death of GA in NY

wrote:

The slow death of GA is in acceleration in the NY area.


I believe you're missing the smaller picture. TEB has been *small* GA
unfriendly for quite some time now. It's all about money: which makes more
for the FBO, a 4 172s or 1 citation?

Right now, MMU is pretty good about small GA. But I predict that this won't
last long. The best break we "little plane" pilots got in a while in this
area was the rejection of the idea to extend CDW's 4/22 and put in an ILS.

And, of course, we've several smaller airports in the neighborhood. We do
need to work to keep them. NJ's been pretty good about this recently, I'm
please to note, trying to buy development rights and such.

TEB with its volume of commercial GA operations is, I suspect, less the rule
than the exception. Fortunately, I don't think most GA airports can handle
the traffic TEB's receiving.

Further to this, one particular FBO at TEB had a recent insurance problem.
Even though this wasn't related to small GA, a consequence was a severe
restriction in what could be done with their rented planes.

At least, that's the story. There's still the fact that small airplanes
take space and management that makes more money on larger planes.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...
wrote:

The slow death of GA is in acceleration in the NY area.


I believe you're missing the smaller picture. TEB has been *small* GA
unfriendly for quite some time now. It's all about money: which makes
more
for the FBO, a 4 172s or 1 citation?

Right now, MMU is pretty good about small GA. But I predict that this
won't
last long. The best break we "little plane" pilots got in a while in this

I wouldn't call a $35.00 landing/parking/handling fee by Signature the only
FBO small GA friendly

Steve S wrote:

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...

wrote:


The slow death of GA is in acceleration in the NY area.


I believe you're missing the smaller picture. TEB has been *small* GA
unfriendly for quite some time now. It's all about money: which makes
more
for the FBO, a 4 172s or 1 citation?

Right now, MMU is pretty good about small GA. But I predict that this
won't
last long. The best break we "little plane" pilots got in a while in this


I wouldn't call a $35.00 landing/parking/handling fee by Signature the only
FBO small GA friendly


Agreed. A reasonable overnight parking fee ($10 a night ?) I could go
along with but $35 will pretty much guarantee a lot of GA aircraft
will avoid that FBO. In their own way they are contributing to the
extermination of general aviation.

Just as with excessive income taxes, there is a point of diminishing
returns. There somes a point where reducing tax rates actually results
in an overall increase in tax revenues because people start increasing
economic activities. I think some of these FBOs need a little dose of
supply side economic thinking.

kontiki wrote:
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message

I wouldn't call a $35.00 landing/parking/handling fee by Signature the
only FBO small GA friendly
Is $35 really unfriendly in the NYC metro area? I haven't lived in the
area for almost 10 years but even then it cost over $20 to park a car
for the day in prime midtown spot. Why would it not cost the same or
more to park an aircraft?

Agreed. A reasonable overnight parking fee ($10 a night ?) I could go
along with but $35 will pretty much guarantee a lot of GA aircraft
will avoid that FBO. In their own way they are contributing to the
extermination of general aviation.
I expect to pay $10 a night almost anywhere. Often it's less. But at
prime locations I'm sometimes surprised at how little we pay... and how
much we complain.

I'd like use of all airports to be free too. I hate getting charged
parking and service and whatever. Although with the increased security
that 9/11 caused, I feel like I get a little more for the dollar. But
I'm willing to pay to get access, security, and service. I'm glad
someone is there to provide it and I have to be willing to pay for it.

It shouldn't work the way it worked for me this weekend. I filled up at
our private tank, then flew to our local Class C airport to pick up my
passenger. The FBO generously provided a car and driver to do the round
trip to the passenger terminal. No charge but I tipped the driver. We
returned and flew to a busy Class B. There were a number of smaller
airports nearby but none as close to our downtown hotel as the this one.
We tookour tail dragger directly to the overnight parking area knowing
that it can't be towed. We were met by 2 golf carts for luggage and the
trip to the FBO. We checked in, ate a cookie, met our host, and off we
went. We stayed an extra day. Returned, told the receptionist that we
needed a ride out to our plane because it couldn't be towed but
otherwise didn't need anything else. "Fine, have a nice flight". Three
different guys helped us get our luggage out to the plane.

No charge. I'm embarrassed by that. I know that they have charges for
overnight parking and service in lieu of a fuel purchase. But I didn't
offer and they didn't ask. It shouldn't work that way but often than
not, it does. (Taildragger helps). How do these guys stay in business?
I know my $35 isn't going to make or break the business but how many
businesses provide great, on-demand service and don't bother to collect
anything? Maybe I'll invest that $35 in a new ANR headset to stimulate
the economy.

No, actually I returned home and filled up again at the private tank
with the $35 I didn't pay the FBO. Great for me!

Just as with excessive income taxes, there is a point of diminishing
returns. There somes a point where reducing tax rates actually results
in an overall increase in tax revenues because people start increasing
economic activities. I think some of these FBOs need a little dose of
supply side economic thinking.
It was BS then, it's BS now.

Maybe I look at it strangely?
When you pay to park your car in a parking lot is it on private
property? When you pay to park your plane is it on private property? My take
on it is, if it is being (car or plane) parked on public property funded by
taxpayers it has already been paid for.
Heck I hate toll roads! Now if a private company wants to build a road
and charge a toll , fine. When tax dollars pay for the construction it just
really gets my goat. I don't mind some sort of tax, but I hate being
"double" taxed . I just do not see taxes funding airports and then the
airport turning around charging someone a landing fee or what have you ,
when the Federal tax dollar supports the airport. If the airport wants to
charge for it's use, then it needs to be a private airport and not publicly
funded. IMHO, a 2 buck charge at a funded airport is 2 bucks to much .
Is it just me or does anyone else feel they are being ripped off when
airports do this? Seems to me they could do more biz by not having landing
and parking fees. More pilots would stop there and use their services
wouldn't they? I think the fees just add to the slow death of GA in an area.

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message

I wouldn't call a $35.00 landing/parking/handling fee by Signature the
only FBO small GA friendly
Is $35 really unfriendly in the NYC metro area? I haven't lived in the
area for almost 10 years but even then it cost over $20 to park a car for
the day in prime midtown spot. Why would it not cost the same or more to
park an aircraft?

W P Dixon wrote:
Maybe I look at it strangely?
When you pay to park your car in a parking lot is it on private
property?
I never know. It is being managed and presumably atleast leased by a
private operator. Go to a federal or state building and you park in a
pay parking lot.
When you pay to park your plane is it on private property? My
take on it is, if it is being (car or plane) parked on public property
funded by taxpayers it has already been paid for.
I feel that way about using the ATC system and operating in and out of
public airports. But every ramp I see (and want to park on) is
privately operated. I don't think it makes any difference who *owns*
it, the question is who *operates* it. That is, who puts the chains
out, chocks at night as required, provides security, who is liable?
Heck I hate toll roads! Now if a private company wants to build a
road and charge a toll , fine. When tax dollars pay for the construction
it just really gets my goat. I don't mind some sort of tax, but I hate
being "double" taxed . I just do not see taxes funding airports and then
the airport turning around charging someone a landing fee or what have
you , when the Federal tax dollar supports the airport. If the airport
wants to charge for it's use, then it needs to be a private airport and
not publicly funded. IMHO, a 2 buck charge at a funded airport is 2
bucks to much .
It's pretty obvious that roads *have* to be a public entity. It's a
regional and national interest and private ownership just won't work
(who would build the interstates? Or the PA turnpike? Major airports,
to a lesser extent, need to be public too. Otherwise they would all be
closed or closing. NIMBY applies, squared!
Is it just me or does anyone else feel they are being ripped off when
airports do this? Seems to me they could do more biz by not having
landing and parking fees. More pilots would stop there and use their
services wouldn't they?
No, I don't think so. If that were the case, someone would be running a
Walmart FBO chain and cleaning up. Who cleans up in the FBO business?
Who cleans up in the small piston FBO business. Let's see, "if I just
didn't have to pay $12 bucks to park overnight (with no fuel) I'd fly 20
more hours a year". I don't think so.
I think the fees just add to the slow death of
GA in an area.
Myself, I fly to get somewhere and land where I'm closest to my
destination. I pay the fees with a smile when asked. I appreciate each
and every airport I land at mainly because they are there. Good
services are even better. I rarely end up paying a government entity
directly though I'm sure taxes are collected from those private
operators operating on public land. The few airports where the local
gov actually operates the airport, things seem to get strange... but
that's ok too.

I don't like the idea of ATC user fees. I don't like state run
lotteries. But I like successful FBOs and usually end up 'ripping them
off' (burp) rather than feeling ripped off.

I know what you are saying,
I have alot of friends here that will not fly to a airport with fees,
they hate them like I do. I wonder if it's just a southern thing?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
...


W P Dixon wrote:
Maybe I look at it strangely?
When you pay to park your car in a parking lot is it on private
property?
I never know. It is being managed and presumably atleast leased by a
private operator. Go to a federal or state building and you park in a pay
parking lot.
When you pay to park your plane is it on private property? My take on it
is, if it is being (car or plane) parked on public property funded by
taxpayers it has already been paid for.
I feel that way about using the ATC system and operating in and out of
public airports. But every ramp I see (and want to park on) is privately
operated. I don't think it makes any difference who *owns* it, the
question is who *operates* it. That is, who puts the chains out, chocks
at night as required, provides security, who is liable?
Heck I hate toll roads! Now if a private company wants to build a road
and charge a toll , fine. When tax dollars pay for the construction it
just really gets my goat. I don't mind some sort of tax, but I hate being
"double" taxed . I just do not see taxes funding airports and then the
airport turning around charging someone a landing fee or what have you ,
when the Federal tax dollar supports the airport. If the airport wants to
charge for it's use, then it needs to be a private airport and not
publicly funded. IMHO, a 2 buck charge at a funded airport is 2 bucks to
much .
It's pretty obvious that roads *have* to be a public entity. It's a
regional and national interest and private ownership just won't work (who
would build the interstates? Or the PA turnpike? Major airports, to a
lesser extent, need to be public too. Otherwise they would all be closed
or closing. NIMBY applies, squared!
Is it just me or does anyone else feel they are being ripped off when
airports do this? Seems to me they could do more biz by not having
landing and parking fees. More pilots would stop there and use their
services wouldn't they?
No, I don't think so. If that were the case, someone would be running a
Walmart FBO chain and cleaning up. Who cleans up in the FBO business? Who
cleans up in the small piston FBO business. Let's see, "if I just didn't
have to pay $12 bucks to park overnight (with no fuel) I'd fly 20 more
hours a year". I don't think so.
I think the fees just add to the slow death of
GA in an area.
Myself, I fly to get somewhere and land where I'm closest to my
destination. I pay the fees with a smile when asked. I appreciate each
and every airport I land at mainly because they are there. Good services
are even better. I rarely end up paying a government entity directly
though I'm sure taxes are collected from those private operators operating
on public land. The few airports where the local gov actually operates
the airport, things seem to get strange... but that's ok too.

I don't like the idea of ATC user fees. I don't like state run lotteries.
But I like successful FBOs and usually end up 'ripping them off' (burp)
rather than feeling ripped off.

W P Dixon wrote:

Seems to me they could do more biz by not having landing
and parking fees. More pilots would stop there and use their services
wouldn't they? I think the fees just add to the slow death of GA in an
area.

You're still missing it, I think. You're thinking "small GA". A $35 fee is
nothing to "big GA", and it is those large jet-A burners that spend a
serious dollar or two on fuel (and other services, I presume).

That fee keeps pilots out; it's *supposed* to keep [certain] pilots out. We
use up almost as much space and time as the big guys, buy less than the big
guys, so we're somewhat undesirable from a commercial perspective.

In a way, this is a good sign: there's enough money to be made in GA, so the
airports and FBOs are turning away the less profitable business. Sadly,
some of us (ie. me) are a part of that less profitable segment.

- Andrew

Andrew wrote:
You're still missing it, I think. You're thinking "small GA". A $35 fee
is
nothing to "big GA", and it is those large jet-A burners that spend a
serious dollar or two on fuel (and other services, I presume).

That fee keeps pilots out; it's *supposed* to keep [certain] pilots out.
We
use up almost as much space and time as the big guys, buy less than the
big
guys, so we're somewhat undesirable from a commercial perspective.

In a way, this is a good sign: there's enough money to be made in GA, so
the
airports and FBOs are turning away the less profitable business. Sadly,
some of us (ie. me) are a part of that less profitable segment.

- Andrew

Exactly. This is why I posed the question about why a busy GA airport
that is used almost exclusively for light planes and flight training
"needs" to lengthen a 5500 ft runway ("for safety") and whether the small
plane crowd objects. Of course I was ridiculed and someone asked why I
would pose such a question.... My theory meshes with your thoughts: It
seems to me that the FBOs want more repair work, more fuel fees, etc.

The airport doesn't care about noise abatement, city taxes, and maybe,
just maybe, doesn't even care about the current users. They just want the
Net Jets and other fractionals for the benefit of the FBOs.

Steve S wrote:

I wouldn't call a $35.00 landing/parking/handling fee by Signature the
only FBO small GA friendly

Oh. Well. I'm out of date again, then.

I thought a new school/FBO had opened there a couple of years ago ("Blue"
something?).

- Andrew