Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
#1747536
James Chan wrote:As Teesside falls outside this, then there’s probably not a lot that can be done other than look at anti-competition law, which can take a very lengthy time to resolve.


OK. Let's take Doncaster Sheffield then. Mandatory handling by Consort Aviation with little actual 'service' required and no possibility that I am aware of for self handling.

Why not focus on this one case, and see if a change can be brought about.
#1747538
I'm up for helping change things. The question is, how?

In the case of Inverness, the charges look quite reasonable for "toy planes" with a large jump at 3 tons - why? No discount for uplifting jet fuel; even though most oil burners will take an awful lot more than the average spamcan. And why the handling differentials? Exactly the same services are being offered for all aircraft and the costs of providing those services don't change.........And what about anything over 4 tons?
#1747541
Flyingfemme wrote:I'm up for helping change things. The question is, how?



I would imagine that a letter addressed to the management of the airport asking them to describe in what way they are compliant with the self-handling provisions of the Regulation that @James Chan relies upon.

We then count down until they write back swiftly placing reliance on the Terrorism Act for their activities.
JulietTango liked this
#1747542
Flyingfemme wrote:In the case of Inverness, the charges look quite reasonable for "toy planes"...

I'm surprised FF, IMO any charge for something not required nor wanted is not reasonable.

Flyingfemme wrote:And what about anything over 4 tons?

Not sure, given the charges I posted are for handling by Highland Aviation (the flying school) I could hazard a guess above 4 tonnes is handled by Signature.
#1747547
flybymike wrote:The toy plane charge is certainly peanuts compared to compulsory handling at Leeds.
Typically £70-80 for light GA plus landing fee.

That doesn't make it good value or justified, it just makes Leeds even more ridiculous. Whose side are you on, fbm? :lol:

It makes it prohibitive if I want to fly in to either fly or work on my based aircraft. To land, pay handling and then pay parking whilst I am out flying a based aircraft that will have a landing charge on return makes it prohibitively expensive, for me.

Anyway it's not airport charges that is killing GA, it's this weather!! :evil:
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By akg1486
#1747550
Miscellaneous wrote:Inverness mandatory handling charges:

Image

Are those services (coffee, toilets, etc.) included with the handling fee or can they be offered to you once you've paid the basic handling fee? :scratch:

Coincidentally, I saw a tweet (in Swedish, so I won't link to it) today at lunch. The tweeter had paid 125 SEK (~10 GBP) for a Japanese street food lunch in Stockholm; she thought that was ok. When leaving the restaurant, she was told she owed another 5 SEK for use of the soy sauce. (The tweet didn't say whether soy sauce handling was mandatory or not. Perhaps the waiters kept track of who used it?)
User avatar
By gaxor
#1747552
PeteSpencer wrote:If you do a practice ILS plus go-around at Norwich you get charged for handling even if the Dunlops don't even touch the tarmac.

Remonstration produces the response 'Well you could have landed and had coffee/biscuits if you'd wanted to.'

Peter


Reminds me of an old Tony Hancock quote (I think) B&B £5.00 plus use of cruet
flybymike liked this
#1747572
It's just how the airports set themselves up.

Many airports do not offer the facility to just park and sort yourself out. There is no public access gate between airside and landside, and they require that any aircraft landing either uses the passenger terminal/gates or, effectively, is a customer of a based business.

When you don't want anything from that business other than a place to park and a gate to use, that 'service' is known (for want of a better term) as handling. This function is often fulfilled for light GA by an aeroclub. Easily confused with real handling which could include a wide variety of services related to flight planning, fuelling, domestics, etc.

If you wanted to make a legal argument against mandatory handling a good place to start would be the aerodrome's public use license. One could argue that they are not making the aerodrome available for public use, but only to customers of certain businesses (the handlers).
#1747586
So what’s the excuse at Staverton? Anyone under 3 tons can come in and “self handle”, based or not. Over 3 tons you are suddenly unble to avail yourself of things like talking to the firecrew to order fuel and walking out through the terminal (where you would have gone anyway to pay your landing fee).
#1747593
They just copy what other aerodromes are doing. The more people don't shout (e.g. hi-vis), the more it spreads.
Waveflyer liked this
#1747609
The point is, what’s the significance of the cutoff? Different places use different weights. If it’s OK for one user to self handle, there’s no safety case for not allowing the bigger stuff to do it. Some people want handling - they are usually the AOC boys and girls or the larger corporate stuff. They are welcome to pay for it while the rest of usshouldn’t have to. I generally find that all handlers do is waste time. There are a few, notable exceptions that I am content to use - but not many.