I've been to several escort required airports that also had GA carve outs. So that's definitely possible and, were it a requirement to have free access due to taxpayer funding, the same could be done at DFW. In practice everywhere I've been it's as simple as painting a big red "do no cross" line on the tarmac and having someone from TSA keep an eye out for people crossing it like they do making sure people don't walk backwards through exits in the terminals to gain access to the secure area.
No. It's an argument that points out that there are obviously limits and directly refutes the unbounded claim previously put forward that any taxpayer should have access to a free option at any airport that took taxpayer money.
Maybe more people would talk about ORD, DFW, et al. if the fees at these taxpayer supported airports weren't so onerous
I'm in texas and would use DFW in a heartbeat if it weren't for exactly the fees we're talking about. Literally that's the only thing stopping me. Give me a free "limited transient service to the taxpayers" and I'm there 5-10 times per year.
I suggest you request a budget from your airport because they are not operating 100% from fuel sales. The majority of airport revenues is from rent and other fees.
Like others in this thread, I am having trouble trying to figure out what exactly the issue is here. If you’re ok paying an airport authority to park, then why is paying an FBO instead of the airport an issue for you? Although FBOs might charge ramp fees on top of parking, they usually get voided by fuel charges and in my experience airports without major FBOs still charge those fees too. Plus parking tends to be ridiculously cheap everywhere - non-pilot friends are consistently shocked that I can park a 172 even at busy airports for $30 or less a night - cheaper than parking a car.
Airports also receive revenues directly from our taxes, at the Federal, State and Municipal levels.
I think inadvertantly you hit it on the nail on what most people overlook. Airports are "supported" by our tax dollars, not fully funded.
Except its not really a monopoly as the airport public authority permits the FBO to charge any or all of those fees as mentioned in earlier posts. Now you can look at the airport authority as a monopoly since it owns everything and is the real power behind blocking recreational aircraft from using those public facilities. And given 10+ small GA airports are closed every year by other public authorities that turn that land into housing plots, golf courses, or parks, its simply following a trend that been going for many years.
I don't know. If one "for-profit" entity has a long term contract giving them the right to control access to *all* facilities at a publicly owned and supported airport, including the runway and taxiways... and to apply fees for use... I would characterize that as a monopoly for the duration of the contract, some of which are many years long. I guess what you are saying is that there is some committee (probably not elected, probably not very engaged, probably without much knowledge of, or concern with, aviation use cases) that has to approve fee increases? I have to agree with @Ed Haywood that this situation is ripe for abuse.
Yes, it would be interesting to know the proportion of "support" for airport operations which comes from the airport's cut of FBO profits vs. tax dollars.
I was thinking about taking over the restaurant at Lone Rock, so have a bit of insight into the rural part. 06c is a full restaurant in a modern building that happens to be at an airport. Definitely think of it like that. They certainly aren't subsidizing anything, restaurants are notoriously thin margin businesses, but the airport authority is managing their property effectively and keeping a tenant around for the long haul while also charging a profitable rate for fuel.
Exactly. All public airports I've been around have some sort of management oversight whether a single manager who reports to some other public entity up to entire independent commissions that oversee an airports operation. But I never stated that system couldn't be abused.
If the airport is a public asset, most of the financial info is available to the public for your review. And if you've never been to an airport oversight public meeting, I'd highly recommend you attend one to see how things work. As I've worked at a number of different airports, each with different rules, it would at times require me to address various airport management groups over those "rules."
All of the above and very subjective to the individual airport. When an airport receives FAA funds or is Part 139 certified, then things become a bit more standardized.
Sure, but the OP suggests he's ok paying the parking fee no matter who charges it so I'm still a little lost. The assumption that an FBO is charging an extortionate parking fee vs what an airport-managed facility would charge does not square with my personal experience where parking is pretty cheap everywhere
You do understand the difference in operational costs and capital improvements? The tax on airline tickets and the 20 cents a gallon you pay for AV fuel fund capitol improvement grants -zero dollars for operational expenses. And, those grants only pay for 80% of the cost of the capital improvements.
Thank you. Could not have said it better.
I dont mind paying fees to the airport. I mind paying extra fees to the FBOs if I do not use their services.
There is no monopoly. You can open an FBO at the airport under the same terms and conditions as the existing FBO and make all the money you want with free parking.
I guess you've never worked with an Airport or understand the business model.
I guess you've never worked with an Airport or understand the business model.
You actually CAN'T just open another FBO at an Airport as any kind of operation or structure are usually strictly controlled by the Airport. That's why there may only be one FBO at smaller airports. And sure, some airports may have two and then it may increase pending the size of the airport. But you'll never see an Airport with an FBO on every corner like a coffee shop or fast food restaurant that just decided to go open an FBO one day. A lot of it is because everyone knows there's limited business. So if you have too many FBOs, not all are going to make it and then the Airport is left with someone defaulting on a lease and an empty building they really didn't need.
Actually you can. Yes, it is controlled, but under the grant assurances they cannot discrimate if you want to pony up several million dollars to develop it. And if you don’t want to do that, the leases for FBO expire and you can present your own rent proposal giving the airport more money while providing your free parking business model.I guess you've never worked with an Airport or understand the business model.
You actually CAN'T just open another FBO at an Airport as any kind of operation or structure are usually strictly controlled by the Airport. That's why there may only be one FBO at smaller airports. And sure, some airports may have two and then it may increase pending the size of the airport. But you'll never see an Airport with an FBO on every corner like a coffee shop or fast food restaurant that just decided to go open an FBO one day. A lot of it is because everyone knows there's limited business. So if you have too many FBOs, not all are going to make it and then the Airport is left with someone defaulting on a lease and an empty building they really didn't need.
So working out a lease with an airport is a big deal. There can be a lot of income, which is why you see the big players involved. And once they are in, they do actually have a monopoly or at least they share the business with a very small pool of other FBOs.
Is this a comment about a specific airport? Because that's definitely not true at many. Probably most. The owners (city, county, state, blend of the above) regulate and approve what happens at the airport. Every single one I know anything about (which makes this anecdotal, rather than comprehensive) limits the number of operators to a number that makes sense for the traffic at that airport. For most, this means one.
I agree this is true for many airports, but this is far from the “monopoly” some suggest is occurring.
Your comment is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Hmmm... did you read what I said?
I specifically said some airports could have multiple FBOs based on size. But I stand by my comment that you can't just go open one cuz you want to.
It's either difficult to convey information accurately on these boards, or you find ways to misunderstand it.
Well, in post #1 you said...
Which means you judge them to be aggressive at limiting GA pilots currently. That could be construed as having something against Atlantic.
Good point. I have heard of others complaining about Atlantic prices. I have not had the displeasure.
And the only way to prevent that is for recreational GA users to make a collective effort at the state levels to stop those "monopolies." Discussing the issue on a random forum does nothing if no physical action is taken. Perhaps with PoA's 40,000+ members start a petition that can be sent to every applicable airport management entity, industry group, and elected officials. It's how the system is designed to work, and has worked in the past, when enough people bind togather to push a change in the system. Short of that, dont expect anything to change for rec GA users and will only get worse as the industry shifts in other directions.
Our county airport is booting the county road department out and spending 76 million to build at another location. All because it’s on airport property and not considered a aviation use by the FAA. Maybe we will get some new shade hangers like were removed on FBO property for more corporate hangers.
I wonder how much future money from the FAA, or money they would have to pay back, if they let the road dept. stay. Probably more than 76 million I would guess or they wouldn't have had them move.
If people who were interested in aviation would just pony up when these FBOs are for sale, PE wouldn’t be a problem. Trouble is, those people and that money aren’t together enough to make the purchase when somebody wants to get out of the business.