Everything has been said by now. I agree with almost all comments.
I would highlight the opportunity to rent a bike. That’s a very good perk! Ideally it would be even better a small car located on the same aerodrome or at least that can be arranged one/two days in advance. Another good point, also already mentioned, is being able to camp besides the aircraft and to have access to showers anytime.
About the landing fees, I believe that it is impossible to make and airfield profitable relying on them. Either you ask for a disproportionate amount or they are peanuts at the end of the year. So why to ‘scare away’ visitors with fees? Probably the airfield could do more money in accessory services (bar, hangarage/parking, fuel, shop…) from a higher number of visitants. Other option, seen in various places in France, put a box and ask for a voluntary donative, so that everyone can support the airfield with the amount that feels fair to them. It will be peanuts again, but at least people is happy paying it and don’t think twice about visiting.
Sorry but going back to that airport and it fee structure… Have you seen the complexity of the “passenger fees”? That is all that’s wrong with ‘airports’ right there…
@dublinpilot actually that’s what’s happening with electric cars. I’ve seen charger stations where a parking fee is raised during charging, but the places are in the middle of nowhere. Didn’t charge there. But the valuations were mostly pretty angry tone. No one expected parking fees that were higher than the amount for recharging.
So, no. That’s unfair.
I wasn’t commenting on the prices. Just that at least they are shown transparent.
Snoopy wrote:
Can you agree that 99% of airports do not even provide such a section at all.
Yes I can agree to that 
I just think it’s too complicated to be the model that one should strive for.
Even look at the example you gave. It’s highly confusing. It says “[….]for a plane with a maximum take off weight of 8700 kg €135 instead of €120 must be paid.” but then goes on to show a calculation of €120 being owed. Which is it ? €135 or €120?
Personally I think the ideal is more along the line of:
Landing fee Single Engine €x (Maybe 2 or 3 weight categories if the must)
Landing fee Twin Engine €
Outdoor parking 24 hours (first 4 hours free) €
Hangarage on request.
There doesn’t need to be lots of other charges. People come with passengers. We shouldn’t be charging for the number of passengers unless we’re commercial aircraft dumping hundreds of passengers. We don’t need charges for security or tie downs separate from parking.
It’s a bit like going to a petrol station with your car and not just being charged for the petrol, but also for the length of time you were stopped for, and for the service of the attendant to take your payment and a facilities fee if you use the bathroom or a convenience fee for having the chocolate and drinks available.
Can you agree that 99% of airports do not even provide such a section at all. I find it informative:
“FOR PILOTS” is a top level menu ✅
RATES provide easy table and example.
Here is an exemplary info section on an airport website
I couldn’t disagree more. Plenty of vague items. Lots of charges that should be just rolled into the landing fee.
And it fails my “Do I need a speedsheet to work out what I’ll need to pay?” test.
Here is an exemplary info section on an airport website
UdoR wrote:
We won’t see an ILS installation for a grass camping site 😉
Not an ILS but one never knows about RNAV approaches these days.
@Mooney_Driver I don’t share the opinion that the input here was like a wish list where all should be achieved.
It shows on the one side the very different needs from different pilots, which I believe is a good thing to know about. And on the other hand there are quite some topics that are clearly extractable that are very helpful.
We won’t see an ILS installation for a grass camping site 😉
@speed with some information about where that site is we could also shed some light on further aspects, like how to get to nearby tourist spots etc.
