Originally published at: FAA Urges Halt To Falcon Field Landing Fees
The agency cited pending complaints, federal obligations and possible safety impacts.
Besides misusing ADS-B data, the excessive landing fee is a clear indication of what kind of traffic the airport wants. Corporate jets spend a lot more money on fuel than small aircraft. The wealthier clients who own them are more welcome and less concerned about the landing fee. I wouldn’t land my Maule at an airport to get fuel or stay overnight with a $20+ landing fee. Selectively discouraging small transient aircraft is against Grant Assurance 22 if the airport is accepting Airport Improvement Program grants.
The FAA has paid for the paving of nearly all commercial runways and probably at least half of the class E airport runways in the US; with the stipulation that charges for airport runway use can not be done. This is very strait forward! How can any airport challenge this? Are these people at Mesa a bunch of children and have not read the stipulations for the last repaving of the runways at Mesa? This is a wake up moment for Mesa, AZ, airport, with FAA legal telling them the actual story since they do not appear to know they can not charge for use of a runway! Where is the court order against this Mesa, Arizona airport action?
Great arguments. That said, how is it that BOS can restrict transient GA to PPR, charge obscene landing and ramp fees. As has been pointed out, the FAA has put money into all these airports.
Kudos to PHL. Fees are still reasonable. Not every light GA pilot needs or wants to go in to a primary Class B airport. But, within reason, we should have the ability without crazy and restrictive fees and policies.
As for Mesa, they don’t have to worry, I won’t inconvenience them as a transient to spend my money for a fuel stop there.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.