City of Austin is effectively closed to the little guys this weekend (It just ain't right...)

@Bell206, the UK is one example. The situation predates EASA or any pan-European regulator by decades. The airports were sold off by the UK government to repay debt. That kind of bounced along well enough until the last 20 years, during which many previously accessible airports have used technology to keep light GA out and there is nothing anybody can do about it. ATC is also privately run and at some of these airports you can’t get a transit across the Class D, even more so if they are handling even one customer aircraft. It’s a mind bogglingly stupid situation.

Other European countries have similar situations, some better (France) some worse (Greece).

Unlike EASA, FAA funds airports and has leverage to force to act in the public interest. In Europe regulation and funding are not connected so the regulator has no leverage, and in any case this is a national issue.
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
Unlike EASA, FAA funds airports and has leverage to force to act in the public interest.
Click to expand...

I keep asking this: In the example of the OP, how is this “not in the public interest” and then using FAA guidance on airport funding how the FAA can use that guidance to force KAUS to comply with the supposed problem.

Thanks.
 
Tusayan said:
The airports were sold off by the UK government to repay debt.
Click to expand...
Okay. So what specifically is the FAA or federal government doing now that makes you think the same thing will happen here as in the UK?

Tusayan said:
In Europe regulation and funding are not connected so the regulator has no leverage, and in any case this is a national issue.
Click to expand...
Well, technically in the US, congress, ie., the federal government, funds the airports and associated services via tax income and the FAA merely administers those funds per law and regulation. And its my understanding, the EASA and its predecessor the JAA were never tax based supported and relied mostly on fees to operate their aviation infrastructure. Big difference.

For example, if I wanted to obtain JAA/EASA certification for a CRS in the US, I would have to personally pay all expenses for an EASA inspector(s) to travel here, plus pay for the certificate, plus pay for the reoccurring audits for as long as I hold the EASA CRS rating. For an FAA CRS in the EU, no charge from the FAA to do the same because they are tax funded and not fee funded.

So not seeing where the FAA is following any lead from the EASA on this subject. If anything, I’ve been seeing the JAA/EASA changing over the years to follow how the FAA runs the system here.
 
Bell206 said:
So not seeing where the FAA is following any lead from the EASA on this subject.
Click to expand...
EASA versus FAA is a red herring in this discussion. The airport issue is a national government issue and the relevance of FAA is that it is part of our national government.

Where FAA is derelict in its duty is allowing FBO leaseholders to effectively take over the airport that FAA funds in periods of high demand defined by the FBOs. That is a baby step towards giving up Federal leverage over public airports more generally, which as per my examples would be a very bad thing.

The US system is brilliant in that it maintains Federal leverage over airports (many of which by the way they donated to local governments) while allowing them to be locally owned and managed. However what I see is the Feds getting lazier and lazier in doing their job.
 
Tusayan said:
EASA versus FAA is a red herring in this discussion. The airport issue is a national government issue and the relevance of FAA is that it is part of our national government.

Where FAA is derelict in its duty is allowing FBO leaseholders to effectively take over the airport that FAA funds in periods of high demand defined by the FBOs. That is a baby step towards giving up Federal leverage over public airports more generally, which as per my examples would be a very bad thing.

The US system is brilliant in that it maintains Federal leverage over airports (many of which by the way they donated to local governments) while allowing them to be locally owned and managed. However what I see is the Feds getting lazier and lazier in doing their job.
Click to expand...

Again, no evidence just speculation.
 
What do you think about Las Vegas airports and FBOs (with common ownership) requiring wildly expensive slots reserved online to land during their F1 event?

At least in that case AOPA put heat on FAA through their Congressional influence and got the prices lowered. However the price to land at a Federally funded airport should be zero, or related to costs of operation per the strings tied to FAA funding. Opportunism by airport owners or FBOs is not the idea, FBOs should not either directly or in effect control the airport for their own benefit.

Henderson Airport BTW has a public ramp but due to the common ownership of the airport and FBO that did not function as a lower cost option.
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
What do you think about Las Vegas airports and FBOs (with common ownership) requiring wildly expensive slots reserved online to land during their F1 event?

At least in that case AOPA put heat on FAA through their Congressional influence and got the prices lowered. However the price to land at a Federally funded airport should be zero, or related to costs of operation per the strings tied to FAA funding. Opportunism by airport owners or FBOs is not the idea, FBOs should not either directly or in effect control the airport for their own benefit.

Henderson Airport BTW has a public ramp but due to the common ownership of the airport and FBO that did not function as a lower cost option.
Click to expand...

You again have failed to offer a solution to the 1,000 airplanes wanting to park in 100 parking spot problem.

And you have no concept of what Federal funding at an airport does. Yes it helps maintain the runways and taxiways, but did you know in most cases it does not pay for the ramp space leased by the FBO. It does not pay to turn the lights on. It does not pay the payroll for all of the employees required to keep the airport running. It does not pay for the FBO's facilities.
 
1000 airplanes trying to park in 100 spots and reserving them long in advance is much better than 100 airplanes trying to park in 25 spots controlled by a monopoly. Obviously capacity will be reached but the solution will be better for public interest and FAA stake than a few biz jets each carrying 6 people reserving the entire airport, including the entire airport outside of the FBOs leaseholds.

I’ve made it perfectly clear that I competely understand how Federal grants and FBO leaseholds combine to provide funding to the airport owner to operate a public airport in the US. The proportions vary depending on the airport, with the extreme on the Federal side being an airport which has no FBO except maybe a self serve fuel pump. For many people in the age of Uber etc that is a fine solution, even if the FBOs don’t like technology removing their role. For others who want luxury and snobbery, the FBO offers a service for which they can pay. My point is that the FBO should not control the runway through controlling access to parking or (worst case as in Vegas F1) controlling use of the runway via slots.

I’m sure I’m not the only one thinking that this discussion has devolved into vested interests defending their own vested interests regardless of the obvious facts.
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
1000 airplanes trying to park in 100 spots is much better than 100 airplanes trying to park in 25 spots. Obviously capacity will be reached but the solution will be better for public interest and FAA stake than a few biz jets each carrying 6 people reserve the entire airport, including airport outside of the FBOs leasehold.

I’ve made it perfectly clear that I competely understand how Federal grants and FBO leaseholds combine to provide funding to operate the airport. The proportions vary depending on the airport.

I’m sure I’m not the only one thinking that this discussion has devolved into vested interests defending their own vested interests regardless of the obvious facts.
Click to expand...

What solution? You've yet to offer one other that open more free ramp space.

Your second paragraph alone tells us you don't completely understand Federal grants and FBO leaseholds, because they never combine. With only a few specific exceptions for small airports, nothing the FAA pays for can be leased or generate revenue.
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
Where FAA is derelict in its duty is allowing FBO leaseholders to effectively take over the airport that FAA funds in periods of high demand defined by the FBOs. That is a baby step towards giving up Federal leverage over public airports more generally, which as per my examples would be a very bad thing.
Click to expand...
Except the FAA leverage that you imply is there, is not. And has never been there. The federal government only owns about 10% of all airports which includes those for the military. With the remainder owned by state, local, and private entities.

No where in Part 139 or the AIP does the federal government or the FAA have any legal or regulatory authority to dictate how the daily operations are administered unless they violate the rules associated with Part 139 or the AIP. Now if you believe AUS has violated one of those rules, then you might have something. But skimming through the AUS Airport manuals available online, Part 139, and based on my experience with the AIP, I see no provision requiring the availability of free parking for transient GA aircraft during an F1 event.

Tusayan said:
My point is that the FBO should not control the runway through controlling access to parking or (worst case as in Vegas F1) controlling use of the runway via slots.
Click to expand...
But the FBO doesn't have that control. The City of Austin does as the Part 139 operator and makes the required requests as needed. Still don't see the connection to the UK issue or how the FAA can step in and provide what you want?

1760812602981.png
 
Bell206 said:
Except the FAA leverage that you imply is there, is not. And has never been there. The federal government only owns about 10% of all airports which includes those for the military.
Click to expand...

The latter point is clear, but obviously the FAA has leverage and it has nothing to do with ownership at this point: It comes with ongoing Federal funding: my base got $6 million in FAA grants last year while the FBO at which I’m based paid $180K in ground rent for I’d estimate 10% of the land area available via leaseholds. FAA also provides airport ATC free of charge without which the place is not viable. Do the math.

The FAA should (1) ensure airport owners with a large volume of operations per year use FAA funding to provide a proportionate level of public parking at a cost which is not event based, as per my original post in this thread and (2) prevent public airports that also own the FBOs from closing the airport to traffic other than its own $$$$ customers via slots that mandate parking at the FBO (which is what happened at Vegas F1 if I understand correctly). That would be a start. If that requires Congressional action to properly protect the public interest, so be it. I’d suggest they work with AOPA and the same Congressional support that helped knock back the more egregious stuff at Vegas.

This is an emerging threat based on the rise of the well funded biz jet crowd and their ability to displace the public by buying off public airports via the FBOs who masquerade as private businesses while monopolizing public assets to do so. I think I’ve made my opinion of that amply clear, and having done so I’ll check out now. I have parent with Alzheimer’s to address this weekend.

Ciao.
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
The latter point is clear, but obviously the FAA has leverage and it has nothing to do with ownership:
Click to expand...
Except it has everything to do with ownership. It’s the City of Austin, ie., airport certified operator that sets the parking rates and where to park and not the FBOs. The FAA has no authority to change that or methods they use to generate airport operational revenue. The fact is people weren't excluded they just didn't want to pay the higher event rate.

Tusayan said:
The FAA should (1) ensure airport owners with a large volume of operations per year use FAA funding to provide a proportionate level of public parking at a cost which is not event based, as per my original post in this thread
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you would also need congress to pass a new law that would mandate airports to apply for FAA funding for the parking even if the airport did not want it.

Tusayan said:
and (2) prevent public airports that also own the FBOs from closing the airport to traffic to other than its own $$$$ customers via slots that mandate parking at the FBO
Click to expand...
This would also require a new law since AUS has 3 FBOs on site which meets the exclusive-rights test under FAAs AIP. So I still don't see what authority you believe the FAA has to force AUS to provide lower priced parking during an event?
 
Bell206 said:
The FAA has no authority to change that or methods they use to generate airport operational revenue. The fact is people weren't excluded they just didn't want to pay the higher event rate.
Click to expand...
The FAA is not required to give e.g. my base airport $6M in a given year and money talks. All parties know it, and there is room for FAA ‘policy’ and negotiation.

I agree that legal changes would be a good permanent solution, as per my post above. The issue there may be that our lobbying group is equally being bought off by the biz jet crowd. AOPA did succeed to a limited degree in Vegas and that was good but this will take more work over time. As I said this is an emerging threat that didn’t exist to the same to degree previously, due to the growth of a class of GA that can displace other users, using money. That should for sure be addressed by legal changes if FAA lawyers can’t figure out a way to do it via policy and regulation.

I’ll make that my parting point, and notwithstanding my suspicion of vested interest, hope that some will consider its merits. The other option is a slow slide into European style GA where it’s accepted as an exclusively upper class activity unless you operate off some farmers field and stay out of the system. That’s a reality.
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
This is an emerging threat based on the rise of the well funded biz jet crowd and their ability to displace the public by buying off public airports via the FBOs who masquerade as private businesses while monopolizing public assets to do so. I think I’ve made my opinion of that amply clear, and having done so I’ll check out now. I have parent with Alzheimer’s to address this weekend.
Click to expand...
Take care that the well funded people of our country do not deprive your parent of access to the very best Doctors.

Ciao, but not Arrivaderci.
 
Tusayan said:
As I said this is an emerging threat that didn’t exist to the same to degree previously, due to the growth of a class of GA that can displace other users, using money.
Click to expand...
The only “emerging threat” I’ve seen has been the continued decline of Part 91 recreational aircraft owner since the 80s. However, when there was a bit of a “renaissance” in the Part 91 private world during the 2000s, the average person moved into fractionals, jets, and SETPs. And the industry adjusted to that shift on a many levels.

So if you believe this “new class of GA” is to blame for the lack of free parking places at AUS during the F1 event, then you’ll be sadly mistaken as it was simply a case of supply and demand of current market. And nothing more. Signature, Pilatus, TBM, and even Textron have been following that same supply and demand.

Regardless, I can unequivocally state based on my overseas experiences and my 40+ years in aviation that the US Part 91 “style of private GA” will never slide, slow or fast, toward the European style of GA… on so many levels.;)
 
I was at ACL the first weekend of October and considered flying in until seeing the exact same thing...crazy fees.
 
We were in Austin over the weekend for different reasons. Booked our room back in July knowing it was F1 weekend. Motel 6 and La Quinta were advertising $500/night before taxes. We found a better, boutique hotel at well under that after taxes.

Today, 40K+ people will fly out of AUS on 121 flights alone and there’s a chance it will be another record setting day like the Monday after F1 for the last few years.

Both TSA checkpoints are snaked around and out the doors.

Historical pax count records below.

cbsaustin.com

Austin airport braces for record-breaking passenger surge after Formula One

The Monday after Formula One is expected to be the Austin airport's busiest day in 2025, officials said. However, it remains unclear whether the day will break
cbsaustin.com cbsaustin.com
 
Now I am curious on a completely different tangent.
A lot of these event weekends are known well in advance. Do airlines change equipment to increase revenue for them? e.g. I am completely making this up, does SWA change from an older 737-700 to a 737-900 that seats more (I think 30 more people, but not positive).

Tim
 
tspear said:
Now I am curious on a completely different tangent.
A lot of these event weekends are known well in advance. Do airlines change equipment to increase revenue for them? e.g. I am completely making this up, does SWA change from an older 737-700 to a 737-900 that seats more (I think 30 more people, but not positive).
Click to expand...
Yes, to a point. (SWA doesn't have any 737-900s. They do have some 737-800 and 737-8 which are in between the -700 and -900 in size)

Airlines will add extra sections (flights) and will up-gauge to larger aircraft. The problem is that those bigger airplanes are already being used elsewhere so there's a limit to how much they can do without causing problems elsewhere.
 
tspear said:
Now I am curious on a completely different tangent.
A lot of these event weekends are known well in advance. Do airlines change equipment to increase revenue for them? e.g. I am completely making this up, does SWA change from an older 737-700 to a 737-900 that seats more (I think 30 more people, but not positive).

Tim
Click to expand...

I would assume they would where they could. KAUS is a former SAC base and has an 12.5K/150 runway as their ‘primary’ and a parallel 9Kx 150. There are some wingspan restrictions on certain taxiways, but that doesn’t prevent most airliners from using the field.

Separately, there is also an ANG ramp on the east side that is fenced off and relatively little real estate set aside for the FBOs compared to the total land available inside the fences.
 
TCABM said:
Terry used to be part of Black’s before a family dispute. I prefer Kreuz over both, but both Black’s and Terry Black’s are good, too.
Click to expand...
Since we've gone back and forth between airports keeping the little guys out and BBQ... I'll go back to BBQ!

In case anyone doesn't know the history of BBQ in this area, it goes back a long way. I keep my plane in Taylor and there has been a BBQ battle between Taylor and Lockhart for a long time. I was born in 1973. I was looking at old issues of Texas Monthly and was surprised to find a story about it from back then!

From the writer's perspective back then: Louie Mueller’s in Taylor probably serves the best all-around barbecue dinner in Texas. For the most succulent, perfectly-seasoned beef, you can do no better than Kreuz Market in Lockhart.

Screenshot 2025-10-20 at 2.28.32 PM.png
 
TCABM said:
The writer left out Snow’s.
Click to expand...
LOL, I think we can forgive them! The article was written in 1973 and Snows didn't come along until 2003!

Tootsie, the pitmaster at Snows, is now 90 years old and still working. She has been cooking BBQ since 1966.
 
How do Blacks, Terry Blacks, and the others compare to Hard 8, with 2 locations up in the DFW area? I really like theirs...
 
Last edited:
The Dallas POA gang took me to Hard 8 several years ago when I was in town on a business trip. Quite good.
 
kyleb said:
How do Blacks, Terry Blacks, and the others compare to Hard 8, with 2 locations up in the DFW area? I really like theirs...
Click to expand...
Hard 8 in Stephenville is pretty good, IMHO. It’s also one of the only BBQ places I know of that’s a pretty easy walk from a GA ramp (KSEP in this case).

Another is Cooper’s - but in Junction, TX (KJCT) - not the much more popular one in Llano (KAQO), which isn’t really walkable from the ramp although courtesy vehicles are generally available. Personally, I’m not a huge fan of Cooper’s (either one) and don’t get the hype. But we often stop at the one in Junction when heading west on I-10 out of convenience.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
How do Blacks, Terry Blacks, and the others compare to Hard 8, with 2 locations up in the DFW area? I really like theirs...
Click to expand...
I haven’t been tp Lockhart yet, but so far, Hard 8 is my favorite barbecue place. Oh, and Texas barbecue is best barbecue. I would be doing just fine if I had to live on nothing but barbecue and Tex-Mex for the rest of my days.
 
ateamer said:
I haven’t been tp Lockhart yet, but so far, Hard 8 is my favorite barbecue place. Oh, and Texas barbecue is best barbecue. I would be doing just fine if I had to live on nothing but barbecue and Tex-Mex for the rest of my days.
Click to expand...

I need some quality seafood once in a while.
 
kyleb said:
How do Blacks, Terry Blacks, and the others compare to Hard 8, with 2 locations up in the DFW area? I really like theirs...
Click to expand...

Hard 8 in Stephenville in my opinion is in the same category of players. What they do different is they don’t chase the hype.

I’m not sure how widely known it is, but the Texas Monthly annual BBQ rankings used to be (and may still be) pay to play. Most of the names you’ll recognize got their fame by opting in to TM’s food review where a good review gets spread like wildfire. The other big way they get their name out is thru TM’s annual BBQ fest.

There’s plenty of great barbecue joints I’ve been to that have never been publicized other than thru word of mouth.

The cool thing about Lockhart is you can get topnotch barbecue from at least four different joints within a couple minutes of each other, then head 30 mins down the road to Luling and get some more. Those four bug names really come down to two families that split over business dealings. The Black’s have been covered and Kreutz begat Smitty’s.

In Luling you get City Market without the family drama and Elgin gives you Southside Meat Market and Meyers. At least two of those joints have both been doing BBQ for over 100 years and a few more are close to 100 years in operation.

From Austin, you can swing Elgin, Lockhart, and Luling all in a day trip and spend the rest of the week in a fabulous meat coma. That’s without even talking about Franklin’s, Salt Lick, Stubb’s, and a host of other really good options all in/near Austin.
 
Planespotting edited together 26mins worth of arrivals and departures leading up to Sunday’s race.

 
I guess the point of this was all just jealousy? Envy? Hate?

The FAA doesn't operate airports, they regulate movement and operation of aircraft. I have no idea why people think the same dysfunctional FAA can now 'fairly' run every public airport and make it 'fair'.

Looking at skyvector https://skyvector.com/airports its hilarious that the USA has 21,038 airports listed, Canada is second at 2061 followed by Germany with 456.

Austin alone has at least 6 large/major airports... but boo hoo I can't park where I want during an event where 400,000 people also want to go. As for ramp space do people realize that jets need much larger spaces? Not only are they larger but for the efficient servicing? Lav service, catering, fueling, safe passenger movement, cargo etc... you can't have all these vehicles/people wandering all over to service AC spread all over the tarmac. Now add in the fact that this level of activity is not common, so there is a higher chance of accidents/incidents due to inexperience and scheduling.

Well boo hoo I went to Universal studio and couln't park next to the gate.... why are all the rich people getting closer spots than me when I want to be close to the gate! I DEMAND CONGRESS TO ACT! For the little people!

Seriously... first world problem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top