banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 04:09 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 181 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 08 Oct 2021, 14:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4082
Post Likes: +2731
Location: Small Town, NC
Username Protected wrote:
We are still working through things with the local airport as it is under new management and making lots of changes. Regarding the suggestion that a few of you have made on this thread with respect to purchasing a JetA truck and self-fueling, we have been told by the airport that we would have to pay a "flowage fee" if we elected to buy wholesale jet fuel and fuel our own turboprops. I have spoken with some others who suggest that such fees are only applicable if the airport charges a flowage fee to other businesses providing fuel to the public at the airport.

This from the FAA's website: The sponsor (the airport authority) may ask individuals and companies fueling their own planes to "d. Pay the same fuel flowage fees that the sponsor charges providers selling fuel to the public.
This practice alleviates the potential for claims of unjust discrimination."

At our small, non-towered field, the city owns the airport and the only FBO. They are the single source for all fuel sold at the field and no self-service pump is provided. So technically, there is no flowage fee charged to any business selling fuel at the airport as the owner, operator, and FBO are all one entity. Has anyone else encountered this situation with a small airport and an attempt to fuel your own planes? I was wondering how things got resolved in those situations. Thanks.


We dealt with it at our field, many years ago. All the jets decided that fuel was too expensive and were going to leave, to a field 30nm south. talk about loss of revenue (think bigger than fuel, ie., tax revenue was going to disappear on $150mm in jets).

city agreed, and they now charge based-tenants their actual fuel cost, with an "into plane fee," which is essentially a flowage fee I suppose (it's reasonable). fuel is fairly priced, and we buy a ton of it. line service is great.

if the airport claims that they have to charge you a "flowage fee" I'd ask them for the statute that outlines it (I'm guessing there isn't one). If they still try to charge you one, then it seems like you may have a legal option for unfair business practice (I'm not a lawyer).

_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."


Last edited on 08 Oct 2021, 21:26, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 08 Oct 2021, 14:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
I would point out the faa language, then get a lawyer


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 08 Oct 2021, 17:46 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/24/08
Posts: 2718
Post Likes: +1012
Aircraft: Cessna 182M
I am not clear on who mentioned the flowage fee.

Was it the city which owns the airport or the FBO?

If it was the city do they charge the FBO the flowage fee? If the FBO is demanding a fee look at their contract with the city - may not have the right under their K to charge you the fee.

Good luck

RAS


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 04:37 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 2514
Post Likes: +1240
I was really surprised to learn that Airlift Northwest is now using PC-12s to transport patients. But maybe no doctors onboard to complain about the single engine?

Sounds like what you need (if it existed) is a SETP with a chute and auto-land (if the plane is flown single-pilot) to alleviate the doctors' concerns. Yes, would not help in a loss of power right after takeoff situation. But let's be frank, loss of an engine in a KA on takeoff appears to be statistically more dangerous than in a SETP.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 12:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 330
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
Richard: The City owns the airport and the FBO. It was the new FBO director that suggested anyone fueling their own plane on the field would need to pay a flowage fee to the FBO. In reading the FAA’s language on this matter, I don’t see that the law actually suggests that’s the way it works.

Ian: I’m not sure if you are being facetious in your post or if you are serious. I don’t know why you would be surprised that an air ambulance service selected a Pilatus for its aircraft. The large rear door make it an excellent choice for loading a stretcher and they are often used for air ambulances. As to the “doctors” on board. First of all, it’s pretty uncommon for a doc to ride on an ambulance of any kind (air or ground). It does happen if the patient has special needs, but typically it would be a paramedic and flight nurse with a pilot. When I flew with the air ambulance service in Massachusetts, I was there for observation (education) but no other doc was on the aircraft. The staff on the aircraft are employees of the company. They do not make the decisions about which plane to purchase. Our docs own the company and the planes. No stretchers are loaded. Unlike most of the air ambulance services around here, when it’s snowing and blowing like hell, we still go to work in the planes. I can’t tell you how many times I have had to ship patients by ground ambulance because neither the helicopter or fixed wing ambulances were willing to fly. If it’s above minimums at the origin and destination and it’s forecasted to remain that way, we launch. The Pilatus is an excellent aircraft, and it is very safe, but in a region where airports are over 100 miles apart and the terrain is mountainous, the exposure with a single engine aircraft is greater than with a twin. I don’t dispute your comment about the statistical risk of engine failure right after takeoff in a single vs twin, but when handled appropriately, a twin does just fine (we’ve lost a Pratt during climb-out on one of our KA’s). With the single, the exposure continues for the entire flight, even if handled appropriately, a forced landing off-field at night, in the winter mountains is just not something the docs are currently comfortable with. It’s a work in progress. They may yet choose a mixed fleet with the singles flying in better weather and daytime. Thanks for your input.

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 12:18 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/18/11
Posts: 1026
Post Likes: +584
Aircraft: Seabee Aerostar 700
Your situation with the city is interesting without a big bargaining chip like being able to operate out of another airport, you are some what stuck. I assume all your doctors live in Laramie and they don't want to move.

You probably could base your aircraft at another airport but the cost of deadheading the aircraft to pick up passengers would probably be more expensive. although threatening that action might get you some bargaining power.

There are considerations that should reduce costs like a common fuel farm and potentially common use of the people fueling etc.

publicity might be your biggest weapon by making the city look like they are trying to chase you away.

Actually at my home Airport KRNH they have taken sort of the opposite tack of being one of the cheapest sources for fuel around and so they get a huge amount of business from aircraft that fly in just to get fuel and cross country travelers that are looking for a good lower cost airport with a good approach to a long runway to fuel at.

interesting quandary.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 12:41 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 7895
Post Likes: +3908
Aircraft: Warbirds
Username Protected wrote:
We are still working through things with the local airport as it is under new management and making lots of changes. Regarding the suggestion that a few of you have made on this thread with respect to purchasing a JetA truck and self-fueling, we have been told by the airport that we would have to pay a "flowage fee" if we elected to buy wholesale jet fuel and fuel our own turboprops. I have spoken with some others who suggest that such fees are only applicable if the airport charges a flowage fee to other businesses providing fuel to the public at the airport.

This from the FAA's website: The sponsor (the airport authority) may ask individuals and companies fueling their own planes to "d. Pay the same fuel flowage fees that the sponsor charges providers selling fuel to the public.
This practice alleviates the potential for claims of unjust discrimination."

At our small, non-towered field, the city owns the airport and the only FBO. They are the single source for all fuel sold at the field and no self-service pump is provided. So technically, there is no flowage fee charged to any business selling fuel at the airport as the owner, operator, and FBO are all one entity. Has anyone else encountered this situation with a small airport and an attempt to fuel your own planes? I was wondering how things got resolved in those situations. Thanks.

Here the Airport Authority has a flowage fee per gallon. Both the FBO and another fuel provider charge that to everyone. The flowage fee is paid to the Airport Authority.

_________________
Be careful what you ask for, your mechanic wants to sleep at night.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 12:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/16/07
Posts: 17514
Post Likes: +21046
Company: Real Estate development
Location: Addison -North Dallas(ADS), Texas
Aircraft: In between
Thomas: It might not hurt to contact city leaders and discuss it. Why would the FBO have the final word on the matter? On the one hand they want to maintain the airport, equipment, ect. and have a profitable FBO. On the other hand, you could make a case for a reasonable charge.
It sure wouldn't hurt to have alternatives. You don't have to move to another airport, if you can point to another place you can purchase fuel and tanker it, that could help. You could also talk about moving it they're not reasonable even if you don't.
Southwest Airlines did that here when the City of Dallas decided to levy large fees. SW just announced they would move the planes to Houston. The city saw the light.

Hope you can work something reasonable out.

_________________
Dave Siciliano, ATP


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 13:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/15/21
Posts: 2514
Post Likes: +1240
Username Protected wrote:
Ian: I’m not sure if you are being facetious in your post or if you are serious. I don’t know why you would be surprised that an air ambulance service selected a Pilatus for its aircraft. The large rear door make it an excellent choice for loading a stretcher and they are often used for air ambulances. As to the “doctors” on board. First of all, it’s pretty uncommon for a doc to ride on an ambulance of any kind (air or ground). It does happen if the patient has special needs, but typically it would be a paramedic and flight nurse with a pilot. When I flew with the air ambulance service in Massachusetts, I was there for observation (education) but no other doc was on the aircraft. The staff on the aircraft are employees of the company. They do not make the decisions about which plane to purchase. Our docs own the company and the planes. No stretchers are loaded. Unlike most of the air ambulance services around here, when it’s snowing and blowing like hell, we still go to work in the planes. I can’t tell you how many times I have had to ship patients by ground ambulance because neither the helicopter or fixed wing ambulances were willing to fly. If it’s above minimums at the origin and destination and it’s forecasted to remain that way, we launch. The Pilatus is an excellent aircraft, and it is very safe, but in a region where airports are over 100 miles apart and the terrain is mountainous, the exposure with a single engine aircraft is greater than with a twin. I don’t dispute your comment about the statistical risk of engine failure right after takeoff in a single vs twin, but when handled appropriately, a twin does just fine (we’ve lost a Pratt during climb-out on one of our KA’s). With the single, the exposure continues for the entire flight, even if handled appropriately, a forced landing off-field at night, in the winter mountains is just not something the docs are currently comfortable with. It’s a work in progress. They may yet choose a mixed fleet with the singles flying in better weather and daytime. Thanks for your input.

Thomas, I was actually genuinely surprised that ALNW is using SETP's to transport patients as they've always used twin engine aircraft (fixed wing and helicopter) as far as I know. I always imagined them as being extremely adverse to any negative public perception, and what would be more awkward than having to explain why they went with single-engine if (God forbid) they have an engine failure-related accident?

But you're right about the PC-12 being used a lot for ambulance services and of course the launch customer for the PC-12 was the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Australia. However, their situation is a bit unique involving unpaved runways and long distances, so I would not expect ALNW to simply follow their lead.

If the RFDS's use of PC-12's is not enough to allay your colleagues' concerns, then I view this as being a bit of a design and marketing problem for Pilatus, i.e. how to overcome the resistance to the concept of single-engine. As your colleagues demonstrate, merely presenting them with safety statistics is not enough.

Pilatus now has a twin-jet but that's not really a drop-in replacement for the PC-12. Hence my comment about putting a parachute on a SETP. Would not help on a loss of power after take-off, but most passengers will not know or care about those technicalities, just as they don't know about the pitfalls of twin prop planes. They just want something to make them feel more secure about flying a single-engine plane. Yes, it's an expensive design change (and some would say mostly window dressing), but your case proves that perceptions are important.

_________________
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Administrate, Litigate.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 15:43 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 330
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
Username Protected wrote:
Actually at my home Airport KRNH they have taken sort of the opposite tack of being one of the cheapest sources for fuel around and so they get a huge amount of business from aircraft that fly in just to get fuel and cross country travelers that are looking for a good lower cost airport with a good approach to a long runway to fuel at.

interesting quandary.


Bill, for the last 20 years or so, our airport has been at or near the bottom of the price scale compared to other locations we visit. Many large business jets traveling across the country chose KLAR as a fuel stop because we had reasonably priced fuel, limited fees, and we were high enough with a long runway that the operators didn’t have to descend as far for their fuel stop. They just doubled their into plane fees and announced they intend to charge landing fees (not facility fees, landing fees) for every aircraft except piston singles. SETP’s and TETP’s will be $50-100, and Jets, depending on size will be up to $500. This is to apply for every landing regardless of aircraft weight, revenue generating or not, based on field or not. No other airport in the state does this (not even Jackson Hole). I noticed the price per quart for piston engine oil also jumped to $12. RON used to be free, now it’s as high as $250. Big changes in our little “Cowboy Town.” They are still trying to determine if all the fees they hope to charge are legally enforceable at a publicly owned airport receiving federal grants, but I’m sure they will find a way to make it stick. I completely understand that airports need to charge some fees to stay in business, but I think our new manager (and probably her bosses in the city) are seeing a potential revenue stream to tap (transient and local pilots). We will be watching very closely that all the funds generated remain at the airport and don’t “drift” into the city (which would be illegal per FAA guidelines).

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 16:19 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/17/12
Posts: 170
Post Likes: +117
Location: Des Moines, IA
Aircraft: CE-525
Quite frankly, PC12 with the cost savings used to pay for a second pilot is a far better safety proposition than single pilot KA. The human is the weakest link even in a professionally flown scenario. The bottom line is if you want to pay for expensive and mostly unneeded redundancy in systems a second pilot is a far better investment. Or, to put it another way, if you have the budget to operate a large department of twin turbines it’s a no-brainer to operate as a 2-crew shop.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 19:40 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5522
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Username Protected wrote:
Regarding the suggestion that a few of you have made on this thread with respect to purchasing a JetA truck and self-fueling, we have been told by the airport that we would have to pay a "flowage fee" if we elected to buy wholesale jet fuel and fuel our own turboprops.


Seems so un-American... :eek:

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 20:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
If the FBO really is planning to fully monetize the airport, probably a lost cause. Another $50 per landing and they’ll get you one way or another


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 09 Oct 2021, 23:00 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
They are still trying to determine if all the fees they hope to charge are legally enforceable at a publicly owned airport receiving federal grants, but I’m sure they will find a way to make it stick. I completely understand that airports need to charge some fees to stay in business, but I think our new manager (and probably her bosses in the city) are seeing a potential revenue stream to tap (transient and local pilots).

Driving people away from the town will ultimately reduce their overall tax revenue.

Imagine what happens to local businesses if main street has a toll booth. That will drive away business. They are doing the same for the airport. You town leaders don't understand basic economics and the town will suffer for it even if the airport now looks better on the bottom line.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 10 Oct 2021, 08:27 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4082
Post Likes: +2731
Location: Small Town, NC
Username Protected wrote:
They are still trying to determine if all the fees they hope to charge are legally enforceable at a publicly owned airport receiving federal grants, but I’m sure they will find a way to make it stick. I completely understand that airports need to charge some fees to stay in business, but I think our new manager (and probably her bosses in the city) are seeing a potential revenue stream to tap (transient and local pilots).

Driving people away from the town will ultimately reduce their overall tax revenue.

Imagine what happens to local businesses if main street has a toll booth. That will drive away business. They are doing the same for the airport. You town leaders don't understand basic economics and the town will suffer for it even if the airport now looks better on the bottom line.

Mike C.


Agree. This is starting to sound like the “per capita” tax that Seattle voted to put on Amazon. Amazon now looking to relocate its headquarters. Tesla also planning to move its headquarters away fr CA because of taxes.

Taxes and fees to not work to fund airports and infrastructure. Low fees incentivize visits, which pours money into that economy.
_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 181 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.