So ... for $5 a gallon ... buying only 30 gallons waives the ramp fee?

That's not a bad price in the wide sweep of 100LL prices. Since I have to buy fuel somewhere ...

Paying $150 for 30 gallons of gas, then getting a $45 discount (ramp fee waived), makes it $3.50 a gallon.

I'm buying the gas every time.

Yes, when the first sentence of the post is an obvious lie, I am not interested in reading the rest.

Jesse,

Don't know if it is of "real" significance, but our little airport, KGNF, non-commercial, has a fence around the entire property, close to four miles of six foot cyclone with three barbed wires at the top. We have a "somewhat" restricted access with a coded electric gate.

All paid for with annual FAA "improvement" funds ten plus years ago.

Without "conscious" thought, we have always considered the purpose of this fence to be wildlife control of deer and coyotes. Of course it does little to deter a coyote. I suppose a local government or FBO could consider its "upkeep" a cost of security that should be passed on to the users. We don't. It is a city run facility, and "we" don't even charge for tie downs.

Boy, are we dumb.

Jgreen

The free access to the airport was not limited by an FBO. The Feds did that, mainly after 9-11. At commercial airports, they put restrictions on those FBOs who allow ramp access and can levy fines against them for violations. That costs money.

Jesse,

Don't know if it is of "real" significance, but our little airport, KGNF, non-commercial, has a fence around the entire property, close to four miles of six foot cyclone with three barbed wires at the top. We have a "somewhat" restricted access with a coded electric gate.

All paid for with annual FAA "improvement" funds ten plus years ago.

Without "conscious" thought, we have always considered the purpose of this fence to be wildlife control of deer and coyotes. Of course it does little to deter a coyote. I suppose a local government or FBO could consider its "upkeep" a cost of security that should be passed on to the users. We don't. It is a city run facility, and "we" don't even charge for tie downs.

Boy, are we dumb.

Jgreen

Jesse,

Don't know if it is of "real" significance, but our little airport, KGNF, non-commercial, has a fence around the entire property, close to four miles of six foot cyclone with three barbed wires at the top. We have a "somewhat" restricted access with a coded electric gate.

All paid for with annual FAA "improvement" funds ten plus years ago.

Without "conscious" thought, we have always considered the purpose of this fence to be wildlife control of deer and coyotes. Of course it does little to deter a coyote. I suppose a local government or FBO could consider its "upkeep" a cost of security that should be passed on to the users. We don't. It is a city run facility, and "we" don't even charge for tie downs.

Boy, are we dumb.

Jgreen

Pretty sure you don't need a fence for that (but I am not an airport engineer). Many airports (including the one I operate from and the one I serve on the board for) just own the land. KBIS owns much of the land off the ends of the runways, outside the fence.

I think we all agree a fence is an important part of an airport.

The big FBOs have a formula, and are taking advantage of what has been given to them.

I don't like what the big guys do, but I can tell you pilots have ZERO loyalty on average and will choose an FBO 50 miles away to save .10/gallon. It goes both ways. If all the good 'ole operators had loyal customers supporting them regularly, they wouldn't be going out of business.

The only real answer to all this is to support the FBOs that we like. Maybe that is what is happening now. Maybe "we" aren't the "we".

I feel what happens is small private GA are used to having free ride on the profits of the larger corporate operators. FBOs offer free or reduced cost services, both out of fear of offending a pilot who might fly commercially elsewhere, and in an attempt to gain customer trust for when the little plane pilot "graduates" to a big plane.

Fuel, and secondarily hangar rent keeps these places open.

This means essentially, there has always been an unspoken code that someone who shows up in a trainer gets a free pass or a minimal charge. It's obvious FBO's loose money on the recreational flyer. Labor and buildings aren't cheap. However, Signature is the first FBO that doesn't follow this unspoken rule consistently, and many pilots are offended as a result.

I realize you are in a C340, which may not meet this qualification, but it's been noted they do the same charge for a Cherokee.






I really don't understand why a bunch of people on here expect not to get charged if you use there ramp space and dont buy anything from them. It's like this at any large airport all around the country. Just buy some fuel and they most likely wont charge you. 9 times out of 10 the extra cost in fuel is less than the proposed facility fee.

If all of the sudden piston knats disappear from FBOs, will they lay off staff? Will they lease out parts of their buildings?

Everyone leaves a different size footprint in the FBOs they visit. My footprint is usually a bathroom visit, and a walk from the airport side of the lobby to the street side.

Decoupling you cost of service from your price of service and selling on value is a time-honored tradition of making a profitable company. (The opposite can also be said; if you don't understand a company's profit model, you're probably getting hosed).

Airlines do it. Why are last minute plane tickets more expensive? Price discrimination, they have to find something that works for them.

IMHO though, the issue here is not one of variable charges by airplane type.

If all of the sudden piston knats disappear from FBOs, will they lay off staff? Will they lease out parts of their buildings?

Everyone leaves a different size footprint in the FBOs they visit. My footprint is usually a bathroom visit, and a walk from the airport side of the lobby to the street side.

You're right- if a company can provide value in excess of cost it creates a profitable company. The FBOs in question are really a different model and have to be evaluated a little differently.

Airplanes, in most cases, are traveling to cities/geographic locations where the FBO happens to be located. The air field is paid for using taxpayer funds for the benefit of the local community. The FBO would provide services to transient and local pilots. We're blessed with a lot of great FBOs and staff that do a great job.

In other circumstance, FBOs have been granted exclusive access to a publicly funded facility and they're a barrier- like a toll booth extracting a fee to access the local community. The value that the FBO is charging for is access to a facility that exists for the public good. The FBO yields the benefit from providing value, while the taxpayer (likely the airplane owners) contribute to the cost of running the airport. No one would complain, at least not as loudly, about higher margins for value added services, but that's not what's happening here.

There's no doubt that it's profitable- the FBO can charge for value without covering the the full cost. How profitable? I don't know the business so I can't comment, but I'm confident that the chain FBOs aren't expanding to loose money.

Good morning BH,

Hello Arlen







The answer to this question is quite elementary actually.

It has been discussed here many times before, but it bears repeating again.



It's because twins are safer.......





I hope this helps.