Yes and no. Let’s keep in mind that there really isn’t much “GA racism” in Europe. It’s “small GA racism”. A big difference. The big money in GA nowadays is turboprop and jet. That part if GA doesn’t suffer much from the inavailability of Avgas, nor from the 200-300 Euro landing fees that are becoming totally standard for major city IFR airports.
However, that just shows that airport managers do not understand the most basic accounting principles.
A little plane giving you 20 quid is 20 quid more than you would otherwise have – all the time you are below capacity which is the case at least 99% of the time.
Even London Gatwick is below capacity most of the day.
Nearly all airport costs are fixed costs.
So it comes down to ignorance and stupidity.
Plus most airport managers’ eyes glaze over at the sound of a jet engine. They have watched too many films.
There are some valid concerns e.g. separating the access for GA versus airline passengers, but most airports that handle paying passenger traffic have loads of space and can easily have a separate GA terminal or a GA gate of some sort. It can just be a portacabin with 1 person there (say 2 shifts, to cover the opening hours) to collect the money.
A little plane giving you 20 quid is 20 quid more than you would otherwise have – all the time you are below capacity which is the case at least 99% of the time.
Correct. So it might be ‘justifiable’ (from the airports viewpoint) to keep out GA during peak periods for CAT (which some do effectively by slots, anyway). But no justification for kicking out GA entirely.
However, that just shows that airport managers do not understand the most basic accounting principles.
Probably true too! But the real problem here, that makes for a dysfunctional system, is that it’s the airport owner that gets the 20 quid but it’s the airport manager that gets the (perceived) hassle of GA, especially light GA with their … Avgas needs. Changing this needs a different attitude from the owners and a different reward structure for the management.
I flew across Sweden to Helsinki last month and called Bromma for a possible stopover. The chap I spoke to could not have sounded less enthusiastic and while polite made it clear that I would face some difficulties with my plan in terms of booking a parking ‘slot’. He told be that there are only 2 ‘slots’ available for visiting aircraft overnight and that these have to be booked 24Hr in advance by email.
However, there are at least 3 airports with direct if lengthy train connections to Stockholm – Vasteras, Gavle and Skavsta. Added to this, Vasteras and Gavle (in 2013) do not charge any landing fee. Parking at Vasteras is provided by the very hospitable flying club and fuel is from an automated pump that takes regular cards. The beautiful city is close by and there’s a bus service from the airport terminal, about a half mile walk from the flying club.
At Gavle fuel is supplied by an airport bowser operated by very helpful and welcoming airport staff. Just watch out for opening hours – a phone call to the tower before departure would be a good idea. The city is quite a long cab ride and there are no busses (in 2013, anyway). However, the Swedish National train museum (if you are into that kind of thing) is at Gavle.
Skavsta is a Ryanair airport and charges for parking, security etc. But it does have an hotel right on site and staff are very welcoming.
While the train to Stockholm does take an hour or more from all these places, that’s no longer than I have spent in a taxi going into the city from Bromma on a Friday afternoon. So Bromma is very sadly missed, and is no longer on my itinerary, unless things change. A terrible shame for Sweden.
GA racism is rampant in Europe
Can I print this on a T-shirt ? 
A little plane giving you 20 quid is 20 quid more than you would otherwise have – all the time you are below capacity which is the case at least 99% of the time.
The other approach is to try to make a little Cessna fund the whole airport for a year… more than once I thought the invoice is for buying the airport not landing there.
However, that just shows that airport managers do not understand the most basic accounting principles.
Unfortunately they do. The airport has a limit on the number of movements. The reason for throwing out (light) GA is to make room for a substantial increase in airline traffic movements. The accountants know there is more money to be made from a regional jet than from a light piston four-seater and a movement is a movement no matter the size of the aircraft…
The airport has been under constant attack for decades with both environmental arguments and to make room for housing. (Stockholm has a severe and chronic housing shortage.) The airport property is owned by the city and when the lease was renewed in 2007, the needs of GA was expressly mentioned. It is fair to say that GA is the reason the airport is still open.
What I don’t understand is why the airport management believe this doesn’t matter. With almost all GA gone there will be little motivation among local politicians to keep it open. I expect it to be closed within 10 years.
OK, so the airport is “at capacity”. Not runway capacity but an artificial number of movements per year.
Farnborough UK has the same issue. So they decided to put the landing fee at about 300 quid (no idea if that figure is current but it was a few years ago). You can fly there no problem (same with Gatwick actually) but the price tag deters light GA. It’s doubly stupid given that Farnborough was the home of so much aeronautical research in the UK, and had a huge level of activity in those days.
Unfortunately they do. The airport has a limit on the number of movements. The reason for throwing out (light) GA is to make room for a substantial increase in airline traffic movements. The accountants know there is more money to be made from a regional jet than from a light piston four-seater and a movement is a movement no matter the size of the aircraft…
Yes, but DO they actually get the regional or other CAT ? In many cases light GA has been driven away, but the hoped-for CAT never materialized, or only materialized during some short peak period (exhibit A here are most Spanish airports in the South).
I’m perfectly OK for banning light GA from, say, Malaga during their peak times, when they operate a flow that’s almost equal to LHR. However, for about 7 months of the year, there isn’t much going on there, yet while technically not banned, light GA has been driven away by absurd cost.
Airport managers (and their political masters) are simply too keen to throw the kid out with the bathwater.
Oh, they’ll get the CAT alright, they’ve even managed to upgrade the airport to 3C despite it not meeting the requirements. All it takes is for the guy who makes the decisions to be the same person who wrote the recommendation… It’s a farce, the whole thing is a farce.
