aart wrote:
Well, there is always an even lower end of GA These fields seem to be holding out fine, if not thriving.
Indeed. Boating is a huge thing in Norway. There is a boat for every household, literally. It’s all hobby/recreation, yet all infrastructure is self sustained and works just fine with marinas, shops, repair shops, fuel, restaurants etc. Even SAR services (highly professional) are financed by private people everywhere giving money. Lots of guest “parking” for travellers and so on. The same principle should be used for GA IMO. In many places it is, but in other ways it’s held back by some “dark force” or something.
172driver wrote:
As an aside, to think that the low end of GA, which we are mainly discussing here, can save a regional airport is ludicrous
A regional GA-only airport can be profitable so long as it’s not grossly overstaffed. The actual runway when used by GA won’t wear out for decades.
I learned to fly at a privately owned, public use airfield which was GA only. It was profitable despite having to pay significant property taxes, and it didn’t even charge landing fees.
Jujupilote wrote:
That said, most airports are owned (not operated) by a local government, so can they really go bankrupt ?
The operating company can. And with no operating company there is will be no services, including runway maintenance.
Well, there is always an even lower end of GA 
These fields seem to be holding out fine, if not thriving.
Jujupilote wrote:
It takes a political decision to quit paying and close the airport.
Yes – and the green vultures are already circling. Airports that don’t have other viable income, e.g. cargo, will most likely close. Some may be spared by strategic interests, be it military or access for a big local industrial customer base, but I fear many will go.
As an aside, to think that the low end of GA, which we are mainly discussing here, can save a regional airport is ludicrous. The landing and parking fees are simply not enough at that level.
The problem for many of these airports, is that those that work based on GA alone, operate on a very different model than those that work based on infrequent airline travel.
The airline based ones have lots of admin costs. They have managers responsible for different areas and regulations, and a management team.
Those opreating for GA have 1 or 2 employees who cover everything.
For the airline based airport to decide that they want to make the business work, funded by GA alone, they essentially have to get rid of their overheads. For the managment team making that decision, it means that they have to fire themselves! That’s the last decision they will make!
Of course many airports with infrequent airline operation do manage to welcome GA with open arms. But they can’t survive with GA alone with those overheads. If it’s to be GA alone making the business work, then the overheads need to change.
That said, most airports are owned (not operated) by a local government, so can they really go bankrupt ?
It takes a political decision to quit paying and close the airport.
And quite sometimes the local business owners ask for an airline connection or a BA-accessible airport. So, if there is no alternative, they might pay for it, and nobody in the airport food chain cares about GA (expect if those business owners use it).
A lot of airports have been focussing on the airline and biz jet segment too heftily and actually tried to ban smaller GA by outpricing and handling e.t.c. Well, this now comes to haunt them as they have lost a customer segment who won’t be back unless they welcome them back.
Yes that’s true but I think in those cases they will rather go bust than accept GA. Like Southampton, which has a really militant ATC on top of any “policy” issues.
The ones I was thinking of were those which haven’t had regular airline traffic for years, but are still nice to GA. There are lots of them around Europe. Well, not many in the UK.
It would be the time now for AOPA and other organizations to approach them and discuss solutions rather than close valuable infrastructure which, once gone, will be gone for ever.
There are no functioning AOPAs in Europe Well, not at any meaningful political level.
Peter wrote:
A lot of airports are carrying on despite having lost all or most airliner traffic years ago (pre-CV19), but this crisis may just finish them off.
A lot of airports have been focussing on the airline and biz jet segment too heftily and actually tried to ban smaller GA by outpricing and handling e.t.c. Well, this now comes to haunt them as they have lost a customer segment who won’t be back unless they welcome them back.
Somehow this reminds me of a story about a small village I once wanted to move to around here. It relied almost completely on one very rich guy for their tax income. Consequently, taxes were low and some people moved there, but were not overly welcomed, because they did not need them. Then from one moment to the next, the big tax provider was gone. Moved off. Within a year, the commune went into receivership and taxes skyrocketed, driving a lot of people away.
This is similar to what many mid sized airports have gone through. The relied on that one Ryan Air per day and did not care in the least about the other customers, even considering banning them or outpricing them, so that between 737’s they could relax and lay back. In practice, they gave themselves up into the hands of that one customer, who then could demand what they wanted and got it, out of fear that they might leave.
I reckon it would be now time for many of those airports to reconsider their position and to reckognize that small aviation DOES make them money, not that much, but still a steady income, not only from landing and passenger fees but also from rent for GA close facilities e.t.c.
Of course there will be a movement by folks who have been waiting for the chance to close these airports and if they stay on their arrogant stance, it may well happen. It would be the time now for AOPA and other organizations to approach them and discuss solutions rather than close valuable infrastructure which, once gone, will be gone for ever.
With the caveat that this is from Oct 2020, I think there is a real concern there. A lot of airports are carrying on despite having lost all or most airliner traffic years ago (pre-CV19), but this crisis may just finish them off. It may trigger a fresh look at their finances (something which probably has not been happening on e.g. the French chamber of commerce funding scene for many years) and then questions may be asked.
I am thinking of places like Aosta…
