"Landing Fee"

Sounds like a surcharge for me. Free to land in the day and $10 to depart.
Well yeah, I guess any fee could be considered a surcharge, compared to the $0 you'd be charged if you did something else instead. The main point, though, is that there's a fee for night landings as well as takeoffs.
 
Sounds like a surcharge for me. Free to land in the day and $10 to depart. Nighttime operations can run you $108 for each takeoff or landing.
I suppose one should just call it what it really is. A tax by any other name, fee, surcharge, toll, is still a tax. It would be okay if this was for enhanced safety. Instead it's yet another hand in the pocket. It's one reason I will never ever land there, even if I were on flames. The other is what they did to the EAA B17 in '03.
 
Seems as if they are charging the fee to discourage operations between 11pm and 7 am rather than setting a curfew.
 
I briefly stopped at ORF Saturday to transfer a PnP and signature charged me $52, won't ever make that mistake again. Never left the ramp :/.
 
Is a subway fare also a tax, then? Why isn't it just a straightforward fee for a service?
I would say yes it is if previously the service was covered by the taxes I pay. We pay millions to subsidize subways and still that subway fee goes up. Think ATC. We pay for the service already yet someone believes a user fee is appropriate.
So in my mind, paying a user fee to the government to whom we've been paying taxes to and previously getting that service as part of those taxes, is just another tax.
Landing fees are taxes. They may be targeted to a particular group, but they are still taxes regardless of what "they" call them.
 
Is a subway fare also a tax, then?
I would say yes it is if previously the service was covered by the taxes I pay.
So a subway fare would be a "tax" if subway rides were previously offered for free? And an airport landing fee would NOT be a tax if the airport has always had a landing fee?

You seem to be speaking a confusing private language in which "tax" means any government fee you don't like, in place of the term's usual meaning.

In the usual meaning, funds collected from the public to support a public service--collected without regard to individuals' use or nonuse of the service--are indeed a tax. Funds collected per use of a service are a fee, not a tax (even if the service is partially subsidized by taxes in addition to the fees).
 
In the usual meaning, funds collected from the public to support a public service--collected without regard to individuals' use or nonuse of the service--are indeed a tax. Funds collected per use of a service are a fee, not a tax (even if the service is partially subsidized by taxes in addition to the fees).

So property taxes are actually land use fees. Got it.

(Nobody else is getting any value of my house, and if I stop paying it, the government will own my house. Hmm.)
 
So property taxes are actually land use fees. Got it.

(Nobody else is getting any value of my house, and if I stop paying it, the government will own my house. Hmm.)
Your property taxes go into a pool of money for the county to spend. They are not specifically used to pay for something you requested. A building permit is a fee, charged for something specific.

Not sure why people care what these things are called. However, I have observed that "tax" seems to have more of a negative connotation than "fee" to some people.
 
Your property taxes go into a pool of money for the county to spend. They are not specifically used to pay for something you requested. A building permit is a fee, charged for something specific.

Not sure why people care what these things are called. However, I have observed that "tax" seems to have more of a negative connotation than "fee" to some people.

That's not what his definition claimed a tax was. Under his definition, a pool of not spent on everyone equally, must be a fee. So you've proven my point.

The reason for my particular pickiness on the words is because we have a law here that says unspent taxes are to returned. We're even getting a small refund this year.

(Send your driver's license number, the date it was issued and the date it's good until to your tax preparer to prove you lived in Colorado during the last tax year, by the way. Just sharing so you can include it since they'll call and ask anyway...there's other ways to prove residency, but the easiest is the DL and most tax preparers are using it unless someone can't provide one.)

Fees are not refundable. They're not the same thing under local law.

But in relation to the thread, I'm simply challenging his inaccurate definition of a tax vs a fee. They are not the same thing under national law, either.

And in the case of Colorado, you're entitled to a refund on over-collected unallocated taxes if politicians refuse to stand in public and ask for whatever they want to spend them on.

The lawyer/politicians created the specific legal differences, not I.

People are simply paying attention to what they define things as, since they play word games for a living, and it affects real things like the above-mentioned legally voted in, refunds.

If they stop playing word games (not likely), your assertion that nobody should care what we call them, is accurate.
 
he reason for my particular pickiness on the words is because we have a law here that says unspent taxes are to returned. We're even getting a small refund this year.
Somewhere I heard it was >$10.

(Send your driver's license number, the date it was issued and the date it's good until to your tax preparer to prove you lived in Colorado during the last tax year, by the way. Just sharing so you can include it since they'll call and ask anyway...there's other ways to prove residency, but the easiest is the DL and most tax preparers are using it unless someone can't provide one.)
Too late, already filed using TurboTax. Don't know if it was calculated for me and too lazy to look right now.
 
Somewhere I heard it was >$10.

Too late, already filed using TurboTax. Don't know if it was calculated for me and too lazy to look right now.

Yeah. My accountant's assistant emailed us for the info today, actually. I suspect the big box store software misses it for folks.

Maybe they have some sort of built in way to verify state of domicile that they'll process before shipping off the electronic filing. Oh well. Heh.

I think just to annoy Intuit you should open a ticket and ask how they're handling it. Hahaha. Keeps their IT people paid and busy. Heh heh.
 
Yeah. My accountant's assistant emailed us for the info today, actually. I suspect the big box store software misses it for folks.

Maybe they have some sort of built in way to verify state of domicile that they'll process before shipping off the electronic filing. Oh well. Heh.

I think just to annoy Intuit you should open a ticket and ask how they're handling it. Hahaha. Keeps their IT people paid and busy. Heh heh.
I was curious enough to look and I don't even see a line item for a refund unless you are referring to the "State Sales Tax Refund". I did have to provide my CO driver's license number.
 
I was curious enough to look and I don't even see a line item for a refund unless you are referring to the "State Sales Tax Refund". I did have to provide my CO driver's license number.

That must be it. I don't know why the accountant wanted issue and expiration dates if the form doesn't require it, but he's anal and really likes having solid documentation of everything.

I suspect an audit with him would be pretty boring. He'd just keep pointing out documentation until they went away.

Talked to a friend who didn't use him but is equally detail oriented. He had an audit and they couldn't find anything in a year worth of data but they really didn't like him writing off an entire airplane (long story there) but it was legit and related to his business. They widened the net to three years and still couldn't find anything and then had him in for a meeting.

In the meeting the auditor told him he had been naughty and forgot to take a deduction on his personal (not business) and they owed him money. He pointed out where the auditor was wrong and it would be illegal for him to take that deduction. Auditor didn't understand their own terminology and forced him to leave with a $3000 check.

LOL. He and his accountant were just slack jawed.

Apparently if an auditor has to spend that much time they needed to find *something* or it would look like they chose poorly in continuing and widening the audit. Haha. A refund was still "finding something wrong" so all those hours wasted on a squeaky clean taxpayer weren't a waste. Haha.
 
So property taxes are actually land use fees. Got it.
Huh? Property tax applies to land you own, not government-owned land whose use is provided to you as a service. In the latter case, it would of course be a fee rather than a property tax.

Moreover, the amount of an individual's property tax is not tied to the individual's use (if any) of whatever government services (e.g. local public education) that the tax funds. In contrast, your metered municipal water bill--which is indeed tied to individual use--is indeed a fee rather than a tax.

Analogously, a landing fee charged by a government agency at a government-operated airport is (as the name suggests) a fee. If you had your own airport and the government billed you for using it, that would be a tax.
 
Moreover, the amount of an individual's property tax is not tied to the individual's use (if any) of whatever government services (e.g. local public education) that the tax funds.

So you agree that the definition of a tax being money collected for the good of all, isn't true in the slightest. That was the point. Might as well call it a "pay someone else's bill for X fee, because you own land".
 
So you agree that the definition of a tax being money collected for the good of all, isn't true in the slightest.
No, I don't agree that that's the definition of a tax, I don't agree that it isn't true in the slightest of taxes, and I don't see what it has to do with aviation.
 
So a subway fare would be a "tax" if subway rides were previously offered for free? And an airport landing fee would NOT be a tax if the airport has always had a landing fee?

You seem to be speaking a confusing private language in which "tax" means any government fee you don't like, in place of the term's usual meaning.

In the usual meaning, funds collected from the public to support a public service--collected without regard to individuals' use or nonuse of the service--are indeed a tax. Funds collected per use of a service are a fee, not a tax (even if the service is partially subsidized by taxes in addition to the fees).
What I said was a user fee is what is charged for a service previously covered by the tax I paid. As an example, I got curb side trash pickup as a service from the town for the taxes I paid. Now I have to buy their trash bags to continue to have town sponsored trash pickup. A tax or a user fee. It amounts to exactly the same thing. Then there is the water bill. Priviously covered by my property tax paid, now there is a basic price PLUS cubic foot used. Add an ATC user fee for something our taxes now pay for, specifically the gas tax we pay, is yet another tax. Calling it a user fee doesn't make it any less a tax.
Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a debutant either.
Municipalities, having been told by the voters they cannot continue to raise property taxes(Massachusetts has prop 2 1/2), have found multiple ways to sidestep the law. First it was changing the "value" of your property. Then changing HOW that value was assested. Now it is user fees. Thinking along the same lines as user fees, why am I paying taxes for the school system when I've not had a child in it for 30 years? I certainly do not benefit from that. It isn't for the common good like the fire department, town hall, or snow plowing. So where is the user fee? Many municipalities have no choice but to fully fund the school system's budget. Politicians know this and use whatever tactics they can to enhance their revenue stream.
 
How it works at the two airports I've worked at...

Airport 1 - Landing fees were collected by the FBO. The charge was based on aircraft weight and aircraft that were below 12,500 pounds were not assessed any landing fees. There were separate fees from the FBO (security and facility/ramp if applicable) but no city landing fee. The city also had the FBO collect for parking as majority of the ramp space was city. FBO got a tiny percentage (basically to cover CC fees) of landing fee revenue and got a larger percentage for parking revenue.

Airport 2 - Landing fees were NOT collected by the FBO. The charge was still based on aircraft weight and not assessed if the aircraft is below 12,500 pounds. The airport somehow kept track (not by a third party) and mailed invoices to the registered owners. Based aircraft are not charged. I know last year they had to write off some of the landing fees because the owners were unresponsive in paying them. The city also publicly said the fees are no where near the amount that the infrastructure costs each year.


Even if you're not paying a landing fee you're still paying fees to the city/county in some form or another. At both airports I worked the city also got a fuel flowage fee on certain types of fuels and various taxes on other types. Sales tax on facility/ramp fees. If they don't get it one way, they'll get it another.
 
All this talk of fees for simple landings has me thinking a couple of things:

1) This just continues to add to the problems that are leading to the slow death of general aviation.

2) Policies that only charge those who call out on a CTAF at night are going to lead to situations where pilots simply don't talk when the tower is closed, which hardly makes aviation any safer.
 
All this talk of fees for simple landings has me thinking a couple of things:

1) This just continues to add to the problems that are leading to the slow death of general aviation.
Maybe. But landing fees have been around for many decades, and I've seen no information that they're getting worse, especially as a proportion of overall GA costs. Most landing fees are negligible.
2) Policies that only charge those who call out on a CTAF at night are going to lead to situations where pilots simply don't talk when the tower is closed, which hardly makes aviation any safer.
You don't have to mention your tail number when you make CTAF call-outs.
 
Maybe. But landing fees have been around for many decades, and I've seen no information that they're getting worse, especially as a proportion of overall GA costs. Most landing fees are negligible.

The FBOs at Monterey (MRY) have started charging a $45 ramp fee, even if you don't stay overnight. It's waived with a 15 gallon fuel purchase, but it's hard to burn off that much fuel on a flight from my home base. :(

You don't have to mention your tail number when you make CTAF call-outs.

The FCC may prohibit transmissions without a call sign, although it's seldom enforced, if ever.
 
Maybe. But landing fees have been around for many decades, and I've seen no information that they're getting worse, especially as a proportion of overall GA costs. Most landing fees are negligible.

You don't have to mention your tail number when you make CTAF call-outs.

I don't know, it sounds like a lot of these fees are pretty significant, especially on the old $100 hamburger runs. Folks in this thread have been talking about fees ranging from $50-150 for short stops at various small airports. Yeah, fees have been around for a while, but it seems like they are becoming more common. I took a long break from flying myself, and I have to say that fees didn't even enter my thinking back when I flew originally (unless I was headed to a Class B). Maybe it's just a regional thing, or an internet thing, but I hear a lot of talk about fees these days.

I suppose you're correct in stating that no one can force you to use your tail number when calling out on a CTAF (at least not very easily).
 
The FBOs at Monterey (MRY) have started charging a $45 ramp fee, even if you don't stay overnight. It's waived with a 15 gallon fuel purchase,
Sure, but that's an FBO ramp fee, not an airport landing fee.
The FCC may prohibit transmissions without a call sign, although it's seldom enforced, if ever.
I hadn't considered that. Anyone know if there's indeed a rule to that effect?

AOPA suggests using just the last three tail-numbers for CTAF broadcasts:
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/pdfs/SA08_Nontowered_Airport_Ops.pdf
If they're not recommending a prohibited practice, that should suffice to circumvent landing-fee billing at otherwise-unmonitored fields.
 
Last edited:
Stockton: $30 ramp fee for showing up at Atlantic (only fuel (and FS only) on the field). $22/night overnight charge. Conversely, you can park in the unknown, unmarked county tie downs adjacent to the terminal for $6/night, no box, they'll bill you....

The facility charge at Atlantic is waived if you purchase 20gal of 100ll at $2.50/gal more than Kingdon about 9nm north....

On the flipside, cap jet center at SMF charges 10/night for parking, $6 county security fee, and waives the first night of overnight with 10 gal of fuel. It's cheaper for me to fly to SMF and park my plane than it is to park a car to hit a SWA flight to points east.


OAK is steeper at $30, but waived with 15 gal of fuel. $25/night to park on the ramp. I get it at OAK, but SCK is a total rip-off.

If a public field is charging fees to just put wheels down, it's off my list...hands down.
 
It used to be possible to make day trips to OAK and MRY with no fees at all.
 
Back
Top