforce landing fees and collect all of them? Vector provides the technology that airport managers do not have access to, so what solution would be accessible to them?

 

[dans2992]

Allow an “annual pass” to be purchased for frequently used airports.

 

[dans2992]

One of the issues is that the airport charges me a $4 landing fee, but the FBO wants to charge me literally $600 to park on their (mostly empty) ramp for a weekend.

I’d prefer that the city make money rather than greedy FBO owner who is leveraging his monopoly status at an airport.

 

[AV8R_87]

So, only half-kidding... but some sort of a funding meter displayed in some visible spot on the ramp, next to a parking fee/donations box and a link to a gofundme page (or similar).
If I know an airport I frequently go to could use some extra cash, there's a higher chance that I won't grumble about any landing/parking fee they charge. We go to Tangier Island every now and then. They have an honor system parking fee box, and no other obvious source of income. We always pay.

I'd like some more consistency between airports, though. If I land somewhere for a few minutes to pick someone up and give them a plane ride for an hour, then drop them off, that (in my opinion) should not be a reason to charge a $30 ramp fee (twice). If I park overnight and don't buy anything else (fuel, food, plane supplies), a modest parking fee is not the end of the world. Someone mentioned 26N. They don't waive the parking fee if you buy fuel (or, when they had the diner, if you ate there).

Then there are airports that charge a $20 ramp fee, waived with the purchase of 10gal or more of their gas (usually more than $2/gal over what the surrounding airports charge). I don't know if they think pilots can't do math or it's their way to tell us how much we're not welcome there.

I'd like to hear from the airport managers among us (if they're willing to share the info) how they decide the pricing for fuel. It's amazing to see airports around me (not too distant) with very different fuel prices. Different enough that it's worth planning a slight detour and landing at one of them for fuel before getting home. All of them SS, so a valid comparison.

 

[Dana]

the FBO wants to charge me literally $600 to park on their (mostly empty) ramp for a weekend.

That would explain why the ramp is mostly empty.

I'd like to hear from the airport managers among us (if they're willing to share the info) how they decide the pricing for fuel. It's amazing to see airports around me (not too distant) with very different fuel prices.

I'm not an airport manager, but my home field charges a set markup over their wholesale cost of the fuel, so the price changes whenever they get a new load. Depending on how prices are trending, they may be higher or lower than other nearby airports. It may not be the best way to be "competitive", but it keeps their profit margin stable.

 

[GLMS_NC]

AOPA is out of touch with the average GA pilot and exists to serve themselves. Look at the top exec and board salaries and benefits. And the foundation has how much money?

BasicMED - they take all the credit when they were just one alphabet group working on the effort. Not a sole AOPA effort by any means.

Fly-ins’s - cut those way back.

100ll / project eagle / SAFI - are they helping the advancement? Doesn’t appear so.

Expenses - Exec and board salaries out of control. Reimburse flying expenses to executives- outrageous use of member funds.

Lobbying - they are not viewed as the powerhouse they once were. Their relationships with top politicians not what it used to be.

Leadership - what are they leading? I mean taking a leadership role and pushing initiatives?

Magazine - mostly advertising and content a fraction of what it used to be.

Online media - Tom Haines left, more staff turnover, and the product has faltered.

Can they do more - heck yes they can and should. I refuse to fund this club enriching board members, former exec payouts, and current salary levels.

 

[Half Fast]

BasicMED - they take all the credit when they were just one alphabet group working on the effort. Not a sole AOPA effort by any means.

Furthermore, BM wouldn’t have been necessary had not the AOPA lost the battle back in 1960. Prior to that, any doctor could do the flight physical. AOPA fought the change and lost.

 

[hindsight2020]

is the "average" GA pilot even an owner? I dunno, the organizational name alone might already be an anachronism.

 

[GLMS_NC]

This is 4 years old now, but staggering nonetheless. They absolutely have the resources to do more for general aviation!


The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is a tax-exempt, non-profit 501 (c) (4) who advocates on behalf of its members (estimated to be 280,000) to “protect your freedom to fly.” Based in Frederick, Maryland, AOPA has 12 voting members (trustees), 11 of whom are independent, in its governing body, 11 of whom are male and 1 is a female.

AOPA reported the following key information on the Form 990 (2020):

Revenue totaled $46 million (compared to $50 million in 2019), most of which came from membership dues ($24 million), the AOPA Foundation ($7 million), advertising income ($5 million), cost sharing ($4 million), royalties ($2 million), investment income and gains ($2 million), and education courses and other sources ($2 million). Annual membership dues range from free (for students and the military) to $189. Information on the Form 990 indicates average annual membership dues to be $86.

Expenses totaled $46 million, with the largest expenses reported to be compensation ($25 million), fees for services – primarily other with no detail provided ($5 million), printing, mail, magazine, and dues ($5 million), office-related expenses ($4 million), and advertising and promotion ($2 million).

213 employees received $25 million in compensation, which equates to an average compensation of $117,000. However, only 61 employees received more than $100,000 with the 10 most highly compensated reported to be:

• $1,628,359: Mark Baker, CEO and President
• $ 570,138: James W Coon, SVP, Government Affairs
• $ 455,699: Justine A Harrison, SVP, General Counsel (from 8/19)
• $ 437,782: Thomas B Haines, SVP, Media and Outreach
• $ 372,645: Gregory L Cohen, SVP, Administration
• $ 346,049: Erica Saccoia, SVP, Finance
• $ 305,582: Richard G McSpadden, Executive Director, ASI
• $ 287,378: John D Hamilton, VP, Information Technology
• $ 281,113: Elizabeth A Tennyson, Executive Director, You Can Fly
• $ 271,740: Kenneth A Mead, EVP, General Counsel (to 12/19)

The 10 most highly compensated employees received $5 million in compensation, which means the remaining 203 employees received $20 million, which equates to an average of just under $100,000 each. 7 of the 10 most highly compensated employees are male while 3 are female.

Mark Baker was the most highly compensated employee at more than $1.6 million, and more than $1 million higher than the next most highly compensated employee. In previous years, the Form 990’s report Mr. Baker received the following compensation:

• $1,517,015 (2019)
• $1,412,275 (2018)
• $1,468,517 (2017)
• $1,212,014 (2016)
• $ 960,461 (2015)
• $ 782,702 (2014)

Since 2014, Mr. Baker’s compensation has more than doubled although revenue has only increased about 15% (from $39 million in 2014 to $46 million in 2020).

AOPA paid for first class or charter travel and travel for companions. See the Form 990, Schedule J, Part III, Supplemental Information for more details.

Executive Compensation at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is a tax-exempt, non-profit 501 (c) (4) who advocates on behalf of its members (estimated to be 280,000) to “protect your freedom to fly.&#82…

paddockpost.com

 

[Brad W]

• $1,628,359: Mark Baker, CEO and President
• $ 570,138: James W Coon, SVP, Government Affairs
• $ 455,699: Justine A Harrison, SVP, General Counsel (from 8/19)
• $ 437,782: Thomas B Haines, SVP, Media and Outreach
• $ 372,645: Gregory L Cohen, SVP, Administration
• $ 346,049: Erica Saccoia, SVP, Finance
• $ 305,582: Richard G McSpadden, Executive Director, ASI
• $ 287,378: John D Hamilton, VP, Information Technology
• $ 281,113: Elizabeth A Tennyson, Executive Director, You Can Fly
• $ 271,740: Kenneth A Mead, EVP, General Counsel (to 12/19)

What's intersting to me about that list...apart from the huge staggering delta between #1 and #2
is that as a long time AOPA member, magazine reader, etc... that I recognize only three of the names on that list.

I'm not a fan-boy, but ...let's say I'm only an optimistic-hopeful that at least they are doing some kind of good for us with their seat at the table, even if only a tiny bit of their focus is on issues that affect us little single engine weekend warrior bug smasher drivers...which is to say I don't pay attention to them in great detail so not a surprise that I don't know behind the scenes folks.... but I do read through their magazines, watch some of their videos etc... (although I'll admit magazine reading has trickled to a near stop lately). I would have thought that I would at least have recognized a majority of their top paid folks.
Leading to me to ask myself, what are these folks doing?!

 

[wsquare]

@GLMS_NC regarding your screen image. MacGyver would take that TP core and put it where the sun don’t shine for AOPA. How many of the 280,000 members of AOPA are the “single engine weekend warrior bug smashers” that @Brad W describes? Suppose its only 80,000. That’s still 28%. Enough to bring any organization to its knees.

Maybe the answer to the OP question is with each of us. Write AOPA a letter (I don’t think they read email from the unwashed masses). Tell them you would join if they did more for the small GA segment, like address landing fees in a meaningful way. If a member, tell them you’re quitting until they do more for small GA, like address landing fees in a meaningful way. Just another thought.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If they were doing what most of us seem to think they should be doing, I don’t have a huge problem with salaries, although the increase in Baker’s would need some additional justification. I just don’t see that they’re doing what they should be.

 

[luvflyin]

This is 4 years old now, but staggering nonetheless. They absolutely have the resources to do more for general aviation!


The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is a tax-exempt, non-profit 501 (c) (4) who advocates on behalf of its members (estimated to be 280,000) to “protect your freedom to fly.” Based in Frederick, Maryland, AOPA has 12 voting members (trustees), 11 of whom are independent, in its governing body, 11 of whom are male and 1 is a female.

AOPA reported the following key information on the Form 990 (2020):

Revenue totaled $46 million (compared to $50 million in 2019), most of which came from membership dues ($24 million), the AOPA Foundation ($7 million), advertising income ($5 million), cost sharing ($4 million), royalties ($2 million), investment income and gains ($2 million), and education courses and other sources ($2 million). Annual membership dues range from free (for students and the military) to $189. Information on the Form 990 indicates average annual membership dues to be $86.

Expenses totaled $46 million, with the largest expenses reported to be compensation ($25 million), fees for services – primarily other with no detail provided ($5 million), printing, mail, magazine, and dues ($5 million), office-related expenses ($4 million), and advertising and promotion ($2 million).

213 employees received $25 million in compensation, which equates to an average compensation of $117,000. However, only 61 employees received more than $100,000 with the 10 most highly compensated reported to be:

• $1,628,359: Mark Baker, CEO and President
• $ 570,138: James W Coon, SVP, Government Affairs
• $ 455,699: Justine A Harrison, SVP, General Counsel (from 8/19)
• $ 437,782: Thomas B Haines, SVP, Media and Outreach
• $ 372,645: Gregory L Cohen, SVP, Administration
• $ 346,049: Erica Saccoia, SVP, Finance
• $ 305,582: Richard G McSpadden, Executive Director, ASI
• $ 287,378: John D Hamilton, VP, Information Technology
• $ 281,113: Elizabeth A Tennyson, Executive Director, You Can Fly
• $ 271,740: Kenneth A Mead, EVP, General Counsel (to 12/19)

The 10 most highly compensated employees received $5 million in compensation, which means the remaining 203 employees received $20 million, which equates to an average of just under $100,000 each. 7 of the 10 most highly compensated employees are male while 3 are female.

Mark Baker was the most highly compensated employee at more than $1.6 million, and more than $1 million higher than the next most highly compensated employee. In previous years, the Form 990’s report Mr. Baker received the following compensation:

• $1,517,015 (2019)
• $1,412,275 (2018)
• $1,468,517 (2017)
• $1,212,014 (2016)
• $ 960,461 (2015)
• $ 782,702 (2014)

Since 2014, Mr. Baker’s compensation has more than doubled although revenue has only increased about 15% (from $39 million in 2014 to $46 million in 2020).

AOPA paid for first class or charter travel and travel for companions. See the Form 990, Schedule J, Part III, Supplemental Information for more details.

Executive Compensation at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is a tax-exempt, non-profit 501 (c) (4) who advocates on behalf of its members (estimated to be 280,000) to “protect your freedom to fly.&#82…

paddockpost.com

If I'm getting this right, non profit means that any money left over gets paid to the employees. Like we got x millions in income from the subscribers but we only spent y million doing what we do so we have to do something with the difference else we would be making a profit. So we give it to the employees. Yeah, they gotta be paid a reasonable salary. But at what point are they just 'profiting'?