Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1720952
Has I known then Lee on Solent would have been my first choice.

Rob P
#1721167
Peter337

I think you have lost the plot with your rather pointless rambling argument.

There are a lot of good airfield with excellent facilities and good cafes that don’t charge £30 (if that is what Rob paid for his RV) and I would certainly be disappointed if that charge became the norm everywhere.
TopCat liked this
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1721174
Did a splash and dash recently when Popham was out of 100LL.

I agree the experience was very good and the landing fee much reduced because of the fuel uplift.

Picked CloudHound up from John Turner in 1984 so have a sentimental connection to Shoreham.
By Shrek235
#1721177
TopCat wrote:
Waveflyer wrote: £30 (if that is what Rob paid for his RV)

£33, actually, including VAT. Currently, anyway, if you're over 700 kg MGW.


It certainly is not keeping away the punters. I was listening out on their frequency when I trundled past last Thursday and the place was heaving. The ATC person was instructing people to hold all over the place and to call them back in "x minutes". Looking at the arrivals board when I got back, would seem to confirm how busy it was. I wonder if the split to Approach and Tower will be re-introduced, unless it has already - awhile since I have been into Shoreham. Perhaps they could have the £33 landing fee for sunny days and a £16.50 (what I paid at Gloster) fee for cloudy, cross wind, days. :wink: :eye:
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1721178
They're very busy with based aircraft and schools who haven't had much choice but to pay the fees if they want to operate. This was the business model, didn't matter about attracting visitors or not. The new operators say they want to bring visitors back to Shoreham.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1721183
Just a few points on Shoreham

No they haven't split the frequencies, Gareth, who was doing the radio, called "Shoreham Approach" and was responded with a definite "Shoreham TOWER"

He was also paying the landing fee so I can't comment on whether VAT was added to the thirty quid.

It was an OK experience, but not significantly better than many of the UK £10-15 airfields, the slightly tired cafe doesn't come close to matching Turweston for instance. I certainly can't recognise Peter 337's concept of getting something massively better for twice/three times the money.

I've no objection to thirty quid landing fees, but I'd need a reason to be going there. In this instance I'd certainly have opted for LoS and one of the nearby beach cafés if I hadn't thought the Shoreham landing fee was going to be a tenner.

Rob P
#1721187
It's all about the market! I paid £18 at Bembridge for literally nothing except some cut grass to park on, but it was a nice short walk to a very pleasant beach. so I'm happy. If Shoreham can get people to pay their normal landing fee that's fine, if not they will rethink, which they are obviously having a crack at.
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By Waveflyer
#1721189
A few comments about airfield viability.

If you need to charge small GA £33 for a landing I’m not sure that in the time that I have been flying that you will have found the single solution to saving your business.

Many other businesses manage by charging half that amount or less and still provide for the visitors needs.

Not all airfields are suitable for developing as housing estates. For those that are suitable and are struggling to survive do you really think that increasing landing charges will make one jot of difference against the millions that are available from developers.

Just how many hundreds of pounds per landing would you pay to persuade the land owner to stay in the industry rather than take the pot of gold.

Many airfields are run by folk that want to rather than need to and for those people I am very grateful.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1721190
Rob P wrote:the slightly tired cafe doesn't come close to matching Turweston for instance.

I haven't been to Turweston recently, but I think describing Shoreham's restaurant as 'slightly tired' is a bit unfair. Admittedly its wifi is dreadful, but 4G reception is pretty good so that doesn't bother me too much.

Av8 at Kemble comes to mind as somewhat more hip and funkily decorated (although with all the money they've spent on it, you'd think they'd fit the loo seats properly), but I wouldn't describe Shoreham's restaurant as tired, and the food is delicious, almost as good as White Waltham's, whose decor is much older.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1721193
Your version of slightly tired and mine remain at variance.

Rob P

The cake was OK though
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1721208
Rob P wrote:Your version of slightly tired and mine remain at variance.

I wasn't trying to argue you out of yours. You haven't said why you think it's tired though.

I'm just curious - what would be your top three non-tired airfield restaurants?
User avatar
By Rob P
#1721213
The nature of the beast is that they change. Turweston of course, always used to be AV8, Calais is good (possibly briefly), Welshpool...

Rob P