Why I hate Signature Flight Support
Ron Rapp
asked them if they were aware that avgas was selling for $2.04 at
North Las Vegas and they said yes. They also said their own price
will soon be above $4.00 a gallon.
So just to recap, I can buy fuel for $1.99 at Corona, or nearly four
bucks a gallon in Las Vegas. The price Signature charges at John
Wayne (my home airport) is currently $3.00 a gallon. Everytime the
fuel price drops at Corona and at "normal" airports, it goes up at
Signature.
Anyone interested in starting a campaign to boycott Signature Flight
Support? I'm really getting pissed off that GA pilots are paying
these prices and not raising hell. If they don't start speaking up
about it soon, we'll be paying $6-7 a gallon like they do in Europe.
I can go down to Mexico and find fuel cheaper than this! It's
completely ridiculous.
--Ron
Zach Rogers
--
Thanks,
Zach Rogers
ASEL Private Pilot (Instrument student)
159.9 hours
http://thenewfsworld.hypermart.net
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
news:3bfac27f.80537647@news...
Mike Rapoport
When you tailor your business to those paying thousands for a fill up, it is
hard to deliver fuel efficiently in much smaller amounts. It is like buying
a plain hamburger at a fancy French restaurant, they just aren't setup to do
it. So you get a $15 hamburger.
The whole point of charging $4/gallon is to discourage small airplanes. I
suspect that most of Signature's business is paying discounted prices. It
is a shame that they are the only FBO at many large airports, but that is
the way it is.
Personally, I fly into Henderson unless I REALLY need the convenience of
flying into LAS. It is MUCH easier to get ground transportation to the
strip from Henderson than North Las Vegas.
Mike
MU-2
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
news:3bfac27f.80537647@news...
RossPilot
>asked them if they were aware that avgas was selling for $2.04 at
>North Las Vegas and they said yes. They also said their own price
>will soon be above $4.00 a gallon.
I'd pay $4.00/ gal if they would re-open the sky around NYC. I'm so depressed
:(
There doesn't appear to be any end in sight.
acrophile
news:3bfac27f.80537647@news...
snip
> Anyone interested in starting a campaign to boycott Signature Flight
> Support? I'm really getting pissed off that GA pilots are paying
> these prices and not raising hell. If they don't start speaking up
> about it soon, we'll be paying $6-7 a gallon like they do in Europe.
I like the way they charge 50 cents/gal more on weekdays than they do
weekends. That's good when I take the kids to grandma's house, not so good
when I'm traveling on business. On the weekends, they're typically among the
cheapest on the field at the airports where I fly. Quite the opposite on
weekdays.
Ross Richardson
Weekday prices are $0.05/gal higher. It is self-service, though.
Ross
Scott Moore
an extra stop an N. Vegas.
Personally I would not fly into there. They are trying to be an
international airport, they don't really like light aircraft anymore.
N. Vegas seems the way to go.
--
"ground zero" is clearing up, but the fallout from the towers
still rains down around the world.
Jeff T.
(some of you may know him as MAXHO) took me on a ride to Boston Logan... and
I must say that I was very dissappointed. The signature there is inside a
big building, but the actual signature part that I can see was very small.
Their pilot lounge is much smaller and was not all that impressive compare
to some of the Million Air or Hawthorn FBOs that I've been to where the
lounges are filled with these gigantic comfy looking leather couches. Most
bigger FBOs I've been to also have "snooze rooms" and such which I don't
think the signature at Logan has. Worst of all... all they had was coffee!
They didn't have any cookies or juices.
Flying to Logan was definitely very memorable though. After we landed, the
tower called us and said "keep going down the runway, you still have atleast
another mile to go!"
Jeff T.
PP-ASEL as of Nov 13
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
news:3bfac27f.80537647@news...
Mike Rapoport
airport :-).
Mike
MU-2
"Jeff T." <je...@jrn.columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:9teo41$fbm$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
Jay Honeck
depressed
> :(
> There doesn't appear to be any end in sight.
Funny how all the guys who flamed me for railing against the VFR flight ban
have disappeared from sight, despite your continued misery. While it's true
that my dire fears of permanent grounding turned out to be overblown for my
part of the country -- where VFR flight was restored within weeks -- they
have sadly proved to be "right on" for yours.
We're still pulling for ya here in Iowa -- wish there was something we could
do to help.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Warrior N33431
Larry Dighera
(Ron Rapp) wrote in Message ID <3bfac27f.80537647@news>:
>They are now charging $3.77 a gallon for avgas at McCarran Intl. ...
Stopping at Signature subsequently requires a two-mile taxi for
departure. I found their service at Mc Carran geared toward the
turbine powered iron.
After initially using Signature at LAS, I switched exclusively to
Executive Terminal on the approach end of 19R:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/LAS/EXECUTIVE_AIR_TERMINAL
Their fuel prices are high, but the service is excellent. They often
wave the overnight fees if you top the tanks. They also provide a
free shuttle van to hotels on the strip, and back; no rental car
necessary.
I don't know how customers can possibly hope to dictate the price to
fuel dispensers, but contacting the petroleum company whose product
they dispense might get some attention.
What I find curious is the FAA's granting permission to use low-lead
fuel in engines designed for 80/87. I recall reading someplace that
100LL actually contains 4-times the amount of lead that mogas does.
It's no wonder that lead fouling is a constant threat while taxiing.
Hey, but that's aviation ....
RossPilot
>do to help.
Thanks, Jay. Being there to sound off to helps . . .
Mike Hammock
FL).
I visit there 2 or 3 times a year and always park at Signature. It's not the
cheapest (especially the overnight parking fee has gone up), but the
weekend fuel price is reasonable (about $2.25 this time) and their
service is always excellent. I've stayed at several Signature
FBOs and have found similar prices and service.
Seems pretty simple to me, if you don't want the high prices, go to
the lower cost (less 'fancy'?) FBOs/airports,
Mike N44979 PA28-181 at RYY
Patric Barry
$2.24.
Don't go to Reno - it'll make MacCarran look affordable.
They don't want your business - they want the lear or Gulfstream and
they charge what they want. They don't care that N Las Vegas is cheaper
- they sincerely don't want you on the Vegas ramp - this has been said
many times - what they want is wealthy turbine equipment that doesn't
care.
Capt. Doug
> suspect that most of Signature's business is paying discounted prices.
Uh, no. They charge the s**t out of me for my 19 seat aircraft. They are
charging me $120 to pick-up pax on their ramp and another $120 to drop off
pax, even if it's the same day. The GPU is extra. On top of that, the
service is not top-notch. I fully support a boycott of Signature. Further, I
hope that my brethren pilots will address their respective city and county
commissioners to put a cap on the charges that airport lessees can charge.
D.
Martin Hotze
ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please (Ron Rapp) wrote:
> If they don't start speaking up
> about it soon, we'll be paying $6-7 a gallon like they do in Europe.
the big difference here in Europe is that about 70% of the fuel price is
tax. at Signature it is their profit.
martin
--
The Sandia tribe's casino is easy to reach from Coronado, just an engine
failure glide off to the right of runway 35, with open (though rugged)
land between them. (rec.aviation.student)
Rob Montgomery
"Patric Barry" <p...@ktb.com> wrote in message
news:3BFB3356...@ktb.com...
C J Campbell
someplace else, get it there.
C J Campbell
suspect a fair number of bizjets avoid MacCarran specifically because of the
fuel.
"Patric Barry" <p...@ktb.com> wrote in message
news:3BFB3356...@ktb.com...
JerryK
Sounds like they are trying to discourage piston business. I guess we
should take the hint and go to Henderson or North Las Vegas. At John Wayne
you could start going to LGB and join the fuel farm club. According to
AirNav their at 2.32/gal.
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
news:3bfac27f.80537647@news...
HECTOP
> I actually visited a Signature for the first time when a friend of mine
> (some of you may know him as MAXHO) took me on a ride to Boston Logan... and
I'm actually better known as HECTOP, but nevertheless while that particular
Signature operation at Logan wasn't really impressive, I am a fan and have no
problem paying for the service Signature delivers (when they do). Most of all
I will DCA, complete with very GA friendly Sig ops (there must be a good reason
their ramp used to be packed with spamcans any time you'd stop by there)
http://www.maxho.com/dca/pages/DCA-SignatureRampGA1.htm
Cheap landing fee ($9), handling waived with fuel, 50 cents off on weekends,
great access to the city (METRO), private flight planning booths, even small
amenities like a welcoming coffee desk with all kinds of munchies, all in all
made trips to DCA always a pleasure, in big part thanks to Signature. If there's
an airport I'll truly miss as a part 91 pilot, that'll be DCA.
--
--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com
Ron Natalie
HECTOP wrote:
> I will DCA, complete with very GA friendly Sig ops (there must be a good reason
> their ramp used to be packed with spamcans any time you'd stop by there)
>
> http://www.maxho.com/dca/pages/DCA-SignatureRampGA1.htm
No you won't, the ramp doesn't look like that anymore, and Part 91 is no longer
welcome there (not Signature's doing).
George R. Patterson III
"Jeff T." wrote:
>
> Flying to Logan was definitely very memorable though. After we landed, the
> tower called us and said "keep going down the runway, you still have atleast
> another mile to go!"
There used to be a running joke in Boston that the airport authorities
were trying to extend the runway far enough that the planes wouldn't
have to take off to get to Ireland.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
HECTOP
> No you won't, the ramp doesn't look like that anymore, and Part 91 is no longer
> welcome there (not Signature's doing).
Dropped a word there, it was supposed to read "I will miss DCA". But from what I've
found out this Saturday, not that all those TFR's are written in stone. If you ask
right, you can get in and out of pretty much any restricted airspace/airfield, the
key words being - "with ATC clearance or prior permission".
Mike Rapoport
Mike
MU-2
"Patric Barry" <p...@ktb.com> wrote in message
news:3BFB3356...@ktb.com...
Mike Rapoport
often market to the crew of the airplane and not the passengers/owners.
Things like free crew cars with XXX gallons, free lift tickets ect.
Mike
MU-2
"C J Campbell" <christopherc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PgPK7.53598$XJ4.32...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
Ron Natalie
Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> One of the things I have noticed about some high-priced FBOs is that they
> often market to the crew of the airplane and not the passengers/owners.
> Things like free crew cars with XXX gallons, free lift tickets ect.
>
Well, most likely it is because it is the crew that makes the decision
as to what facility to use.
My only major gripe with Signature is the extortion the exact when they
are the only way from the movement area off the airport. Given a choice
at most airports, I'll choose any FBO other than Signature due to their
levy of the "lack of competition charge" at places where they have the
monopoly.
Tina Marie
Ron Rapp <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote:
>Anyone interested in starting a campaign to boycott Signature Flight
>Support? I'm really getting pissed off that GA pilots are paying
>these prices and not raising hell. If they don't start speaking up
I don't mind paying the prices for the service. I've always gotten
good service from them.
I go to Signature when I need something and I'm at a strange field.
For example, a few months ago, I went to Atlanta. I landed at PDK
at midnight, exhausted, and when tower asked me for parking, I said
"Signature". While I took care of the plane, they got me a rental car
and a hotel room. When I got back in the morning, I left the car in
the parking lot and went on my way.
If I had wanted cheap gas, I could have found it, I'm sure - checked
AirNav before I left, printed out a list of outlying fields, and saved
$1 a gallon. But too many times, I've gotten places and the FBO was
closed, the self-serve pumps weren't working, there wasn't a phone to
call to get a cab to a motel....
Sometimes Signature is worth the money.
Tina Marie
--
Sometimes I think the Game of Life (tm) is missing a few pieces and one of
the dice is lost under the refrigerator. -- PapaBear, in alt.poly.
http://www.neosoft.com/~tina
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>Can you explain to us why thats a problem ? You could just make
>an extra stop an N. Vegas.
If you don't purchase any fuel at Signature, they ding you for
additional fees. So it would offset the cost savings of filling up at
VGT.
>Personally I would not fly into there. They are trying to be an
>international airport, they don't really like light aircraft anymore.
>N. Vegas seems the way to go.
I know they don't like light aircraft. That's part of the problem.
They shouldn't be dictating whether or not we can fly into McCarran.
We should be able to fly in there whether they like us or not.
I wouldn't mind Signature so much if there was an alternative, but as
some have noted, many airports have ony one or two FBOs nowadays, and
no public transient parking area, so if you land in a particular town,
guess what? You HAVE to patronize Signature, or Mercury, or whoever
literally "owns" the place.
I'm really quite surprised that $4.00 a gallon doesn't seem to bother
very many people. But auto fuel at $1.50 makes people go absolutely
insane.
--Ron
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>I don't know how customers can possibly hope to dictate the price to
>fuel dispensers, but contacting the petroleum company whose product
>they dispense might get some attention.
GA has a few things going for it in that department. About 90% of all
the airplanes out there are GA, so we have a lot strength in numbers.
And if enough people boycott that kind of pricing, it creates a PR or
marketing problem for the companies that are charging $4.00 a gallon
while fuel is being sold for half that price a couple of miles away.
It's not going to stop at $4.00 a gallon. It'll hit $5, then $6.
I wonder at what price people will begin to complain. Perhaps they
never will. Pilots can be like sheep in that way.
I started flying my own airplane about two years ago, and I used to be
able to get fuel from Signature for $2 a gallon at any time, not just
on a weekend, IF I bought enough fuel and IF I paid their other fees.
And the service was better, too.
I feel that we're (or at least, I) am paying more and more money for
less and less service at Signature, while the alternatives available
for either fueling or parking at many airports have been removed. And
then there's the pricing discrepancy.
So what has changed? The only thing I can see is that Signature has
built a lot of big glass and steel buildings for their FBOs and needs
to pay for them.
Maybe if the fuel was cheaper we could afford to fly more. We'd be
better,safer pilots and we'd patronize them willingly, not simply
because they are the only game in town.
--Ron
Ron Rapp
>Corona $1.99 and Chino is $2.24, and N Las Vegas is $2.04 - Tonopah is
>$2.24.
>
>Don't go to Reno - it'll make MacCarran look affordable.
>
>They don't want your business - they want the lear or Gulfstream and
>they charge what they want. They don't care that N Las Vegas is cheaper
>- they sincerely don't want you on the Vegas ramp - this has been said
>many times - what they want is wealthy turbine equipment that doesn't
>care.
Patric,
Check out Signature's Jet A prices. They're just as outrageous as the
100LL costs. Even the big guys are paying through the nose. I love
the Signature web sit "discount rate" page. If you buy a half a
million gallons of fuel, you'll get a decent discount! Thank
goodness, aviation is saved! :)
--Ron
Ron Rapp
>Then go somewhere else.
I don't want to go somewhere else. What I want is to be able to use
the public airports in this country without being forced into giving
my business to a company like Signature.
I figure all these airports have accepted federal airport improvement
funding. That's a lot of cash, and it came out of OUR pockets. We
already pay taxes on everything from owning the airplane to renting
the tiedown to buying fuel, so we're adding to the kitty that way.
Airports with only one or two FBOs should have a transient parking
area that's not associated with either FBO. If Signature only wants
the rich guys, they can have them. I just want a place to park at an
airport I'm already supporting, and do it without having my pocketbook
drained the moment my wheels touch the runway.
>Sounds like they are trying to discourage piston business. I guess we
>should take the hint and go to Henderson or North Las Vegas. At John Wayne
>you could start going to LGB and join the fuel farm club. According to
>AirNav their at 2.32/gal.
I'm based at John Wayne.
I refuel at AJO whenever possible.
John Wayne is not that bad if you're based there because you can land
and park and not pay any ramp fees, tiedown fees, overnight fees,
handling fees, etc.
I buy my fuel at SNA from Newport Jet Center, it's something like
$2.60 a gallon if you're based on the field. It's not cheap, but it's
a long ways from $3.77 a gallon!
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>In article <3bfac27f.80537647@news>,
>Ron Rapp <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote:
>>Anyone interested in starting a campaign to boycott Signature Flight
>>Support? I'm really getting pissed off that GA pilots are paying
>>these prices and not raising hell. If they don't start speaking up
>
>I don't mind paying the prices for the service. I've always gotten
>good service from them.
I'm glad you're happy with them. Maybe it's just me.
Let me ask you a question. At what price would Signature become
offensive to you? $5 a gallon? $6? I'm wondering where the
threshhold is, if there is one.
>I go to Signature when I need something and I'm at a strange field.
>For example, a few months ago, I went to Atlanta. I landed at PDK
>at midnight, exhausted, and when tower asked me for parking, I said
>"Signature". While I took care of the plane, they got me a rental car
>and a hotel room. When I got back in the morning, I left the car in
>the parking lot and went on my way.
>
>If I had wanted cheap gas, I could have found it, I'm sure - checked
>AirNav before I left, printed out a list of outlying fields, and saved
>$1 a gallon. But too many times, I've gotten places and the FBO was
>closed, the self-serve pumps weren't working, there wasn't a phone to
>call to get a cab to a motel....
I've never run into a self-serve pump that was closed, and I have a
cellphone, so I guess my experiences have been a little different. :)
I prefer to fuel the plane myself--not that I don't trust someone
else, but I don't. :)
--Ron
John Clonts
HECTOP <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote in message
news:LnQK7.51924$Y6.58...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
> In rec.aviation.piloting Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
> > No you won't, the ramp doesn't look like that anymore, and Part 91 is no
longer
> > welcome there (not Signature's doing).
>
> Dropped a word there, it was supposed to read "I will miss DCA". But from
what I've
> found out this Saturday, not that all those TFR's are written in stone. If
you ask
> right, you can get in and out of pretty much any restricted
airspace/airfield, the
> key words being - "with ATC clearance or prior permission".
>
>
I'm curious, how do you "ask right"?
Cheers,
John
Tina Marie
Ron Rapp <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote:
>Let me ask you a question. At what price would Signature become
>offensive to you? $5 a gallon? $6? I'm wondering where the
>threshhold is, if there is one.
That night in Atlanta? $5, and I wouldn't have filled the tanks.
I hold 36 gallons, and rarely need more then 20. So if I paid
$2.50 a gallon more, but saved myself $50 in cab fare, I come
out okay. Much more then that, and I'll deal with the hassle
myself.
>I've never run into a self-serve pump that was closed, and I have a
>cellphone, so I guess my experiences have been a little different. :)
I, too, have a cellphone. In Paris, TN, it couldn't get a signal, the
self-service pump was roped off because they'd just poured new concrete
around it, and the local cab service (which my SO had been assured
was there by the FBO the day before!) stopped at 10pm. We got there at 11.
The motel finally agreed to send a limo - $100 one way. That night, I'd
have paid more then $5 a gallon and been way ahead.
I can't tell you the number of times I've stopped for fuel where
there wasn't any. Some little airport in Arkansas, the AFD said
they were open on weekends and had gas. I stopped at noon on a Saturday,
and, well, they had a pump. It was locked, and there was noone in the FBO.
Luckily, there was a guy there with his LongEZ who had a key and let me
leave a check for the gas I needed. He said the FBO hadn't been attended
in 'just ages', but the local guys and frequent transients just
had keys.
I have at least half a dozen stories like that. At noon on a Saturday,
with 15 gallons in my tank, they're just funny. At night, when I've
flown all day, am down to my last hour of gas, I want a 24-hour FBO,
at a reasonably-sized airport, where I don't have to deal with that
crap. And Signature gives me that, reliably.
>I prefer to fuel the plane myself--not that I don't trust someone
>else, but I don't. :)
I prefer to pump it myself, but I will let someone do it occasionally.
Don't get me wrong here - I don't like having to pay through the nose
for gas. But I'm glad Signature and the like (my favorite FBO is
TacAir, by a long shot) exist for those times when I'm willing to pay
more for the better service.
RossPilot
plenty of amenities. I only hold 36 gallons, and like Tina, seldom can squeeze
in more than 20 at a time. I can't say I have any beef with them . . . but
I've never flown into MaCarran.
My favorite is Raytheon in Tampa Int'l . . . by far the most outstanding
service and facility for GA I have ever been to.
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>I have at least half a dozen stories like that. At noon on a Saturday,
>with 15 gallons in my tank, they're just funny. At night, when I've
>flown all day, am down to my last hour of gas, I want a 24-hour FBO,
>at a reasonably-sized airport, where I don't have to deal with that
>crap. And Signature gives me that, reliably.
Well, then I guess Signature is a good match for you. I haven't run
into as many situations where I'm not getting any cell service, the
pumps are locked, no cab service, etc., but I have arrived at
Signature and other FBOs before after flying all day, and getting hit
with all those fees and high fuel prices on top of it is just an awful
way to end what should otherwise be a great day.
Arriving at Galvin Flying Service in Seattle was like that. I had
flown the Skylane up from L.A. Next time I flew to Seattle I landed
at Crest Airpark, where I paid a couple of bucks per day to tiedown
and got to hang out with the Red Baron Stearman guys (who actually
helped me unload my airplane! I don't know what they were doing at
that tiny airport...)
If you like Signature, try Newport Jet Center if you're ever at John
Wayne Airport. I do like their service.
>>I prefer to fuel the plane myself--not that I don't trust someone
>>else, but I don't. :)
>
>I prefer to pump it myself, but I will let someone do it occasionally.
Yeah, it can pay to watch them closely or do it yourself, especially
if you've got bladder tanks that can be gouged, or a T210 with tanks
that are not very deep, etc.
>Don't get me wrong here - I don't like having to pay through the nose
>for gas. But I'm glad Signature and the like (my favorite FBO is
>TacAir, by a long shot) exist for those times when I'm willing to pay
>more for the better service.
Sometimes I don't mind it either. If I've got three people with me,
and we're out to really have a high class, good time, I'll pay for the
bells and whistles.
I do wish I didn't have to pay for it all the time, though. :(
--Ron
C J Campbell
use certain facilities. The dispatcher usually tells the pilots where to go.
Corporate and individual flight departments also aggressively manage their
costs. The last people to have any input in what facilities they use would
have to be the pilots.
"Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3BFBD872...@sensor.com...
Larry Dighera
(Ron Rapp) wrote in Message ID <3bfbf396.1534795@news>:
>On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:24:41 GMT, Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I don't know how customers can possibly hope to dictate the price to
>>fuel dispensers, but contacting the petroleum company whose product
>>they dispense might get some attention.
>
>GA has a few things going for it in that department. About 90% of all
>the airplanes out there are GA, so we have a lot strength in numbers.
>And if enough people boycott that kind of pricing, it creates a PR or
>marketing problem for the companies that are charging $4.00 a gallon
>while fuel is being sold for half that price a couple of miles away.
If it is clear that Signature has increased their price on AvGas in an
apparent attempt to discourage piston aircraft pilots from patronizing
their operation, how will boycotting Signature change their policy?
>It's not going to stop at $4.00 a gallon. It'll hit $5, then $6.
I wonder if Chevron (or whatever brand of AvGas Signature dispenses)
is aware that one of their retailers is price gouging. Would Chevron
permit their customer (Signature) to price their (Chevron's) product
at such a high price that it tarnished Chevron's image in the
marketplace? It is the petroleum refiner who has the clout to manage
the situation. That is where the action should be taken IMHO.
Attempting to change Signature's policy directly is most likely to
fall on deaf ears, and a boycott of Signature by the element
(single-engine piston aircraft) is giving them what they want, not
bringing pressure on them to change their policy.
>I wonder at what price people will begin to complain. Perhaps they
>never will. Pilots can be like sheep in that way.
It's easy enough to make a fuel stop at a nearby airport with more
reasonable prices if you find Signature's offensive.
Also, Signature provides little service-feedback cards for their
customers use. That might be a good place to start, but I really
think that making the petroleum refiner aware of the distasteful price
gouging that Signature is associating with their product may have more
impact.
Javier Henderson
SFO is a great example of that. The airport has a $25 landing fee. The
only GA FBO there is Signature, which charges a processing fee to
collect the mandatory landing fee. There is no other way to pay that
landing fee, so you're screwed. On top of the processing fee, there's
a ramp fee, which is not waived with fuel purchase (at least at GA
piston single levels) and which is assessed even if you're there long
enough to drop a pax. The whole joke comes to $110 as I recall.
-jav
Jon Carlson
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:16:39 GMT, "JerryK" <jer...@acrues.com>
wrote:
>
> >Then go somewhere else.
>
> I don't want to go somewhere else. What I want is to be able to use
> the public airports in this country without being forced into giving
> my business to a company like Signature.
>
When I first read this thread, I kind of agreed with Jerry - just go
somewhere else (i.e. don't buy their fuel). I didn't realize you meant
there were no options for places to park. That being the case I agree
with you - an airport should have public transient parking.
Of course, sometimes the ramp/landing/etc fees are levied by the
airport and just collected by the FBO. Could that be the case?
> I'm based at John Wayne.
>
> I refuel at AJO whenever possible.
>
> John Wayne is not that bad if you're based there because you can
land
> and park and not pay any ramp fees, tiedown fees, overnight fees,
> handling fees, etc.
>
> I buy my fuel at SNA from Newport Jet Center, it's something like
> $2.60 a gallon if you're based on the field. It's not cheap, but
it's
> a long ways from $3.77 a gallon!
>
>
When I stayed for the weekend at SNA recently at the Newport Jet
Center, I got gas (at $2.60 it's less than what I pay at home) and I
don't recall any other fees... I didn't think it was a bad deal at
all.
So if I didn't buy gas are there lots of other fees?
-Jon C.
Jeff Cook
> > So if I didn't buy gas are there lots of other fees
If you don't buy A LOT of gas, there are A LOT of fees. Minimum fuel
purchase for my 172P (40 gal capacity) was 18 gallons, or they'd hit me
with the extra service fees. It would actually have been better for me
to buy the 18 gallons and not take all of it than to pay the fees, but
of course they wouldn't let me do that.
--
Jeff Cook
je...@cookstudios.com
http://www.cookstudios.com
Video, Audio, Print & the Web
Washington DC & London
Steve
$4/gal if it would get things back to normal!
I don't know if anyone else noticed the 3/4 page ad in "GA News" from AOPA,
saying "When the tragic events of 9/11 grounded all aviation, AOPA was there
to get you back in the air as soon as possible". I am a member of AOPA,
and I have donated to many of their special interest groups, including the
PAC and safety group in the past, but it really strikes me as a smack int he
face when they imply that they're done, and everything is OK again. How
ironic it is that FDK, where AOPA is based, is only a few miles outside the
DC tri-space class B. I bet if AOPA were still grounded, their attitude
would be different!
Go fly for me today out in Iowa.. I'll be stuck home thinking about what a
threat I am to the national security! :-)
-Steve
"Jay Honeck" <jjhonec...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ghCK7.36693$gQ1.14...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> We're still pulling for ya here in Iowa -- wish there was something we
could
> do to help.
Jay Honeck
a
> threat I am to the national security! :-)
We feel your pain, buddy. I would have gone NUTS by now!
No flying today, though -- the weather SUCKS here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Warrior N33431
Trevor Fenn
<NTPL7.43523$RG1.22...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>:
>>Of course, sometimes the ramp/landing/etc fees are levied by the
>airport and just collected by the FBO. Could that be the case?
>
yes absolutely.
At BWI Signature has the responsibility to collect landing fees for the
Maryland Aviation Administration and they cannot be waived. Come to
Signature at BWI on the right days and you'll get free omelettes and ice
cream.
If you don't want to pay any fees to Signature there's a host of other
airports in the area.
--
Trevor Fenn
To Email me add an extra green to the address above.
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"
The Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key
Trevor Fenn
Well I've followed this thread as far as I can with some amusement.
As a Signature employee (but not an FBO employee) I listen all day long to
the air to ground frequency at my airport and frankly I'm amazed at some of
the demands that GA pilots come out with. If only SOME of you knew how good
you had it compared to other parts of the world. When I left Australia in
1996 and moved to the US there was only one FBO in Australia. Personally I
used to fly what is reputed to be the worlds longest mail run in outback
Australia. This run was a two day trip covering approx 2400 miles making 9
stops northbound and 16 stops southbound the next day. This would see the
(single) pilot load mail and cargo and passengers at Port Augusta and Leigh
Creek on the way up and at Boulia for the run back. There will be four fuel
stops where the pilot will refuel out of drums which he will manhandle to
the plane and then pump dry using a hand pump. During the summer months
this will take place in up to 120 degree heat. Top this off with
sightseeing tourists and the demands they make, especially those who aren't
aware of what to expect. "the bathroom is around the other side of the
plane, we'll all stay on this side till you come back"
The flight being an airline flight requires full communications the whole
time so HF radio is used from about 100 miles out of leigh CReek until
returning there the next day. Most of the stops were cattle ranches so the
"terminal" is nothing more than an old refridgerator laying on it's back.
This serves double duty, you have somewhere to place the supplies if no-one
is meeting the plane and it gives you somewhere to sit for a minute and
enjoy the peace and silence of the outback.
So I guess you're right, the facilities at Boston may not be the best,
but then Baltimore is all new. Sure we can't have that limo drive out to
your plane anymore but blame Osama Bin Laden for that, not Signature.
Maybe we should have two levels of service one for the cash laden
corporate customers and a different level for the private pilot/owner to
whom a '71 chevelle crew car is as good or better than a 2001 Escort.
As a pilot myself though I will agree on one point, being able to fly to
almost any airport and park in a public park and tend to one's own needs is
something that this country sadly lacks unless you want to go to the
smallest airports.
Just my 2 cents worth
Jay Honeck
or two to share...hope to hear them!
> Maybe we should have two levels of service one for the cash laden
> corporate customers and a different level for the private pilot/owner to
> whom a '71 chevelle crew car is as good or better than a 2001 Escort.
Actually, a Chevelle SS396 would make a GREAT crew car! Way better than a
little Ford...
> As a pilot myself though I will agree on one point, being able to fly to
> almost any airport and park in a public park and tend to one's own needs
is
> something that this country sadly lacks unless you want to go to the
> smallest airports.
Um, I've got news for you Trevor -- you just described 98% of the airports
in this country. It's extraordinarily rare to find an airport anywhere (at
least in the mid-West) that provides the level of support that you and
others describe.
The few times I've had the pleasure of using Signature FBOs, I've been
absolutely blown away by the service. Sure, it costs more, but driving a
brand-new sedan -- all afternoon -- without question, made it worthwhile to
me.
Jeff Cook
> > If you don't want to pay any fees to Signature there's a host of
other
> airports in the area
Other airports? That's the solution?!? Allow alternatives in the same
location, please, and then they can all charge whatever they want
to...then competitors will establish what the market value actually is.
The rest is coercive.
Ron Rapp
wrote:
Javier,
Actually, I just called Signature SFO. They said I'd end up paying a
$99 landing fee, $36 parking fee, $45 ramp fee, $20 handling charge,
and there would also be a charge every 8 hours I was on the ramp. It
took a while to explain that my Cessna 182 was not capable of taking
100 gallons to waive the charge, and that no, I was not flying a
Cessna 411 either. It was a single engine piston aircraft. "So
that's a Citation?" Uh, no. It's a light single, a spam can... ah:
"It's like a Cub". That usually works. (That's another beef, FBO
employees who can't tell the difference between a Gulfstream and a
Mooney).
So that's an even $200 to land at SFO, plus the price of fuel.
For $200, I can buy two round trip tickets to SFO.
--Ron
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 18:40:43 GMT, ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please
>(Ron Rapp) wrote in Message ID <3bfbf396.1534795@news>:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:24:41 GMT, Larry Dighera <LDig...@att.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know how customers can possibly hope to dictate the price to
>>>fuel dispensers, but contacting the petroleum company whose product
>>>they dispense might get some attention.
>>
>>GA has a few things going for it in that department. About 90% of all
>>the airplanes out there are GA, so we have a lot strength in numbers.
>>And if enough people boycott that kind of pricing, it creates a PR or
>>marketing problem for the companies that are charging $4.00 a gallon
>>while fuel is being sold for half that price a couple of miles away.
>
>If it is clear that Signature has increased their price on AvGas in an
>apparent attempt to discourage piston aircraft pilots from patronizing
>their operation, how will boycotting Signature change their policy?
Good question. I'm thinking that bad publicity goes a long way.
Perhaps not long enough, but over time Signature is going to get a bad
reputation, and there are enough GA pilots who will one day own or fly
a Signature-class (for lack of a better word) aircraft that this is
going to come back and bite Signature.
It might be possible to get the Jet A crowd to stop using Signature as
well. I was looking at Airnav and noticed that the Jet-A prices are
also quite high.
Of course, as long as Signature is the only game in town at some
airports, it's going to be impossible to impact them at all in those
locations. If you land at Anytown USA and the only place to tiedown
or buy fuel is at Signature, you've got no choice.
>>It's not going to stop at $4.00 a gallon. It'll hit $5, then $6.
>
>I wonder if Chevron (or whatever brand of AvGas Signature dispenses)
>is aware that one of their retailers is price gouging. Would Chevron
>permit their customer (Signature) to price their (Chevron's) product
>at such a high price that it tarnished Chevron's image in the
>marketplace? It is the petroleum refiner who has the clout to manage
>the situation. That is where the action should be taken IMHO.
>
>Attempting to change Signature's policy directly is most likely to
>fall on deaf ears, and a boycott of Signature by the element
>(single-engine piston aircraft) is giving them what they want, not
>bringing pressure on them to change their policy.
Perhaps you're right. However, I think the refiner (Chevron, Texaco,
etc) is out of the picture to most pilots, ie. they don't really pay
much attention to what particular brand the fuel happens to be.
>>I wonder at what price people will begin to complain. Perhaps they
>>never will. Pilots can be like sheep in that way.
>
>It's easy enough to make a fuel stop at a nearby airport with more
>reasonable prices if you find Signature's offensive.
Excellent idea, and I do that wherever possible. When I'm carrying
passengers or am on an AngelFlight, for example, I try to
inconvenience them as little as possible, and so I do end up paying
the higher prices. Ugh.
>Also, Signature provides little service-feedback cards for their
>customers use. That might be a good place to start, but I really
>think that making the petroleum refiner aware of the distasteful price
>gouging that Signature is associating with their product may have more
>impact.
I've tried to contact Signature several ways. I was treated poorly at
one of their FBOs a couple of years ago, and attempted to phone the
FBO manager there to let him know about it. I wasn't upset, I know
there are sub-par employees or people who have bad days in every
business, but I thought he'd probably want to know if a customer
wasn't happy with something. Never heard a thing and never was able
to get in touch with him.
I've written to Signature's VP for Marketing a couple of times. No
response.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Signature is a subsidiary of BBA
Group PLC, and only one part of their overall operation. And I'm a
small cog in a small wheel, so why should they care?
--Ron
Ron Rapp
<jonca...@h-o-m-e-n-o-s-p-a-m.com> wrote:
>"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
>news:3bfbf5ec.2132412@news...
>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:16:39 GMT, "JerryK" <jer...@acrues.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >Then go somewhere else.
>>
>> I don't want to go somewhere else. What I want is to be able to use
>> the public airports in this country without being forced into giving
>> my business to a company like Signature.
>>
>
>When I first read this thread, I kind of agreed with Jerry - just go
>somewhere else (i.e. don't buy their fuel). I didn't realize you meant
>there were no options for places to park. That being the case I agree
>with you - an airport should have public transient parking.
Absolutely. If that were the case, the FBOs would have to cut down on
some of the fees, since the high prices would drive people to free
parking. If they want to charge people fees, they'll have to provide
a service commensurate with the asking price. That seems fair to me.
And that way, pilots don't get hit up for a $20 "ramp fee" when
they're shutting down the engine for 2 minutes to unload a passenger
or use the restroom. Signature has done that at SNA.
>Of course, sometimes the ramp/landing/etc fees are levied by the
>airport and just collected by the FBO. Could that be the case?
Yes, some of the fees are levied by the airport and collected by the
FBO. However, the total sum of ramp fees, landing fees, overnight
fees, parking fees, handling fees, etc. quickly gets excessive.
If the FBO was interested in really serving customers, they would use
their leverage as a major tenant of the airport to go to bat on behalf
of customers and get the fees reduced or eliminated. Or they'd cut
their own fees, especially since they are well aware that transient
pilots are forced to use their FBO when there's no public transient
parking provided on the airport.
>> I'm based at John Wayne.
>>
>> I refuel at AJO whenever possible.
>>
>> John Wayne is not that bad if you're based there because you can
>land
>> and park and not pay any ramp fees, tiedown fees, overnight fees,
>> handling fees, etc.
>>
>> I buy my fuel at SNA from Newport Jet Center, it's something like
>> $2.60 a gallon if you're based on the field. It's not cheap, but
>> it's a long ways from $3.77 a gallon!
>
>When I stayed for the weekend at SNA recently at the Newport Jet
>Center, I got gas (at $2.60 it's less than what I pay at home) and I
>don't recall any other fees... I didn't think it was a bad deal at
>all.
>
>So if I didn't buy gas are there lots of other fees?
I'm not sure-there might be some. I know SNA has fewer fees than
other airports because of some county policies on those things.
Newport Jet Center doesn't seem to hit you up as hard, from what I
hear. Signature actually has TWO facilities at SNA, Signature East
(formerly AMR Combs) and Signature West.
SNA is a very reasonable airport when it comes to fees. The county
charges $5.00 a day for parking (source: www.ocair.com). I'm not
aware of any other county fees. Anything else you get charged is
going to be from the FBO.
--Ron
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>Trevor Fenn <twog...@starpower.net
>> > If you don't want to pay any fees to Signature there's a host of
>other
>> airports in the area
>
>Other airports? That's the solution?!? Allow alternatives in the same
>location, please, and then they can all charge whatever they want
>to...then competitors will establish what the market value actually is.
>The rest is coercive.
Exactly. Even a free, public transient parking area would go a long
way toward fixing this problem. Perhaps we should get AOPA to lobby
for requiring airports that get federal funds to make a transient
parking area available.
--Ron
Ron Rapp
<jjhonec...@home.com> wrote:
>> As a pilot myself though I will agree on one point, being able to fly to
>> almost any airport and park in a public park and tend to one's own needs
>is
>> something that this country sadly lacks unless you want to go to the
>> smallest airports.
>
>Um, I've got news for you Trevor -- you just described 98% of the airports
>in this country. It's extraordinarily rare to find an airport anywhere (at
>least in the mid-West) that provides the level of support that you and
>others describe.
>
>The few times I've had the pleasure of using Signature FBOs, I've been
>absolutely blown away by the service. Sure, it costs more, but driving a
>brand-new sedan -- all afternoon -- without question, made it worthwhile to
>me.
Jay,
Wow, you got a crew car? At all the big FBOs I've been to, the crew
cars are either all gone, or reserved for the jet pilots (ie. someone
who buys enough fuel).
I've been to a few rural airports that have crew cars. Oceano is
probably the most prominent. The airport next to the beach, has great
camping facilities (firewood, showers, laundry, they'll even setup a
tent for you!), and they have 2 or 3 cars you can take whenever you
want. They just leave the keys in 'em. And if they're gone they have
bikes you can ride around town. They're fun, friendly people running
a great airport.
I wish every airport was like that one.
--Ron
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>Thanks a lot. As someone who's STILL GROUNDED around DC, I would also pay
>$4/gal if it would get things back to normal!
I'll go ya one better: if it would get you back in the air, I would
actually patronize Signature Flight Support by choice. ;)
>I don't know if anyone else noticed the 3/4 page ad in "GA News" from AOPA,
>saying "When the tragic events of 9/11 grounded all aviation, AOPA was there
>to get you back in the air as soon as possible". I am a member of AOPA,
>and I have donated to many of their special interest groups, including the
>PAC and safety group in the past, but it really strikes me as a smack int he
>face when they imply that they're done, and everything is OK again. How
>ironic it is that FDK, where AOPA is based, is only a few miles outside the
>DC tri-space class B. I bet if AOPA were still grounded, their attitude
>would be different!
The last mile is always the hardest. The AOPA web site has some
comments from Boyer which seem encouraging (see "FAA Airspace Plan
Still Stalled" on their site). Of course, talk is cheap, and being
grounded is expensive... I really hope the FAA or whoever is running
the "show" gets the 'net soon.
--Ron
Peter Duniho
> It might be possible to get the Jet A crowd to stop using Signature as
> well. I was looking at Airnav and noticed that the Jet-A prices are
> also quite high.
I have been following this thread a bit. I have to admit, I'm a bit lost as
to what the big deal is. I just completed a drive around the US. Took a
couple of months. We paid a wide variety of prices for autofuel. The most
expensive fuel was almost double the least expensive fuel.
I did get a bit peeved at the high prices, but it sure didn't prompt me to
argue for a boycott. I just bought the minimum amount of fuel I could at
that location (sometimes that meant not buying any at all), and waited until
I found more reasonably-priced fuel.
Obviously, it's a little less convenient to buy fuel cheaply when you're
dealing with airplanes, but the basic premise still holds. Don't like the
prices at Signature at McCarran? There are two other airports nearby with
much less expensive fuel and parking. You can either pay the taxi driver or
you can pay Signature. If you *really* think Signature needs some
competition, start your own FBO (or talk someone else into starting one
:) ).
Pete
Ron Natalie
Jonking.
>
> Of course, sometimes the ramp/landing/etc fees are levied by the
> airport and just collected by the FBO. Could that be the case?
>
Some of the fees are airport fees, however the specific ones
we are talking about are fees specifically levied due to the
fact that they have a monopoly at that facility.
Ron Natalie
Trevor Fenn wrote:
=
>
> yes absolutely.
> At BWI Signature has the responsibility to collect landing fees for the
> Maryland Aviation Administration and they cannot be waived. Come to
> Signature at BWI on the right days and you'll get free omelettes and ice
> cream.
>
> If you don't want to pay any fees to Signature there's a host of other
> airports in the area.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Signature at BWI in addition to collecting the money for the
state (a parking fee and a landing fee) will tack on $20.00 for themselves
if you don't buy enough fuel. There's no way around it, and it's a real
pisser when I was working with the old Westinghouse facility. THere's
no way I can burn enough fuel enroute to buy enough there toi get around
their lack of competition fee.
Signature is a nationally a bunch of two-faced crooks. They actually made
a big deal of abolishing these fees a while back, getting a lot of good
press in places like AOPAPilot in the process, but they came back silently
within the year.
HECTOP
> a big deal of abolishing these fees a while back, getting a lot of good
Have you considered the cost of operating a business at major airports? The
money and kickbacks changing hands "working in" one's way into operating
anything on one or another "Public Airport Authority" property? If you're
calling Signature crooks, let's be honest all the way and start with the
roots of the problem. Signature is in business of catering to major profitable
clients and as long as there's free economy they don't have to serve any
other niche market at their own expense. Anyone who wants to serve lower-margin
GA market at major airport can go through all the circles of hell getting their
business onto an airport property and then see for himself what he's in for.
Many FBO's at GA fields are living hand to mouth without all the extra "port
authority" overhead, now what makes you think they'll survive at a major airport.
Reality?
--
--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com
Ron Natalie
HECTOP wrote:
>
> In rec.aviation.piloting Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
> > Signature is a nationally a bunch of two-faced crooks. They actually made
> > a big deal of abolishing these fees a while back, getting a lot of good
>
> Have you considered the cost of operating a business at major airports?
Yes, and when you say one thing and do another, you are two-faced regardless
of the economics.
> The
> money and kickbacks changing hands "working in" one's way into operating
> anything on one or another "Public Airport Authority" property? If you're
> calling Signature crooks, let's be honest all the way and start with the
> roots of the problem.
At these airports Signature operates with essentially a government-sanctioned
monopoly. It's nothing even approximating a free-market situation. As a matter
of fact, you'll find that signature doesn't charge these fees when there is
competition on the field.
Dave Stadt
Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3C0264FC...@sensor.com...
I have seen a couple of cases where Signature "bailed" when competition was
introduced. Ought to tell us something.
>
Jon Carlson
there on an Angel Flight, you get to waive the fees (you should
confirm this ahead of time, of course!). Might be a way to get SFO
into the logbook.
Alternatively, if you come into KSQL sometime, there are no fees and I
could meet you for lunch. OK, it's not QUITE as exciting, but I'll
waive my usual "greeting fee" at the lunch counter... ;-)
-Jon C.
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
news:3c01ee76.375785803@news...
Peter Duniho
>
> Yes, and when you say one thing and do another, you are two-faced
regardless
> of the economics.
I don't see how that applies. From your own post, they did not say that
they had no fees at the same time that they had fees. When they said they
had no fees, they actually had no fees. How is that two-faced?
If I were running a business, and I had changed my fee structure so that
some or all of the fees were eliminated, you bet your patootie that I would
do my darndest to make sure all the press covered the fact that I was
eliminating fees. On the other hand, if I were running a business and found
for some reason that I needed to reinstate some or all of the fees, I sure
as heck am not going to make a big deal out of it.
Signature might be a "bunch of two-faced crooks", but so far you haven't
offered any proof of that, or even any suggestion as to how they might be.
Pete
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>Signature is in business of catering to major profitable
>clients and as long as there's free economy they don't have to serve any
>other niche market at their own expense.
That's true. If they only want to serve the jets, that's their
perogative. But when they're the only FBO at an airport, the only
ones selling fuel there, and they are the only place to park, it's not
much of a choice.
Maybe I'm being unreasonable here, but if the airport in question is a
public airport accepting public money to pave their runways, fix up
the ramp, add and maintain navigational aids, etc., then the place
should be open to the public that gave them the money in the first
place, and it should be open at a reasonable rate.
The monopoly some FBOs have at particular airports is a problem for
the smaller GA guys. And somehow, I just don't think "go to another
airport" is the solution.
--Ron
Ron Rapp
<jonca...@h-o-m-e-n-o-s-p-a-m.com> wrote:
>Ron - my (admittedly secondhand) understanding is that if you fly in
>there on an Angel Flight, you get to waive the fees (you should
>confirm this ahead of time, of course!). Might be a way to get SFO
>into the logbook.
Hmmm... that's a thought! I haven't seen any AngelFlights into or out
of SFO, though. I don't suppose they'd buy the story that I was
stopping at SFO to pick up some cheap fuel as part of the mission...
:)
>Alternatively, if you come into KSQL sometime, there are no fees and I
>could meet you for lunch. OK, it's not QUITE as exciting, but I'll
>waive my usual "greeting fee" at the lunch counter... ;-)
That sounds like a deal! Actually, SQL is probably more exciting in a
good way. SFO is exciting in the I-hope-I-dont-get-run-over-by-a-747
way. ;)
--Ron
RossPilot
public airport accepting public money to pave their runways, fix up
the ramp, add and maintain navigational aids, etc., then the place
should be open to the public that gave them the money in the first
place, and it should be open at a reasonable rate.>>
Not unreasonable at all. I agree 100%.
But I also agree that Signature has always treated me OK at Boston, Albany and
other places where I have used it. It is always immaculate, has coffee,
popcorn,
and other stuff from time to time. I guess I don't feel the economic hit
because I am usually on an Angel Flight--and the fees are waived. Even with
the fuel discount, it is still over $3.00/gal.
Ron Rapp
<jonca...@h-o-m-e-n-o-s-p-a-m.com> wrote:
>Ron - my (admittedly secondhand) understanding is that if you fly in
>there on an Angel Flight, you get to waive the fees (you should
>confirm this ahead of time, of course!). Might be a way to get SFO
>into the logbook.
I forgot to mention another pet peeve with FBOs: some of them have
refused to honor a commitment to waiving a fee for an AngelFlight.
Mercury at Burbank, CA has done that to me.
I called to ask if they would consider waiving the handling fee since
I was going to be picking up a child and her mother for an
AngelFlight, and with the short flight from SNA to BUR, I wouldn't be
able to take on anywhere near enough fuel to meet their minimums. The
woman I spoke to said she'd have to check with the manager, which she
did, and said it would be fine. I gave her my tail number.
So I land there the next day, and no one has heard of me. Waive a
fee? Sorry, we don't do that, not even for AngelFlights.
Ever since then, I've been going to Media Aviation. I can write off
most of the stuff I go up there for, since it's writing meetings or
AngelFlights, etc. But it sure gets irritating.
In Mercury's defense, they did offer me a cookie as I paid the $25 (or
whatever it was) fee.
Sometimes the big chain FBOs remind me of the U.S. government during
the whole enhanced Class B thing. The left hand doesn't know what the
right hand is doing. :)
--Ron
HECTOP
> public airport accepting public money to pave their runways, fix up
> the ramp, add and maintain navigational aids, etc., then the place
As I said before being "a public airport accepting public money" and being
managed by a public agency (usually one or another kind of port authority)
is actually the root of the problem that is beyond the scope of just aviation
issues discussion. It's the kind of mob you really don't want to take on, quite
often more powerful than local governments of cities/counties they operate in.
And Signature is actually all the way on the bottom of that whole bigger food
chain and are there to make their buck while paying back for the privilege to
operate at one or another airport. Just look at any major hub, see all the
monorail building contractors, security contractors, livery/limo companies,
etc etc, the whole beehive feeding on that big bowl of honey, and they all
want to be paid, they all have paid to get paid, and it's neverending scheme ;)
If you'd only imagine the break-up of that $20 you pay Sig for parking, and how
much of that money actually winds up in their profit, not to mention that they're
a part of a bigger public company (BBA) which has it's own priorities and
sharehold meetings to report to. Think big. Think positive ;)
RossPilot
>managed by a public agency (usually one or another kind of port authority)
>is actually the root of the problem that is beyond the scope of just aviation
>issues discussion. It's the kind of mob you really don't want to take on,
>quite
>often more powerful than local governments of cities/counties they operate
>in.
You've nailed it, Yury . . . this is the government entity known as the
"Authority". They have Port Authority, Bridge and Tunnel Authority, Power
Authority, Solid Waste Management Authority, Thruway Authority and many, many
others. They are giant bureaucracies that, once created by a legislature, are
answerable to no one . . . they have the power to tax and they can't be voted
out of office.
Mark Blackwell
can not be discrimatory. If the airport acccepts federal funds the fees
have to be fair. Charging a different fee for a different type of aircraft
is not discriminatory, but charging a $200 parking fee for a 172 and nothing
for a Lear might be. If that is the case the business and the airport could
be in violation of its grants and assurances that it gives to the feds for
receiving federal funding.
Memory is not like it once was but I believe it was Massport at Boston Logan
tried something like this with air carrier and general aviation aircraft to
free up more spots for the airlines to use. The FAA said that was a no no
and the airport had to redo its landing fee structure.
--
Mark Blackwell
http://www.aviatorsonestop.com
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
news:3c02c4f7.430707051@news...
vincent p. norris
"Free economy" and "monopoly" are contradictory terms, Hectop.
vince norris
Trevor Fenn
It will never happen at major airports post 9/11
HECTOP
> "Free economy" and "monopoly" are contradictory terms, Hectop.
And Signature is not a monopoly just because disgruntled spamcan
pilots think it is. Monopoly is when you don't have a choice,
anywhere you'd go you are faced with dealing with one and only
company. And the reality of capitalism is that there are poor
neighborhoods and the are rich neighborhoods and there is downtown,
where you pay $25 for an hour of parking whether you're poor or
rich, because the space is limited, and the that limited availability
against high demand creates a high price. And nobody can force
a downtown parking lot to park Yugos for $5 a day when they can
park Lexuses for $45, it's private business, and people have paid
through the nose for the opportunity to run that business and if
they don't want you as their customer, that's that, beat it and
park somewhere else where you can afford to. That maybe not fair,
that maybe not right to you, but wait till you have tried socialism
and everyone is forced to drive Yugos of the same color. You don't
come around to a five-star restaurant demanding value-meal seating,
that is about the same as coming to a major international hub to
a business that pays millions a year for that lease and right to
operate there and demand they cut out a free parking spot out
of their million-a-year per square feet real estate to accomodate
flying food stamps recepients.
Jon Carlson
Angel Flight patient at Mercury, and I wasn't charged any fees, didn't
buy any gas, and they let me use the crew car to go for lunch! Total
bill: $0.
You're right - the left doesn't know what the right's doing.
-Jon C.
"Ron Rapp" <ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please> wrote in message
news:3c02c4f7.430707051@news...
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
wrote:
>>.... as long as there's free economy.....
>
>"Free economy" and "monopoly" are contradictory terms, Hectop.
>
>vince norris
You got to be kidding.
The objective of every organization in a free economy is to destroy
the competition and become a monopoly.
That's why we have the Sherman Antitrust Law.
Jon Carlson
paid for by public funds. So it's not the same as a "downtown parking
lot ... private business" because it wasn't funded by an investment
(with some kind of inherent risk) by that private business, it was
funded by you and me paying taxes. We should be able to use that for
which we've already paid.
Yes, public parking lots frequently still charge fees, but they tend
not to be exhorbitant, and they have a mechanism (i.e. voting) by
which the decisions on what those fees are have some kind of
accountability. It may not be a terribly direct mechanism, but at
least it exists.
-Jon C.
"HECTOP" <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote in message
news:%fEM7.70815$Y6.78...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
HECTOP
> But Ron's point is that the airport property on which they operate is
> paid for by public funds. So it's not the same as a "downtown parking
Yes, but Signature is not to blame for the fact that they need to recover
the high costs of operating at major airports, they are paying exhorbitant
fees for their leases too, and if they won't, then their competitor will.
And who do they pay those money to? Right, as I said before the *port Authority
in charge. And if GA pilots feeling that they as a part of general public
are entitled to their own share of airport real estate, they should demand
it from that public authority and from not one of the private businesses on
the field which happens to be Signature whois is there to serve their
corporate clientelle and they are not in fault that the local airport
authority did not designate any areas as public parking for GA aircraft.
See my point?
HECTOP
> paid for by public funds. So it's not the same as a "downtown parking
Yes, but Signature is not to blame for the fact that they need to recover
high costs of operating at major airports, they are paying exhorbitant
fees for their leases too, and if they won't, then their competitor will.
And who do they pay those money to? Right, as I said before the *port Authority
in charge. And if GA pilots feeling that they as a part of general public
are entitled to their own share of airport real estate, they should demand
it from that public authority and not from one of the private businesses on
the field which happens to be Signature who is there to serve their
corporate clientelle and they are not in fault that the local airport
authority did not designate any areas as public parking for GA aircraft.
See my point?
Jon Carlson
> are entitled to their own share of airport real estate, they should
demand
> it from that public authority and not from one of the private
businesses on
> the field which happens to be Signature who is there to serve their
> corporate clientelle and they are not in fault that the local
airport
> authority did not designate any areas as public parking for GA
aircraft.
I agree wholeheartedly.
However, if the local airport authority has given Signature
"exclusive" concession rights at a given location, then Signature
should be regulated/limited as to the fees they can charge for the
basic right to park. Essentially they simply become a contractor for
the airport authority, and should be held to a similar standard.
-Jon C.
Jeff Cook
> wrote in message news:3c0201d9$1...@news.nwlink.com...
> I did get a bit peeved at the high prices, but it sure didn't prompt
me to
> argue for a boycott. I just bought the minimum amount of fuel I could
at
> that location (sometimes that meant not buying any at all), and waited
until
> I found more reasonably-priced fuel.
>
> competition, start your own FBO (or talk someone else into starting
one
Boy, you're really missing the boat here. The high cost of the fuel is
only a tiny, TINY part of the predatory billing you get at Signature.
The 'minimum' is at least half your capacity, you can be charged
$100-$200 just to get out and pee, and if you think no one wants the
opportunity to compete with Signature, you're pretty obviously wrong.
The trouble seems to be that other FBOs can't get in to compete.
--
Jeff Cook
je...@cookstudios.com
http://www.cookstudios.com
Video, Audio, Print & the Web
Washington DC & London
HECTOP
> "exclusive" concession rights at a given location, then Signature
> should be regulated/limited as to the fees they can charge for the
The basic idea is that Signature is a private business operating on
that authority property and paying back the money for doing so, they
are a private business and they don't have to provide free/cheap
parking to anyone, it's about the same as walking into a Starbucks
at one of the terminals demanding a free cup of latte. On the other
hand a Port Authority is usually a public entity which of course
should be providing services to the public and they are the ones
to be dealt with. And if you're are paying $8 to park a car on their
property for 2 hours, it's reasonable to believe they'll charge you
$20 to park a plane as well. And asking any of those PA's to regulate
anything is like asking Gambino Crime family to lower the price of
garbage collection in NYC (for example), fugghedaboutit....
dennis o'connor
different viewpoint... A case in point:
About 15 years ago I went to our county owned airport with a proposal
to build some badly needed Tee Hangars... I offered to to put up an
initial 30 units that summer...
I included my financing documents with the bank, my accountants
projections for the business model, and offered to have the books held
by a committee consisting of me, the county comptroller, and a bank
official so that there could be no complaints...
In return, I only wanted two things:
A single hangar space for myself at no charge... Which was to be my
total return on my investment of 0.35 million dollars for the 17 year
period that the business model predicted to pay off the loans...
And, the right of first refusal if there were to be more hangars
needed or constructed during the 17 year payout...
The county responded with a newspaper article that I was trying to
gouge the taxpayers and have a monopoly situation... And, they also
demanded that ownership of any buildings on airport property would
revert to them after 15 years... Needless to say, I did not build nay
hangars under those conditions and it was another ten years before the
county managed to get a bond issue to build the Tee Hangars (which
they did very poorly compared to what I had offered)... So, doing
business with an airport authority isn't as plush as it may look from
the outside... Those port authorities see to it that their nest is
feathered first...
Denny
Ron Natalie
Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> "Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
> news:3C0264FC...@sensor.com...
> > > Have you considered the cost of operating a business at major airports?
> >
> > Yes, and when you say one thing and do another, you are two-faced
> regardless
> > of the economics.
>
> I don't see how that applies. From your own post, they did not say that
> they had no fees at the same time that they had fees. When they said they
> had no fees, they actually had no fees. How is that two-faced?
They say they are a big friend to the small GA plane and make big thing
of abololishing the fees (showing people in AOPAPilot smashing a big
styrofoam thing that says Ramp Fees), and then silently bring htem back.
> If I were running a business, and I had changed my fee structure so that
> some or all of the fees were eliminated, you bet your patootie that I would
> do my darndest to make sure all the press covered the fact that I was
> eliminating fees. On the other hand, if I were running a business and found
> for some reason that I needed to reinstate some or all of the fees, I sure
> as heck am not going to make a big deal out of it.
Yep, exactly my point. They didn't even give the fees a chance. My guess is
that they never even intended on trying to see if it would make a goodwill
improvement in their business.
Ron Natalie
HECTOP wrote:
>
> In rec.aviation.piloting vincent p. norris <vp...@psu.edu> wrote:
> > "Free economy" and "monopoly" are contradictory terms, Hectop.
>
> And Signature is not a monopoly just because disgruntled spamcan
> pilots think it is. Monopoly is when you don't have a choice,
> anywhere you'd go you are faced with dealing with one and only
> company.
That is EXACTLY what Signature is at a lot of airports.
HECTOP
It's not Signature, it's Port Authority that is the MONOPOLY.
Signature is just one of the tenants running their business
catering to their clients, and they're kind enough to even
bother doing business with GA even though it gives them
almost no profit whatsoever, they really don't need your
measly twenty bucks, it costs them more bothering to. If you
want free parking, go ask the Port Authority (if you dare),
Signature doesn't owe you anything, neither does any other
business located at an airport who are paying their own
exhorbitant fees to the mob that runs the show.
Ron Natalie
HECTOP wrote:
>
> In rec.aviation.piloting Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
>
> > That is EXACTLY what Signature is at a lot of airports.
>
> It's not Signature, it's Port Authority that is the MONOPOLY.
The Port Authority is the government (almost always a monopoly).
Signature is a government mandated monopoly. Usually these type
of things are typically utilities and hence heavily regulated
by the government.
> They really don't need your
> measly twenty bucks, it costs them more bothering to.
If they don't want it, why do they charge it?
HECTOP
> If they don't want it, why do they charge it?
Because they're not in business of losing money. What makes
you think that the PA would give GA free or cheaper parking?
Edward Zager
Let's use the example of a major airpost near me. This airport used to have
two GA FBO's, and a city operated parking area. The overnight tie down fees
were $10 for a singe engine AC at all three places.
In the interest of expanding the airport, the city closed and demolished
their facility.
Now, the overnight tie down fees at the two remaining FBO's is $40. The fuel
prices have risen an additional 20% (compared to the "old" fuel prices when
normalized against the other area airports.
FBO's costs rising?!
Try FBO's greed rising.
Edward Zager Focke Wulf 149JZ
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>In rec.aviation.piloting Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
>> If they don't want it, why do they charge it?
>
>Because they're not in business of losing money. What makes
>you think that the PA would give GA free or cheaper parking?
Because we get free or cheaper parking at many airports, and because
we're already paying through taxes and other fees, plus we contribute
to the FBO (and therefore the PA) by purchasing fuel and services.
And because we're the public they're supposed to be serving (I know,
idealistic!).
The PA, or whoever runs an airport (out here it's the County of
Orange) isn't supposedly out there to make a profit, just to operate
the airport. Although the two aren't mutually exclusive. SNA is a
county operated airport and the fees are reasonable. $5 overnight, no
landing or parking fees.
--Ron
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>ron...@hotmail.com.nospam.please (Ron Rapp) wrote in
><3c01f442.377269698@news>:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:09:15 -0500, "Jeff Cook" <je...@cookstudios.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Trevor Fenn <twog...@starpower.net
>>>> > If you don't want to pay any fees to Signature there's a host of
>>>other
>>>> airports in the area
>>>
>>>Other airports? That's the solution?!? Allow alternatives in the same
>>>location, please, and then they can all charge whatever they want
>>>to...then competitors will establish what the market value actually is.
>>>The rest is coercive.
>>
>>Exactly. Even a free, public transient parking area would go a long
>>way toward fixing this problem. Perhaps we should get AOPA to lobby
>>for requiring airports that get federal funds to make a transient
>>parking area available.
>>
>>--Ron
>>
>
>It will never happen at major airports post 9/11
Why not?
Ron Rapp
wrote:
That's one of the things I've been trying to communicate to Signature
in my correspondence with them. Unfortunately, I have to assume my
emails, calls, and letters have ended up in the wastebasket since I've
received no response whatsoever.
That's ok. What I love most about Usenet is the fact that all the
messages stick around forever, so people can read these things over
and over. :)
Pilots pay a lot in order to fly, but they aren't stupid. I think
eventually this issue is going to hurt Signature Flight Support.
Maybe what we really need is a photo in AOPA Pilot of us smashing a
big styrofoam thing that says "Signature". ;)
--Ron
HECTOP
> Orange) isn't supposedly out there to make a profit, just to operate
Well it pretty much depends on that authority which is often independent
of cities/counties, and as often is the case can be an extremely powerful,
heavily leveraged by lobbies, unions and what not, agency that virtually
reports to nobody and often is at stakes with local governments. When
airports are run by local governments that also greatly depends on their
budget/financial structure, a well-off county might as well give away
free parking at their airports, on the other hand a county with a bloated
social services program (for example) can be out charging you for breathing
their air, not to mention putting out thugs on the road to collect the
road tax from people with out of state license plates (a widespread practice
in NJ for example) and other similar rackets. And a privately run business
is as always the lowest in this food chain, they're just outthere making a
buck on top of paying somebody off for that opportunity. In my opionion a
GA pilot's time would be better spent earning that extra buck to pay for
parking than taking on such authority and earning himself heck only knows
how many ulcers, heart attacks and enemies in high places. C'est la vie.
Jon Carlson
> that authority property and paying back the money for doing so, they
> are a private business and they don't have to provide free/cheap
> parking to anyone, it's about the same as walking into a Starbucks
> at one of the terminals demanding a free cup of latte.
The difference is that when you're walking through Grand Central on
your way to the train, you are not REQUIRED to pay for a latte - you
choose to do so because you want that service they're providing.
If Starbucks required you to pay a $5 fee for using the concourse
sidewalk outside the Starbucks, then this would begin to be analogous.
> On the other
> hand a Port Authority is usually a public entity which of course
> should be providing services to the public and they are the ones
> to be dealt with. And if you're are paying $8 to park a car on their
> property for 2 hours, it's reasonable to believe they'll charge you
> $20 to park a plane as well. And asking any of those PA's to
regulate
> anything is like asking Gambino Crime family to lower the price of
> garbage collection in NYC (for example), fugghedaboutit....
Maybe. But ultimately (sure it's a heckuva lot of work, but in theory
anyway...) they're responsible to voters (or to those who are
elected). So political pressure could be brought to bear to change the
policy.
-Jon C.
vincent p. norris
>
>And Signature is not a monopoly just because disgruntled spamcan
>pilots think it is. Monopoly is when you don't have a choice,
>anywhere you'd go you are faced with dealing with one and only
>company.
No, monopoly exists when there is only one seller in a given market.
There are about 1700 daily newspapers in the U.S., but in about 98% of
the cases there is only one newspaper in a given town or city.
That is monopoly.
If I live in Xville, it doesn't matter how many newspapers there are
in the U.S.; if there is only one in Xville, I have no choice; the
paper in Ytown doesn't serve my needs.
Similarly, if I need to go to Airport X, and Signature is the only
seller of fuel, it's a monopoly.
All economists dislike monopolies, because they not only rip off
consumers, but are bad for the economy in other ways.
See any elementary economics text for a fuller explanation.
vince norris
vincent p. norris
>>
>>vince norris
>
>
>You got to be kidding.
>
>The objective of every organization in a free economy is to destroy
>the competition and become a monopoly.
No, you're quite mistaken. The last thing GM wanted, some years ago,
was for Chrysler to go bankrupt. Firms want to preserve a *semblance*
of competition, to avoid regulation.
A nice cozy oligopoly is preferred by firms; they can engage in price
and quality leadership-followership, and collusion when no one's
looking, and everyone's happy.
They can call each other names (i.e., advertise) and people think
that's "competiton."
>
>That's why we have the Sherman Antitrust Law.
If that's the only one you know about, you haven't been doing your
homework. We have quite a few other laws, too. Yet concentration keeps
increasing.
vince norris
Jon Carlson
while. Sure things ain't perfect here either, but they're better....
:-)
-Jon C.
"HECTOP" <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote in message
news:vVQM7.72455$Y6.80...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
Larry Dighera
you dealt? Perhaps it's time to start a database of helpful
individuals at FBOs. Just at thought ...
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 04:54:15 GMT, "Jon Carlson"
<jonca...@h-o-m-e-n-o-s-p-a-m.com> wrote in Message ID
<X%EM7.49917$RG1.26...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>:
Jon Carlson
whoever was at the desk, and when I returned from lunch it was someone
different. Both were young women.
-Jon C.
"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:10o80u8a0kc6bp037...@4ax.com...
Larry Dighera
...
>> On the other
>> hand a Port Authority is usually a public entity which of course
>> should be providing services to the public and they are the ones
>> to be dealt with. And if you're are paying $8 to park a car on their
>> property for 2 hours, it's reasonable to believe they'll charge you
>> $20 to park a plane as well. And asking any of those PA's to
>regulate
>> anything is like asking Gambino Crime family to lower the price of
>> garbage collection in NYC (for example), fugghedaboutit....
>
>Maybe. But ultimately (sure it's a heckuva lot of work, but in theory
>anyway...) they're responsible to voters (or to those who are
>elected). So political pressure could be brought to bear to change the
>policy.
At SNA (John Wayne Airport, CA) the Department of Airports reports to
the (elected) County Board of Supervisors. The voters initiative to
stop conversion of the airport at the former El Toro Marine base into
an international airport was overwhelmingly successful in expressing
the citizens' rejection of the proposed new airport; subsequently the
board succeeded in finding a Los Angeles judge to overturn the
initiative and the voice of the people. It can be frustrating to
significantly impact those in power through legal remedy alone.
Ultimately, all parties need to work toward a common solution to the
issues, but that would call for thought and statesmanship, scarce
commodities indeed today in the halls of bureaucracy fraught with
hysterical self interest.
Here's a link that might spark some investigation:
http://www.faa.gov/arp/cats/finform0.htm
Here's the SNA revenue/expense sheet for 2000:
http://www.faa.gov/arp/cats/125.cfm?History_ID=2339
Airport Certification Regulations:
http://www.faa.gov/arp/arpcert.htm
Jeff Cook
> No, you're quite mistaken. The last thing GM wanted, some years ago,
> was for Chrysler to go bankrupt. Firms want to preserve a *semblance*
> of competition, to avoid regulation.
Which seemed to be the reason Microsoft floated money into Apple stock.
Jim Herring
> "vincent p. norris" <vp...@psu.edu>
> > No, you're quite mistaken. The last thing GM wanted, some years ago,
> > was for Chrysler to go bankrupt. Firms want to preserve a *semblance*
> > of competition, to avoid regulation.
>
> Which seemed to be the reason Microsoft floated money into Apple stock.
With which Apple promptly bought out a competitor (with a better Apple style
product) and closed it's doors.
--
Jim
carry on