What will user fees do to small towered airports

[Steve Foley]

I am wondering what user fees will do my local airport. ORH (Worcester
Regional Airport) is a towered airport with four commercial flights
*WEEKLY*. Needless to say, the airport is struggling.

If user fees go into effect, will each take-off and landing incur a user
fee?

There are ten uncontrolled fields within 25 miles of ORH. My guess is that
the piston singles currently based in Worcester will depart for one of the
others.

When I was training, I remember doing 20 touch and gos one day. What would
that have cost me?

I suspect once the traffic is gone, the tower will go too, but that will be
too late.

Anyone have any insight on this?

[Greg Farris]

In article <DqePf.5119$ci1.162@trndny08>, says...
>
>>When I was training, I remember doing 20 touch and gos one day. What would
>that have cost me?


$0. Landing fees are not usually charged for aircraft based at a field.

What type of aircraft are the four "commercial" flights?
If they are charged for the service, at least the tower at your airport can
claim they are bringing *something* into the system, instead of just costing
money, the way it is now.

It really depends on what type of accounting mentality accompanies the
proposed fee structure. The simple fact of bringing some more revenue into
the system is not in itself going to cause reductions in service, but if
there is an accounting structure that evaluates towers to see which are not
"pulling their own weight" then that's different.


GF

[Steve Foley]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article <DqePf.5119$ci1.162@trndny08>,
says...
> >
> >>When I was training, I remember doing 20 touch and gos one day. What
would
> >that have cost me?
>
>
> $0. Landing fees are not usually charged for aircraft based at a field.

But each take-off was an operation, as was each landing. As I understand it,
user fees will be based on ATC usage, meaning these 20 tough and gos were 40
uses of ATC.



> What type of aircraft are the four "commercial" flights?

MD-80

> If they are charged for the service, at least the tower at your airport
can
> claim they are bringing *something* into the system, instead of just
costing
> money, the way it is now.
>
> It really depends on what type of accounting mentality accompanies the
> proposed fee structure. The simple fact of bringing some more revenue into
> the system is not in itself going to cause reductions in service, but if
> there is an accounting structure that evaluates towers to see which are
not
> "pulling their own weight" then that's different.

I think the fees will scare off the piston single traffic, which currently
makes up the bulk of the operations.


>
>
> GF
>
>
>
>
>

[BTIZ]

I have not seen any charge rates yet for tower or IFR operations.. maybe
someone else has?
We'll just have to wait and see how they divy up the users charge.

BT

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Greg Farris" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article <DqePf.5119$ci1.162@trndny08>,
> says...
>> >
>> >>When I was training, I remember doing 20 touch and gos one day. What
> would
>> >that have cost me?
>>
>>
>> $0. Landing fees are not usually charged for aircraft based at a field.
>
> But each take-off was an operation, as was each landing. As I understand
> it,
> user fees will be based on ATC usage, meaning these 20 tough and gos were
> 40
> uses of ATC.
>
>
>
>> What type of aircraft are the four "commercial" flights?
>
> MD-80
>
>> If they are charged for the service, at least the tower at your airport
> can
>> claim they are bringing *something* into the system, instead of just
> costing
>> money, the way it is now.
>>
>> It really depends on what type of accounting mentality accompanies the
>> proposed fee structure. The simple fact of bringing some more revenue
>> into
>> the system is not in itself going to cause reductions in service, but if
>> there is an accounting structure that evaluates towers to see which are
> not
>> "pulling their own weight" then that's different.
>
> I think the fees will scare off the piston single traffic, which currently
> makes up the bulk of the operations.
>
>
>>
>>
>> GF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-07, Steve Foley > wrote:
> Anyone have any insight on this?

The way it works here is that you (usually) don't pay any fees if you're
based at that airport. It's only visiting aircraft that pays landing
fees. Light GA doesn't pay any en-route fees at all.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On 2006-03-07, Steve Foley > wrote:
>> Anyone have any insight on this?
>
>The way it works here is that you (usually) don't pay any fees if you're
>based at that airport. It's only visiting aircraft that pays landing
>fees. Light GA doesn't pay any en-route fees at all.
>


Even IFR?

GF

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>But each take-off was an operation, as was each landing. As I understand it,
>user fees will be based on ATC usage, meaning these 20 tough and gos were 40
>uses of ATC.
>
>

Never heard of landing fees for based aircraft.

GF

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-08, Greg Farris > wrote:
> Even IFR?

Even IFR. There are currently no charges if your aircraft has an MTOW of
less than 2000kg (about 4100lbs).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>On 2006-03-08, Greg Farris > wrote:
>> Even IFR?
>
>Even IFR. There are currently no charges if your aircraft has an MTOW of
>less than 2000kg (about 4100lbs).
>


Well, at least there's some silver lining in the UK!!
I have a friend there who tells me he rents a C-172 wet for £200/hr -
that's almost $400!! Please tell me he's confused.

GF

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-08, Greg Farris > wrote:
> Well, at least there's some silver lining in the UK!!
> I have a friend there who tells me he rents a C-172 wet for £200/hr -
> that's almost $400!! Please tell me he's confused.

He may well do, I don't know. We pay less than half of that for a
Grumman Cheetah on tach hours (a much more fun plane to fly). It's still
too much though.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jose]

> Never heard of landing fees for based aircraft.

Teterboro. Do pattern work there and you'll pay more in landing fees
than airplane rental, based or not.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.