[SteveC]

Thanks. It’s not a local issue it’s actually national and the Civil Guarda are insisting it’s international law they are enforcing. I will see if I can find a link to it in English.

[patowalker]

A link in Spanish would do.

[patowalker]

Hmm, the latest report on Jerez airport includes this closing paragraph:

Given that the largest volume of airport operations is currently school traffic (IFR and VFR), it is considered necessary to note that an increase in this traffic, in the case of IFR training, could interfere with and limit the expected growth of commercial traffic. In the case of VFR traffic, although it is not considered likely to have an effect on (CAT) capacity , it could lead to certain restrictions on (CAT) operations.

(my translation, so worth what you paid for it)
https://www.mitma.gob.es/recursos_mfom/ ... actual.pdf

[SteveC]

I am not sure of the relevance? Capacity has nothing to do with aviation security. Although my capacity problems are another whole can of worms.

[patowalker]

Had I not grown up and spent half a lifetime in ex-colonies of Spain, I probably would not have seen any relevance either. I just find it very strange that there is a statement about GA activity hindering the growth of CAT and then out of the blue GA finds it is subject to additional hassle and expense. I am probably being too cynical.

[SteveC]

Ah! Yes now I get you and yes I agree.....

[flybymike]

I can’t imagine any scenario in the U.K. where GA was blocking access by CAT, where precisely the reverse is the case.

[Stu B]

"Coronavirus: Airport handlers at risk of collapse"
... by which they mean the Handling Companies, not their staff, in the BBC article at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52100534

Perhaps we may not miss them when we are allowed to resume flying our own aircraft - though the consequences when we again want/need to fly commercial might concern us more.

Incidentally, in the article the journo gives his answer to the question that is the title of this thread (and the list is all stuff most of us can happily live without needing to subcontract anyone to do for us):
" ... these four companies manage nearly all of the ground handling operations required by airlines at the UK's airports. They include refuelling, cleaning, baggage transfer, departure gate services and the loading and unloading of cargo.

They do not work for the airports themselves, but are directly contracted by the airlines. They operate on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, charging for each service they provide."

[Flyingfemme]

Hmmmm. DNATA belongs to the Dubai government. Are we to believe that they have no reserves or contingency funds at all? That smacks of bad management to me.

[2Donkeys]

Hmmmm. DNATA belongs to the Dubai government. Are we to believe that they have no reserves or contingency funds at all? That smacks of bad management to me.

It's a dirty secret - and one which is going to become quickly apparent as this year progresses, that the Dubai government (and indeed the entire Emirate, is stony broke. The World Trade Fair planned for this year was seen in many quarters as their last throw of the dice.

[TopCat]

I can probably guess the answer to this, so I didn't think it was worth a new thread....

Is there any way of avoiding "mandatory" handling at Bournemouth?

I realise the clue is in the word "mandatory" but I was wondering if they'd changed policy at all, given that their movements must be way down, so in any sensible universe they'd be trying to encourage visitors.

There's Lee-on-Solent of course, but that would be a lot more of a trek for the person I'm planning to visit.

[NDB_hold]

I doubt it; even for Project Propeller a few years back I had to threaten them with the local press before they waived the handling charge (airfields usually offer free landing fees; so did Bournemouth but I was still threatened with a handling charge... - this to collect 3 WW2 veterans and take them for lunch...)

A friend rang them and asked them if they’d like to explain this to the Bournemouth Echo....