Monday 25 May 2015 02:20 UTC
This forum is primarily for discussion on anything to do with general aviation, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
I can assure you, Peter, that invoices would have be issued, the CEO wouldn't have accepted otherwise. I can only assume that the previous owner of the MD83 had gone bust. Nevertheless, with the peculiarities of English law, the debt remained with the airframe.
Several years prior to this, under a different management, an airline went bust owing the airport hundreds of thousands (never again would debts be allowed to get this big). Two of the aircraft involved were sold on and, allegedly, were placarded 'Except in dire emergency, do not land this aircraft at Luton airport'. I am sure that wasn't true but it's a good story.
The 'Debtors File' (always thought that the wrong name) we held in ATC ran to several pages of aircraft owing money, from a few quid to thousands. We had pre-printed and signed liens in the tower ready.
Anyway, I think we have strayed off the topic too far.
provider of robust Air/Ground Communications Services . . . .
I'd be interested at to what process is used to trace the owners, Steve. It's actually not trivial, once it is not a G-reg.
This is quite a big thing on the N-reg front, with most aeroplanes over here held by trusts, and with some trustees charging steep "admin" charges for passing on the bills. But at least the trustee gets the bill because the airport can look up his address on faa.gov.
Most (if not all) of UK 24 hour airports require some form of handling agent, and my experience is that you don't get away until a) the bill is raised; and b) payment is made unless you have previously agreed credit facilities - which are normally limited to the airlines or major operators.
So I suspect you're not referring to somewhere in the UK are you?
Believe me - if we don't recognise the aircraft or the operator then it gets asked how the bill is being paid
There are various ways to accidentally escape paying an airport. A common one seems to be: fly to a based company for maintenance, or even for parking. This company has an arrangement with the airport under which they pay the airport, and quite often they have a deal where they pay a lot less than the list price.
You pay the company when you land there.
They don't pass the money over (for whatever reason; incompetence, lack of cash, etc).
Eventually the airport goes after the aircraft.
In fact the airport may not even know that you paid the said company...
A common one is Bournemouth whose "handling" is a man with a mobile phone, whose accounts office appears to be at East Midlands Airport (01332 852xxx), which is often not notified of whether a landing was to a based company, and anyway nearly always invoices the wrong amount where the company visited has a lower rate deal. I bet these two have a long list of "unpaid" bills which their ATC thinks are genuine drive-aways.
Now, which above poster is an ATCO at East Midlands??
Another UK one I won't mention by name because the GA outfit there is clearly having cash flow problems and is hanging onto customer money, and eventually the airport starts chasing the aircraft.
The last time I looked in the AIP Bournemouth was not an H24 airport as far as public useage is concerned. "Big" is another description which is pushing the bounds of reality.
I'm not going to get into the minutae of RAD group charging policy, neither am I going to know what goes on at the smallest level of an another airport at the the group within which I work, but my experiences of Bournemouth have always been different. Having said that I've always gone through either CSE Citation Centre, Signature or World Wide Aviation. My experience is, if you are visiting a company with a negotiated lower rate deal then you pay that company - NOT Bournemouth Handling. So - to a certain extent your post doesn't make sense. Another case of Peter making things more difficult than need be and falling foul of his own ineptitude perhaps?
If you think there is a genuine problem which you would like to see changed then I'll quite happily give you the email address of the person now responsible for charging - who is no longer the delightful Joana unfortunately, but a guy at Manchester Airport.
You could of course check the bill and pay on the day so as not to have gone through the aforementioned hassle
Name removed* writes here
Name removed* writes elsewhere
Should I respond?
Answers on a postcard
* even though many may already know the name behind a contributer's pseudonym, if a contributor wishes to use a pseudonym then that should be respected. We don't wish it to be considered 'good form' for one contributer to feel it is acceptable to 'out' another arbitrarily.
Peter - there is a world of difference between accusing someone that they don't know how to do their own job, and pointing out what would appear to many who read your posts. You insist on making out things are more difficult than they really are, and pass this falsehood onto others. 421C has already alluded to this recently in the FCL008 thread. There have been other occasions. The quote you've pulled from the PPL/IR forums above was made after others on that thread pointed out that your original posting there was out of order - you're obviously a slow learner.
Frankly seeing your name on any posting or piece of published work is one of the biggest turn-offs in the aviation world, as you know that it will be pages and pages of drivel with only 10% of content actually worth reading. 3 weeks ago I did 3 ILS's in the space of 2 hours, to different airports, all down to within 200ft of Decision Height - did I spout forth in a name removed style self-aggrandisement writing session on fora and internet - No. Why? Because, guess what, like your articles it would have been totally boring and nobody would have been interested!
Now - bearing in mind you've already been kicked off one type specific forum for your inflammatory and insulting nature, and I believe what you've done above may be contrary to the "rules" of this forum - I suspect the Mods can advise - maybe you should follow the following adage:
It is better to keep quiet and make people wonder as to your foolishness, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests
Login / Register