As a Portuguese citizen I am the first to be ashamed of such measure. I am not also, a board or part of any AOPA delegation. Have saying that, here it goes the following.
Sometimes one is criticized for doing and for not doing. One cannot address an initial letter to a legitime government member of a sovereign state attempting to change whatever one deemed to find wrong or even illegal. One must address or alert for the problem and open the door for further discussion.
I don’t see anything wrong on IAOPA approach in trying to promote a bridge with the proper authorities to solve the problem. I prefer to wait and see.
Yes, the letter is verbose, but I agree that there is not much wrong to grease the wheels a bit first (note: wheels, not palms 
) to get going. Cultures differ..But of course afterwards following through in a persistent way.
Yes; a very good point… the more south you get in Europe the more “greasing” is required, in all the meanings of the expression 
Let’s see how this is followed up.
IME, one has to get to somebody at a level higher than whoever is behind the policy you want to change. The person behind the policy will just bin this kind of approach.
The Law is from 2010, have been put on hold till now, I know that for example in LPCS there have been pressure from INAC (ANAC) to implement the measure prior the NOTAM.
The Minister does not have a clue on the situation, he was not included into the decision process that originated the Law (different government), neither on the decision to turn it into a NOTAM (responsibility of aviation authorities – ANAC). Raising awareness at this point, is in my humble opinion, the right way to go.
If nothing comes out of it, I hope, and from my side, I will pressure AOPA-PT, to find other ways to address the problem.
So the only way in and out of Portugal now (without spending days on paperwork and maybe not getting anywhere) is via Faro, Lisbon and Porto.
Of these only Faro is a viable option, by how much have the handling charges increased at Faro once handling agents were made aware of the publication of this NOTAM ?
quatrelle wrote:
quatrelle28-Jun-17 13:07
#67
So the only way in and out of Portugal now (without spending days on paperwork and maybe not getting anywhere) is via Faro, Lisbon and Porto.
Of these only Faro is a viable option, by how much have the handling charges increased at Faro once handling agents were made aware of the publication of this NOTAM
You can use the other airfields, they just made it a bit more annoying with an outdated excel spread sheet that even doesn’t include some of the possible airfields like LPSO.
I will revert with current fees for LPPT, LPPR, LPFR.
lmsl1967 wrote:
I will revert with current fees for LPPT, LPPR, LPFR.
Thank you.
This is what a PPL/IR (?) member paid earlier this year…
I contacted all 3 agents for quotes on charges including 4 nights/5 days parking.
Safeport quoted €550 in total, JetBase €330 and Omni handling €280 (although it was €301 in then end) so I went with them.
lmsl1967 wrote:
You can use the other airfields, they just made it a bit more annoying with an outdated excel spread sheet
Unfortunately you would need to be Portuguese to get around understanding the paperwork.
This whole scenario is really sad, I have enjoyed flying many times to Portimao, Cascais, Evora and I am sure that all the excellent and helpful staff at these airfields dont need this rubbish, it will surely impact on their viability.
Peter wrote:
Yes; the letter is verbose but useless.
It will be seen whether it was useless or not. The important bit is that AOPA now has started a process of getting in touch with those people who are responsible for this mess. Before you can say what you want, you need to open the door at this level. Demands come later…
dublinpilot wrote:
1. They spend a lot fo time telling the minister how big AOPA is
2. They tell the minister what they believe the current situation is
3. They say that they trust that the minister would like to meet with AOPA Portugal.
As almost no minister in charge of civil aviation in Europe has any idea who AOPA are (with some notable exception, where they have clashed with them before) this is indeed something which needs to be pointed out.
As in any initial contact with a politician or similar people who imagine they are there by the Grace Of God or whoever, getting them to acknowledge you as a worthy opponent for a face to face meeting to discuss an issue is the first thing which has to happen. If you hack them off with the first contact, the door is shut.
Michael Erb has plenty of experience dealing with authorities and I don’t see anything wrong with his initial contact attempt. Surely he knows how to deal on this level of government a tad better than most of us.
ch.ess wrote:
I have long had questions regarding the utility of a AOPA membership.
Question answered ;-) toothless tiger springs to mind…
AOPA is all we have. Period. And they have done good work in the past, e.g. the whole IR story is almost wholly based on the initiatives of AOPA Europe. Dr Erb has been one of several high level participants there. AOPA has achieved the goal of being taken serious by EASA, that alone is rather difficult to achieve.
I reckon all this has given them sufficient experience in how to address high ranking dignitaries in their first contact to know how to do so without being ignored or shown the door. If you ever listen in on diplomatic exchanges, your face may go asleep but still, it is the way that such things usually get addressed rather than writing a “letter to the editor” style rant.
Apart, try flying to places like Greece, Bulgaria and elsewhere where the only chance of getting a normal landing fee is your AOPA membership…
It’s easy to criticize but difficult to do better…
Agreed.
As promised, the following summary resumes the contract between AOPA-PT and Portway Handling Company which also includes IOPA associates:
The contract covers the services provided by Portway to IAPOA associates at LPPT, LPPR, LPFR, LPMA
Facilities, Services and Conditions
- The contract is limited to private flights (non-commercial GA) and airplanes with max capacity for 6 pax, including crew;
- The base prices to practice will be for 90 minutes. In addition to mentioned period, an additional value will be charged (See below);
Conditions and Prices
- The services included on the base prices are the following:
# LPPT: Chocks, transport in/out for crew and pax;
# LPPR, LPFR, LPMA: same services;
# Technical stops for refueling, transport for crew and pax is not included on the prices;
# Portway will request the necessary slots, for which is recommended to send it 12 hours in advance;
# Portway will contact the fuel companies, without assuming any responsibility on the respective schedules for service delivery;
# For the 90 minutes’ assistance of ground time the costs are (euro):
LPPT – 88;
LPPR, LPFR, LPMA: 45;
Technical stop for refueling: LPPT – 35, others 25;
# Beyond the initial 90, the additional tax is 15 euro for the first 30 minutes and 25 euros for the subsequent periods of 30 minutes (The additional tax is not applicable in a prolonged stay, once services are not provided);
# Flight with arrival and departure on different days, a base cost including 120 minutes (60 for arrival and 60 for departure) will be applied (Euro):
LPPT: 100;
LPPR, LPFR, LPMA: 60;
Beyond the initial 120 minutes an additional tax of 25 euro for each subsequent 30 minutes is due;
