Airports located in one of the nation’s busiest flight training corridors are preparing to impose more fees that will, if implemented, have serious consequences on flight training, flight schools, and local pilots, according to officials with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).
The landing fees may be assessed as early as Oct. 1, 2024, at Florida airports, AOPA officials noted.
The state contracted this year with a Florida company called Virtower to collect aircraft movement data at airports statewide. This follows on the February 2023 announcement by Virtower of a “global strategic partnership” with Vector Airport Systems. Vector can use the Virtower data to provide automated invoicing services to county and municipal airports that assess landing fees, and Vector has been actively pitching its services to the airports, AOPA officials report.
In 2020, the FAA mandated ADS-B installation on general aviation aircraft operating in certain airspace.
“The mandate and the data it provides was never intended to be used to collect fees or to enable aircraft tracking by third parties,” said AOPA officials, who note the association is “considering legislative action to make sure ADS-B data is used solely for its intended purpose.”
The proposed fees would be collected by not-for-profit, public-use airports, even when they already have a budget surplus, according to AOPA officials.
“A preliminary review of available budgets suggests the airports are already operating at minimal expense to local taxpayers and receive federal grants that cover 90% of the cost for various projects,” AOPA officials said. “Yet they are rushing to finalize local approvals required to implement landing fees of $3 per 1,000 pounds for fixed-wing aircraft.”
At a recent public meeting on the topic of landing fees DeLand Municipal Airport Manager John Eiff confirmed the intent of the fee is to deter traffic: “The primary reason we are even considering a landing fee is to protect ourselves from other airports that are signing up for this. We’ve got Orlando Executive, Kissimmee, Flagler, Ormond Beach, and us that are considering landing fees. If we do not impose landing fees, airplanes that are using the other airports and paying landing fees, they will choose to come to DeLand and saturate our pattern to an unsafe level. For us to add a landing fee is kind of protection against this.”
City officials in DeLand had not yet approved the landing fee when Eiff emailed airport users Aug. 27, 2024, to inform them that landing fees will be charged beginning Oct. 1 for “itinerant aircraft.”
“Imposing new landing fees at public, not-for-profit airports, intended to deter operations that provide the lifeline for these airports seems illogical and will ultimately have safety consequences for pilots, and may violate federal grant assurances. Moreover, there may be additional legal issues with how these fees are being set, implemented, and collected,” said AOPA Southern Regional Manager Stacey Heaton.
Public airports, much like the federal interstate highway system, receive substantial government funding to offset expenses incurred by state and local communities. These publicly funded assets are not supposed to become profit centers for state and local communities, and federal grants come with various requirements.
“The city and county governments considering these new landing fees have been conspicuously silent about the fact that these airports appear to be in good financial condition, and they’ve received $67 million in federal grants, collectively, over the past decade,” said Heaton. “This is misguided and stands to devastate the flight training industry and local Florida pilots.”
For more information: AOPA.org
I would like to make two issues clear. First, the ADS-B mandate does not require aircraft to broadcast their ICAO identification, or FAA registration number when not on a discrete transponder code (squawking 1200). It is up to the owner/operator to decide if he/she wants the anonymous option, and to use it if installed.
Next, airports are businesses even if many happen to be owned by local governments. Public and privately owned airports can qualify for federal, state, and local grants to build and improve facilities only when it is in the interest of the granting agency. Grant assurances require that airports are as self-sufficient as possible to ensure the facilities are maintained. Fees are required to be charged, to be reasonable, and non-discriminatory. Beyond that it is up to the business owner to decide what fees are in the best interest of the airport. Those assurances also require that airports do not divert revenue to their sponsoring organization.
Finally, I will leave you with this thought. An airport’s service is to provide a safe and convenient facility for aircraft to arrive and depart. Is it unfair that your favorite restaurant charges for its services? Are you entitled to a free meal? I think not. You are entitled, and should exercise the right to choose another restaurant if the value is better. Airports are also highly competitive businesses. DFW competes with Love Field. Deland also has many competing airports nearby. In my very small town we have two competing GA airports within a mile of each other, the fees are reasonable at both, and they are both profitable businesses.
Landing at a airport is like walking into a restaurant. I’ve never been charged a fee to walk into one.
None of the non-towered airports here in northern California charge a landing fee. They do charge for overnight parking, fuel flowage, and hangar rents.
ADSB-out is optional, as long as you fly outside controlled airspace.
It’s easy to fly around class B and C airspace and doesn’t take much added time.
I am very glad that many airports do a good job selling fuel, leasing hangars, getting grants etc. so they don’t have to charge landing fees. I did run an airport for a while and not only didn’t charge landing fees, we offered free 2hr parking to all Piston GA aircraft and even delivered a cold bottle of water when they parked. We did this not just because I love GA, it was just good business. I am proud to say that in my short tenure the airport became fully self-sufficient.
However, if you owned a business where too many people only came in, crowding it (or its runways), could you stay in business? If you can’t sell them anything, as a last resort you would have to start charging them to come in (or land), and maybe even for that water. Another alternative would be to only allow entry to paying customers (touch & go landings prohibited).
Stacey also has a good point. Sometimes state or federal governments will pay the airport to build and/or improve a runway. Most of the time this is not the case though. Many GA airports struggle to stay in business, and unfortunately too many are loosing that fight.
The airport where I am based receives no public funding. If too many people land here and don’t buy or pay for anything, then the airport closes and turns into a housing development or a strip mall. If flight schools want to train here they pay just like I do. I am happy to pay my part for the excellent service my airport provides.
I wanted to see how much ADS-B landing fees impacts aviation and on one company’s website states they have $50 million+ in annual aircraft fees billed with a 99.6% collection rate. The company bills for “Landing, Airspace Overflight, Customs, Parking.” It made me wonder if I could charge people who activate my doorbell camera as they drive down the street in front of my house, park at the curb in front of my house, or ring my doorbell? Seems to be about the same logic.
This money grabbing exploitation of the ADS-B system will help destroy GA in America.
I don’t think this is a money grab by the airports (well, not entirely, anyway), it is a wrong answer to a local situation. What’s going on is that there is SO much flight training going on in this particular area that the patterns get saturated with touch and go traffic. Some airports in the area have a “no touch and go” policy, so the flight schools need to use someplace else. It is like toothpaste, squeeze here, it goes there. I’ve been at small, rural airports with nine other aircraft in the pattern.
I do absolutely object to having any third party tracking system, and especially one that is run by non-aviation people whose motivation is not safety and is not traffic control, but is totally, purely and 10,000% revenue. This solves NO problems, it doesn’t make us safer, it doesn’t regulate traffic, it ONLY raises a small amount of revenue for the airport (the tracking company gets a BIG chunk of the money) and as you may have noticed, gets strongly negative reactions from pilots everywhere. It isn’t the $3, it is the idea of having a “toll booth” on an airport funded by the FAA which is open to the public and “for the public good”. We don’t need any more companies treating us like cash cows and not providing any benefit whatsoever to the people they are milking (or bilking).
Airport economics – many municipally owned/operated GA airports are incredibly mismanaged. Municipalities usually have ZERO idea of how to run *any* kind of business, let alone something as specialized as an airport. Often the job of “airport manager” is handed to someone who didn’t flee some meeting quickly enough, and who is already overworked and understaffed.
Example: Why is there such a shortage of hangars? Because nobody can make the numbers work on a land lease which reverts the hangar to the city in 20 years, and the city (which never has enough money to even maintain the non-airport infrastructure) can’t build new hangars without risking an insurrection from the non-flying citizens who regard general aviation as toys for rich playboys.
Landing fees charged to air carriers and bizjets (including smaller piston aircraft owned by businesses) are tax deductible, so there’s no pushback – it comes off their taxes (which means we pay for it in increased taxes to us). Successful airports don’t make their money from landing fees, they make it from the businesses which locate there and the well paying jobs jobs jobs those businesses generate. Charging landing fees pushes people away, and farming this out to a third party business which exists ONLY to increase revenue without providing any benefit whatsoever to the users only alienates the airport’s customers.
So your choice, airport managers, collect a small landing fee and never see me again, or be nice to me and I’ll buy fuel, rent a tie-down (or maybe a hangar), and just maybe locate my business there and employ local residents in well paying aerospace jobs. You pick it.
The ADSB surveylance systems are much more widespread than just FL.
See; https://www.vector-us.com/post/vector-airport-systems-and-virtower-announce-global-strategic-partnership.
These companies have over 200 installations at many US GA airports.
There is no mention on any aviation reference that these systems are there, monitoring, recording and reporting ALL aircraft within their airspace, to the airport and any possible assessment of fees.!
Is this a hijacking of the ADSB intent.?
I am eighty four years old, and have been flying since 8 channel crystal VHF radios were the only communications for a pilot in the air. Then came the brilliant idea of the transponder, of course it had to be upgraded to broadcast mode (C), then the upsided down wedding cake TCA’s all of which were good safety inventions and were implimented with safety in mind. Lets not forget, the channelization of our radios that was a MUST if we wanted to remain in the air. Now, the latest and greatest brilliant decision to force expensive costs to the average pilot population with the introduction of ADSB in/out as a mandate.. I have over 9000 hours behind the”stick” and “yoke”
with no violations, tower reprimands, FAA inspections, or any other enforcement actions by state or federal agencies. With all this time and experience now fading into the past, I still feel the AMERICAN non professional pilots have a bleak future ahead of them, watching one financial challange after another come up to impact their rights an freedoms in the air. Lets ALL say [NO] to this latest rip-off called 3rd party managed landing fees at florida (right now) airports.
Another thought is attracting more business from intenerant aircraft reminds me of when I was in automotive service. Advertising people wanting me to pay them to promote my business by offering discount oil changes….when I was already scheduled 6 months out with high value work.
Point being not all aircraft have much service business value, and as mentioned in the article, only clutter things up. How many posts and incidents concern mayhem in the pattern?
That said I’m still not a fan of being tracked.
My understanding/beliefs, whether true or not – Every gallon of fuel purchased includes a tax. Those taxes pay tor the infrastructure. (One of the reasons fuel costs so much). Most airports are federally funded and/or subsidized in some way from these taxes. So, there’s the “use tax”. It’s already built in. These airports also receive federal grants, not loans, that aren’t required to be paid back. Most airports that sell fuel are associated with an FBO. These FBO’s are already charging extra fees (especially if you don’t purchase any fuel). Landing fees, handling fees, infrastructure fees, parking fees, etc. which are all based on the type/size/weight/propulsion type of the aircraft. They’re in business to serve the flying public. They’re no doubt paying/leasing space on the airport property and must profit in order to remain in business and continue to serve the flying community. Therefore, the fee schedule that they impose is a necessary evil in order to remain open. These fees should be disclosed to the public so that the individual can make a choice on whether or not to land at that airport. I believe if you’re based at an airport and are paying rent to either the municipality or the FBO, landing fees should be waived. You shouldn’t be punished for doing training/touch & goes/or for simply returning to home base from a trip.
My $0.02 that no one asked for..
If I was managing DeLand airport and/or had a business at DeLand airport or even in the area I would welcome all my neighboring airports charging landing fees. Come to DeLand, we have aircraft maintenance, fuel, food, rental cars, ubers, WITH NO LANDING FEES, what do you need? When you are in business to make money you want more customers. Seems real straight forward.
Another awful idea like Traffic light surveillance cameras. I don’t want ANYONE TRACKING ME- period. ADSB was a bad idea. We all said it and here we are.
Once implemented it will never go away and the fees will creep up&up just like state sales tax.
I agree with most of the comments- as long as the Federal government is providing most of the funding and the local burden is low, it’s unreasonable to charge these fees regardless of the cost. I live in California and all we see are increasing fees on everything including talk of a “pay by the mile” tax. Once these fees are implemented it will spread like wildfire across the country.
Objectively speaking it’s actually understandable when so much continuing controversy (argument) is over/between aircraft staying in the pattern and everyone trying to justify their position in it and why someone else was wrong. Last thing an airport wants is more of it.
And sighting federal funding defraying the need for local funding, well that’s still taxpayer dollars. And terms and conditions of what federal funding dictates is another matter.
ADS-B was not well thought out. There is no reason we need individual codes for the system to work, with some reprogramming of the ground station software.
Also, I recall hearing of someone who flew over an airport with this, or similar, billing system in place and was charged a landing fee. They were guilty until proven innocent and it took months and many hours to get the fee dropped.
The only person who gains from such a system is the overseas company that takes a percentage of each fee they bill. This is kind of like making water from the air.
This article seriously underestimates the challenges faced by most GA airports, particularly when it comes to keeping fees in line with operational costs. While I disagree with a private company like Virtower taking a substantial portion of the landing fees for a service that costs them pennies, the more pressing issue is how hard it is for GA airports to maintain operations with users expecting fees to stay unrealistically low.
Take the example of a $200 monthly charge for a T-hangar—it’s not a claim of profitability but a demonstration of how out of touch the perception of low fees is. Try renting a storage unit for that price, and you’ll quickly see how unreasonable it is to expect airports to provide hangar space, maintenance, utilities, and insurance at such low rates. GA airports are not in a position to generate huge profits; they’re struggling just to cover costs.
It’s also important to note that about 90% of funding for infrastructure projects at these airports comes from FAA grants, which are restricted to non-revenue-generating projects. GA airports don’t rely on these grants to cover day-to-day operational expenses or revenue-producing projects, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, most GA airports were left or seriously short changed on many rounds of federal relief funding.
As for tracking landing fees, if you think ADS-B is the only way, you’re mistaken. There are several viable tracking methods, but regardless, it’s a necessary component for keeping airports operational. Pilots often push back against even minor fee increases, but the reality is that without sustainable revenue streams, many GA airports face an uncertain future.
GA airports are essential to the aviation infrastructure, yet they are being pushed to the brink due to insufficient funding and unrealistic user expectations. Implementing landing fees is a reasonable step toward keeping these airports open, but handing a significant portion of those fees to a private company like Virtower only exacerbates the problem. What’s really needed is a greater recognition of the financial realities these airports face, along with more balanced funding solutions from the feds.
I completely agree and came back to this article to post essentially what you stated so well, except for one thing. Virtower is but one method to collect the fees, if they weren’t around there are other collection avenues that will still keep a percentage of the fees collected.
If it’s a public-use airport that’s included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), and it has received federal funding under the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP), then it is bound by the specific grant assurances that go along with it.
In addition;
This is what the FAA’s (09/10/2013) policy says about fees charged at NPIAS airports:
“Under the terms of grant agreements administered by FAA for airport improvement, all aeronautical users are entitled to airport access on fair and reasonable terms without unjust discrimination. Therefore, the Department considers that the principles and guidance set forth in this policy statement apply to all aeronautical uses of the airport. The Department recognizes, however, that airport proprietors may use different mechanisms and methodologies to establish fees for different facilities, e.g., for the airfield and terminal area, and for different aeronautical users, e.g., air carriers and fixed-base operators.”
OTOH:
If an airport is not part of NPIAS, it’s pretty much free to do/charge whatever it can get away with… period.
I see what you’re saying, but whether an airport is in the NPIAS or not, it’s still allowed to charge landing fees. The FAA’s grant assurances don’t prohibit airports from charging reasonable fees, as long as they are applied fairly and without discrimination. The whole point of these assurances is to ensure that aeronautical users are treated fairly, not to prevent airports from recovering their costs through fees.
Even NPIAS airports, which receive federal funding, can—and often do—charge landing fees to help maintain their operations.Look, no airport goes into this wanting to screw pilots, but they’re often left with little choice, given the cards they’ve been dealt .It’s simply about balancing the books. If airports can’t charge these fees, they’re stuck relying on other revenue sources, which often aren’t enough to cover operating expenses.
Pilots, always whineilots whine about increases and new fees, expecting airports to operate without charging them directly. The expectation for subsidies or handouts to be able to use any aviation facility for free—paid for by everyone else—is u realistic for many GA airports. You can’t run an airport on good intentions alone. Unfortunately without sustainable revenue sources like landing fees, SOME airports won’t be able to keep their doors open. It’s basic economics: if we want well-maintained, functional airports, users have to contribute or federal funding needs to be reformatted to better equip small airports to survive.
Gentlemen…the best strategy to fight this nonsense is to simply say…NO!
Don’t plan any flights into these airports. If it ever gets started… bureaucrats will expand the ‘fees’ for all services.
YES…it will be a massive inconvenience…but if we all ‘roll over’ on this…ignorant bureaucrats, who believe ALL taxpayer money IS ‘endless’ and should/must be extorted for their own ignorant objectives will infect the flying community with legislative greed.
What would happen to WalMart…if they started imposing fees for parking places in front of their stores?
Bureaucrats are not reasonable people. Bureaucrats can be toxic…and MOST of them are!
LOL Walmart already “charges” for the use of their parking lots by actually SELLING a product, so the parking is NOT free. It is included in the markup on the products sold.
I have read some of these comments and I see that the pilots are like many other “selfish” people who say “The government should pay for me!”. First – WHY? Second – the “government” is actually you and me, the taxpayers, so when it pays, it using our money. Third – where is it written that your hobby should be free of cost? You want to fly? pay the damn bill.
This is actually a very dangerous idea. As pilots, we have come to depend on ADSB as a way to see other aircraft in the air, with very few exceptions. Regardless of legality or safety implications, there will be more aircraft operating with inoperable ADSB out just to avoid landing fees.
Also, flight training involves many sequential landings. Schools will sooner or later leave Florida to save money.
Yay! Fly to Florida, pay landing fees and have the police called on you because you’re trespassing on a beach that has been privatized. I think I’ll take my business to a different state, FL is for the birds.
Marking Florida off the place to visit. Or maybe shutting off my ADS-B thereby raising the chance of a midair.
Maybe they’ll add the same fee to boats using the boat ramp.
I think user fees are appropriate as long as they’re not excessive or punitive. Many smaller airports are starting to decline and need repairs that the communities are not willing to fund. The cost of general aviation has increased dramatically to the point of being out of reach for the aspiring youthful pilot want-to-be. When a 1960’s Cessna costs $50,000 or the average per/hr. Rental is $125+, hobby flight becomes a mid to upper class sport. If a small ramp fee is necessary to keep the smaller airports from falling apart and lost forever, then it may be a good temporary solution.
Lol, there is no such thing as a “temporary” fee or tax.
According to Statista, a 7% decrease in public airports was realized between 1990 and 2022. At the same time, a 20% increase in private airports was recorded. Livingwithyourplane.com indicates that 700 of these private airports are classified as residential air parks.
It’s easy to see why user fees are considered; reduce public facilities and increase privately held and rabidly restricted runways.
The industry talks a good bit about encouraging young people to fly but perimeter fences and user fees can be intimidating to a teenager trying to get an intro flight.
I told you so.
The Deland city commission did not approve landing fees at the September 4, 2024 meeting. More than 30 local pilots showed up to the meeting with a little over 20 speaking out in opposition to this plan. Pilots are urged to make their voices heard at county and city governmental meetings throughout the state.
If these GA airports go down this road, federal funds should be STOPPED. That will immediately stop this!
And so it begins. This the true beginning of the end for general aviation.
Here in CA, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria both charge a ramp fee of $20 -$30 if you stop at the FBO.
So, I will never fly there, since thee are dozens of other GA airports much more welcoming.
I don’t have ADBS-out, since I don’t need to fly in class C or B airspace.
So, I only show up on radar with my mode C altitude.!
Absent the discussion of landing fees, I would point out to you that Flying today without ADSB It’s kind of like driving at night with your lights off.
Now, under the circumstances, I can see your point. This is unfortunate ADSB has searching the made tracking other airplanes much easier and thus presumably safer.
Actually, in most area with terminal radar, my Mode C shows my aircraft, just not any ID info or airspeed.
In my area I’d estimate that about 10% of the aircraft flying are ‘no electrics’ aircraft, which have no radios, transponders, or ADSB, so a pilot has to use his ‘mark 1’ eyeballs to look out for these aircraft.!
How would they be identified and assessed a landing fee ?
BTW, turning off your ADSB-out is not legal and a pilot will be cited for doing it.
I disagree (ADSB requirement):
1) What should have happened is TCAS-II for GA aircraft. ADSB does not provide guidance to avoid a collison. But the cost?!?! Well look at the avgear companies who have built slide in replacements for Garmin 430s. We could have had ModeC with TCAS and it would have worked out better. Too much time is spent heads down trying to read a tablet.
2) I think all of us should be using anonymous mode with ADSB until we are IFR. That would put a halt to the automated billing systems. Just because I flew over your airport doesn’t mean I landed. Just because I did an approach to your airport does not mean I landed.
3) WX in the air. Same thing works without ADSB. No traffic detected, no WX transmitted in that area. All that ADSB-OUT provides could have worked with all of us using TCAS.
But people wanted safety. You gave up freedom for Safety. You deserve neither.
Now you are being tracked by big brother where-ever you go with ADSB.
——————-
AVGAS taxes — Thank you AOPA for negotiating an AVGAS tax increase some years ago. Look it up and see what our cost per gallon of AVGAS via the fuel tax. The more AVGAS one uses, the more one is paying into the system to maintain the public airports. C150 doesn’t use lots of gas. But twins do. Senecas and related burn gas. Anything using an IO540 is burning a good bit of gas (and related sizes by who ever makes ’em). So the bigger aircraft and more engines, they are are already paying more, which feeds the fund for Grants and related. Who pays the least? Commercial operators running Jet. Something like 3 cents a gallon if I remember correctly. Thank you AOPA. See they pass that along in their tickets. This doesn’t come out of their profits.
So there are airports now, that need you, on first contact (prep to enter pattern) to specify your full tail # (and this includes NON-towered airports). And this is WITH ADSB-OUT. This allows them to show the number of aircraft using the airport, so they can justify a grant to repave the runway, or add a taxi-way, etc. Some airports have cameras where they captured your tail number from off the side of your aircraft, for the same purpose.
I warned people years ago about ADSB. But everyone wanted more safety and you now get more NMACs being filed. TCAS-II would have been more useful. Why do airlines use it?
You can’t afford a $9 landing fee? Aviation is not the hobby for you.
Following the “logic”, then let’s charge a driving fee for anyone using any roads anywhere. This should discourage the crowding on the highways and make people drive somewhere else that’s “cheaper”.
In fact, why don’t we charge a parking fee if your vehicle is parked on a public street. This should make things “safer”.
Of course, this will require government surveillance equipment be installed in our vehicles. BTW, this would be at our own expense.
We already do both the first is a gas tax both federal and state the second is parking meters or now days some kind pay by phone system . It does not seem to work at keeping drivers off the road
Try making a road trip in the northeast. You’ll probably pay for the public highway and the public street parking somewhere if not at multiple locations. And it’s still as crowded as ever – it doesn’t appear to be causing anyone to move away.
💯%!
Spot on!
I read that the AOPA has sent a letter to the FAA administrator, stating that this 3rd party collecting of fees from ADSB monitoring is not legal, and wants the FAA to specifically prohibit such 3rd party systems using the ADSB data .
So, all the airports using the systems, [ there are hundreds ], will have to stop assessing fees based on the ADSB data..!!
Thank You AOPA.!!!