EXHORBITANT LANDING FEES !!

[oldflyer]

As an older person who has recently come to flying I am amazed and depressed by the exhorbitant fees charged by some airports who obviously have an inflated idea of their own importance and value to the flying community
Having recently passed my PPl - night ratinga nd then my Imc I have now embarked on my cpl training as an older perosn and private individueal I am funding this course myself
I am trying to obtain efficieny in various approaches at as many airports as possible
this will obviously improve my flying skills and the general safety of my flying.
I therfore caqnnot understand why the CAA and the goverment allow various airports to charge totally exhorbitant prices for ILS NDB and Radar Vectored Landings which are being used for certified training purposes , added to this is VAT which should NOT be applied to any structured and authorised training whatsoever it is certainly not applied to any other form of schooling
Airports such as Cranfield , Oxford ,Farnborough ,Southned \,Norwich and many others are committing highway in the sky robbery to the detriment of flying and flying safety and profficiency of individuals , charging amonts in excess of thirty pounds to fifty pounds and in some cacse much more for these landing procedures
One wonders if the CAA and the government WANT profficient and SAFE flyers populating the skies over the UK - they have the pwer to regulate charges if they so wish and landing training charges should be set by them at low levels to increase safety and profficiency generally as a condition of the airports licence to operate this should include airports such as Luton, Stanstead and Gatwick which should make time for GA flyers WHEN THEY CAN
INSTEAD OF PUTTING LANDING AND APPROACH FEES WAY OUT OF ANY GA FLYERS POCKET AND THEREBY VIRTUALLY BANNING ga flights to these airports THESE AIRPORTS HSOULD encourage ga flying

It is not all bad news however, I recently flew in to Manston using a radar vectored ils approach and could not have found them more helpfull ,which, coupled with the landing fee of eleven pounds fifty to INCLUDE THE FIRST ILS approach put the other aiports to shame

Airports such as Norwich ,Farnborough, Oxford,Luton and Southend obviously feel they are mini heathrows and have no regard fo the struggling GA pilots who really should be their bread and butter ,
Cranfield as a primarily training establishment should know better and reduce their totally unsupportable charges by at least 50%

I feel that this is a matter which should be taken up by AOPA as soon as possible both with the CAA and the government to eneable training to be undertaken a reasonable prices and thereby make the skies safer fort us all

[Mike Cross]

Welcome to the sandpit

I therfore caqnnot understand why the CAA and the goverment allow various airports to charge totally exhorbitant prices for ILS NDB and Radar Vectored Landings which are being used for certified training purposes

The Government has no more power to fix the prices than it does to fix the prices in your local supermarket. (what do you mean anyway by "certified training purposes"? Certified how and by who?)

Not sure at all where you get the idea that

VAT which should NOT be applied to any structured and authorised training whatsoever

My daughter is on a full time course at Brighton University and pays VAT on the materials she requires for her course that fall within the scope of VAT, e.g. her computer and the software for it. The scope of VAT is largely decided at EU level. Whether or not something falls within the scope of VAT is dependent largely on what it is, rather than the purpose for which it is being used. Chocolate has VAT charged on it, it doesn't suddenly become VAT-free because you're using it as part of training to be a chef.

You're crediting AOPA with rather more powers than it has I'm afraid. There is scope I believe for the cost of vocational training courses to be allowable against income tax. However, you'll probably face an uphill struggle convincing your tax inspector that the cost of training for licenses and ratings that that do not allow you to earn a living from the skill you are learning should be allowable as a business expense. Were it so my annual skiing holiday and the occaisonal sailing holiday might be allowable on the basis that I might some day get professionally qualified and seek employment as an instructor.

[EGG]

With all due respect think about the cost of running an airport with all those facilities. Have a thought for the airports that have year on year increased regulation and cost involved in maintenance?
The cost of providing and training qualified controllers, fire crew, Tels engineers, Ops staff etc etc.
The airports you list are not subsidised by the government and are there to make a profit (where possible).
You are (with all due respect) privileged to be able to learn to fly. It is a costly hobby/profession you have chosen, and perhaps one you didn't thoroughly investigate when beginning your journey.
Sorry if thats a contentious viewpoint, but it frustrates me when some GA pilots continually believe that the airports should subsidise their hobby. They are there to provide a service, but to do that costs money. Lots of money.
If you want to pay a £10 or £11 landing fee, use Manston, or use the smaller airfields with no NDB, ILS, Radar, ATCO's, RFFS etc etc.

You are very lucky to be flying. Its a fantastic licence to hold, but be realistic.
I shall duck now and wait for the onslaught.

[N13243]

Sorry EGG but there is a difference between paying a fair price for a service and getting ripped off !

I am horified by some of the prices quoted earlier in this thread. We all know that flying is expensive but there are limits.

What about approaches to military airfields. Do we have to pay for these? In my opinion they should be free because we pay for the facilities through our taxes.

This is something AOPA can and should act on.

Any comments ?

Happy Landings - Ian