From Wikipedia (I’ve no idea how correct the info is).
The airport was originally restricted to 28,000 movements each year, of which no more than 2,500 were permitted at weekends. In October 2005, TAG applied to Rushmoor Borough Council to have the weekend limit raised to 5,000 movements. The application was initially refused, but allowed by the Government on appeal in March 2008 after a Public Inquiry. A further application for an increase in the overall limit to 50,000 movements per annum was refused by Rushmoor Borough Council in 2009 and an appeal against this refusal was heard in May 2010. In February 2011 the joint Secretaries of State decided to uphold the planning appeal and allow 50,000 annual movements, phased in until 2019.
If correct, then the overall limit is likely to be less than 50K as it’s being phased in between 2011 and 2019.
Schiphol EHAM is close to my home field and it would be a perfect alternate in case the WX is below VFR and I can’t land at EHLE.
I’ve once checked whether the handling fees would be waivered in case of a diversion due to WX.
The answer: There is no difference (cost wise) between a normal landing and a landing afer a diversion.
This is the quote I got:
Handling Amsterdam is € 133 excluding Btw.
Airport fee +/- € 150 excluding Btw
Excluding passengers tax p.p € 25,-
That doesn’t come as a surprise. The Strasser scheme (waiving landing fees in case of weather related diversion) is rather unique to the UK.
What many other countries/airports have is that landing fees are waived in case of an emergency landing, which is something else entirely.
If you divert to Rotterdam (EHRD) the fees are waived.
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
To me the dysfunction in all of this is the artificial cap on movements. It creates a scarcity of something that is by nature almost unlimited and thus stimulates unwanted behavior.
Of course, which is the idea behind it.
Cap on movements are usually imposed by people opposed to the airport, who ultimately want it gone or at least keep the status quo.
So they impose limits on useage, which will limit the revenue to an unprofitable quantity. Airport goes bust, anti noise gang will break out the champaign and plan the next housing estate.
It’s really amazing how local politicians willingly castrate their infrastructure to get a few additional votes.
My vague recollection (confirmed above) is that their movement cap is 28k and they are coming up close to it.
It is of the order of 5 movements per hour on average and they can be well spread versus wx (because it’s jets and they have an ILS) whereas a GA airfield like Shoreham, and even more so Blackbushe, would be totally manic on nice days to make that traffic level.
Cap on movements are usually imposed by people opposed to the airport, who ultimately want it gone or at least keep the status quo.
Prob99 pushed through by locals wanting to increase their property value. This is the “stockbroker belt” so there’s a lot of money there. Germany has the same problems in similar places.
Surely, a genuine diversion due to accident on other airfield or an emergency should not count as a movement? That sounds insane to me. They want us to continue flying with an inoperative engine/fire/medical/whatever and crash in the street instead so just as to not create another movement?
Yes but would you expect to be allowed to divert to Gatwick? In the absence of a safety issue it really is down to the aerodrome operator to decide. Blackbushe is almost the same distance away and the weather was clear. I completely agree with safety related diversions. For example if the weather turned unexpectedly bad (unforecast low cloud etc) I am sure they would let you in without charge.
But remember the Strasser scheme does not allow “having a go” to get into a VFR field relying on a free landing at an IFR field to get you out of trouble if needed.
Xtophe wrote:
It is 47,000 for 2016 (8,000 for weekends) See page 10 here .And from there , it seems unlikely they come even close. They might get close to the old 28,000 limit.
That’s right, they are allowed 47,000 movements for 2016, and last year they only had 26,000, so lack of capacity is not the issue here:
It’s all listed here:
http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/article/3287/Airport-monitoring
I agree with Jason that the airport operator doesn’t have to do anything, but why not do it? And I’m not talking about bogus weather diversions, they can turn those away as much as they like. I’m talking about help with an operational issue at a neighbouring airfield, which one day they might need reciprocated.
