JB wrote:
Try Air Malta and give us a feedback :-).
what_next wrote:
Malta is a very remote destination for small GA and if they attract three times as much planes by cutting down their fees to one third, they will make exactly as much money than before – only with three times as much work. Why should they do that?
The point is that they are the ONLY airport on the island and in fact in the country. That makes them infrastructure. Therefore “stay away” taxes e.t.c. are pure extortion from those who need to use it and they do damage the chances of the whole area to get money out of tourism e.t.c.
It is way too narrow minded just to see what they can earn on one airplane. If all infrastructure worked like that, then we are back to road-side extorsion schemes aka Richard Turpin. Anyone who gets pi$$ed off at the high taxes at MLQ will simply say, ok, Malta is finished for me, will then tell all his friends about how expensive and stupid the rules are, possibly even without mentioning why he thinks so, and from one 4 seater the rep spreads. In the end, it will damage their tourist trade, if only very margially but damage is damage.
Personally I feel that Europe should come up with an infrastrucure legislation which makes it brutally clear that infrastructure has to be open to ALL users at reasonable cost, particularly if there are no alternatives. This would put a stop to the work-reduction schemes of many isolated airports in Greece, obviously Malta and other places. Similarly, I would ban slot allocation schemes without FULL accountability, that is the airport has to PROVE that they do not have more capacity than the slots they allocate. This would put an end to quite a few “stay away” airports in Europe…
To be precise, it’s not only the airport that generates the cost – landing itself and parking are quite cheap. CAA requires flight to be approved – you can apply yourself or let handler to do it. Similar applies for slot. Airport wants you to be marshalled, parked and transfered from apron. You want fuel to be ready and availabe when you ask for it – you can contact them yourself or let handler to do it. So, there are services you get and I appreciate when everything is known in advance.
At the end it’s my decision if I’ll go there or not under known conditions. And I prefer higher price stated in advance rather than being surprised with some additional fees never mentioned in initial conversation (like Verona charging me waste disposal – luckily I noticed it and was refunded, or Krakow charging me twice than agreed – also refunded or paying €40 surcharge at Krakow for fueling less than 1000 l of jet A1 – never got response from fueling company).
BTW I chose Air Malta, flight has been approved, fuel confirmed, I just need to book accomodation
Mooney_Driver you and I are on the same wavelength. There are those who cite the reasons something cant be done. Then there are those that question why they cant be done and then state how it can be done. Unfortunately as with all of human endeavor the vast majority (90%) are along for the ride and the other 10% do all the work.
If I never visit Malta I really dont care. When the Italians brought out that dumb tax I wrote them off as well . Did the same to Maine. Now that both of those states have come to their senses, I did and will visit them. No sense going where your not welcomed.
However I think its necessary that people there know why we are not going and not just the airport authority.
what_next wrote:
The excellent service we got there with a piston twin. Why should they treat a piston single less well?
But was it actually value for money?
A couple of weeks ago we stopped at KMCO (Kansas City Downtown) at an “expensive” FBO, Signature. Sure, their parking wasn’t the cheapest, but their fees probably added up to about $10 for a weekend. Or to give a local example, I can go to Gloucester for a long weekend and also get these services (and the service at EGBJ is good, I think) and pay probably about 25 quid and that includes the landing fee. Not as cheap as the US, but still value for money. All I need as a typical single is a place to park, and to get on and off the airfield, and perhaps a rental car. What are the handlers doing at Malta to justify three digit fees? Providing a free car for a few days? Providing a complimentary hotel room? Is a three digit fee for a weekend stop really value for money if they are doing the typical things such as marshalling you to a spot and providing a rental car counter?
I don’t mind paying a fee for service, what I mind are poor value for money fees. I didn’t get into a position to own an aircraft by frittering money away on things that aren’t value for money, and I won’t be able to keep flying if I start frittering money on things that are poor value for money now!
alioth wrote:
But was it actually value for money?
Definitely.
I don’t really understand why people always compare Europe to the United States. The way airports / airfields are funded is completely different. The way workers, especially unskilled ones are treated is completely different. The line boys of your US handling agent probably live in a trailer just outside the airfield and when they have caries, their teeth simply fall out (seen a lot of those in the US). The Maltese handling employee can afford to live in a house, send his kids to school and even university and when he gets caries, a dentist will look after it. Paid in part with my handling charges. I have no problem with that at all.
Emir wrote:
CAA requires flight to be approved – you can apply yourself or let handler to do it.
Ok, so what is the story: Is there compulsory handling or not? If not, then not a lot has changed in Malta appart from the approval process.
What I object to is airports who will impose “stay away” taxes, either via their own landing/passenger/security/use of toilet fees or by declaring handling compulsory and then only having companies do it who usually handle Gulfstreams.
what_next wrote:
The way airports / airfields are funded is completely different. The way workers, especially unskilled ones are treated is completely different.
The way they are financed is different because they are part of the infrastructure. That is the main difference and that is why the attitude is different too.
Yes; US airports are FAA funded (basically) i.e. from the general taxpayer money pot. Same as roads, etc.
The various countries in Europe could do the same but many don’t. Some do, but there is a limit to how much money will be pumped into an airport before it is closed.
One problem with an airport is that it has high fixed costs and closing it eliminates these very easily. If you have a country road which almost nobody uses, you just stop repairing it (lower it’s classification grade) or repair holes only when somebody breaks a wheel off and sues the local council (pretty much the story of UK countryside).
Another problem which airports have is that the local govt doesn’t understand them, which makes it easy for an empire builder to set up a nice job creation scheme there. This we see really everywhere.
There is a specific issue with big airports, like this one in Malta: they make loads of money. That attracts “management” which focuses on the big payers (jets) and that naturally leads to a concession being granted to some handling company. So we have e.g. the Signature/Harrods cartel at Gatwick EGKK where GA will pay c. £600 even if they arrived at a quiet time.
IMHO the case of teeth falling out is more of a case of a lack of education and general backwardness. There are many jokes about this in the US – do a google/images on “hillbilly” Up to the 1940s and 1950s the UK had people in the same condition.
C210_Flyer wrote:
Did the same to Maine.
What about Maine?
Peter wrote:
Yes; US airports are FAA funded (basically) i.e. from the general taxpayer money pot. Same as roads, etc.
Wrong. The Infrastructure of National Air transportation system is funded by Fuel sales and is on of the only few Trust funds that are truly used for what was intended. There are Billions of $ that are available to airports for modernization etc. The reason it is successful because those greedy politicians cant get their fingers into that pot by law. They have tried doing away with it and put up user fees. Etc etc
Airborne_Again wrote:
What about Maine?
Maine decided that they were going to tax airplanes coming into Maine and staying a week or so and charging a sales tax on the value. Could be thousands of $. AOPA went to bat and people stopped going to Maine. They reversed course in a very short while.
