Waypoints: Helping FBOs understand the ‘R’ word

AOPA has written extensively about the charging of egregious fees by FBOs at 40 to 50 important airports. The most challenging locations are those where an FBO holds a monopoly position on the airport, often with a decades-long lease for all available ramp space and often many or all hangars as well. Reminds me of the old days when mining towns existed. The mining company controlled all the jobs, housing, food supply, and other necessities for the employees, with predictably low wages and high prices.

One significant difference is that the mining company owned the property where it operated. FBOs, typically, are built on property that was bought with federal Airport Improvement Program funds supplied by the public and through fuel taxes paid by pilots. In addition, the ramps that monopoly FBOs control are typically built with those same AIP funds. When an airport agrees to accept those funds, it agrees to certain stipulations, one of which is that it ensure that the pricing practices of FBOs and other on-airport businesses are “reasonable and applied in a non-unjustly discriminatory manner.” There’s that “R” word again.

The pricing practices of some of these monopoly FBO locations have generated more than 1,000 complaints from AOPA members. If you’ve had a bad experience, report it to us online (www.aopa.org/fbofees). Reports of $200 and $300 simply to drop off a passenger—sometimes without even shutting the engine down—are not uncommon. In some locations, one can avoid paying the high fees by buying a certain volume of fuel. However, at these locations the fuel prices tend to be excessive, often $1 to $3 a gallon more than other airports in the region.

The logical question is, why not go to those other locations—let the “free market” work? Our response is that pilots should not have to forego the convenience of the publicly funded airport of their choosing just because an FBO has managed to lock up all of the available access. These FBOs’ monopoly positions eliminate any pretense of a free market, especially when they refuse to publish their fees—more on that in a moment. Airports are not like gas stations, restaurants, or hotels—all of which are privately funded and relatively easily built. Airports are publicly funded and require massive chunks of land. Such large areas of land are frequently no longer available near desirable locations, so an airport can’t be easily replicated. In addition, airports are part of a larger national aviation transportation system. High fees inhibit a community’s access to that system.

Adding to the frustration is the lack of transparency regarding the fees. Fuel pricing information these days is usually available online and through apps, although at these sorts of locations, many volume buyers are able to purchase fuel for less than the posted prices. Those of us buying smaller amounts must suck it up and pay the list price. However, in most cases, the cost of FBO ramp fees, infrastructure fees, security fees, and a host of others—many simply made up as a way to extract more money from pilots—are not posted anywhere. The FBOs say the solution is to call the individual location, as if in the twenty-first century that is somehow a reasonable request. What other product or service you utilize must you call ahead to find out what it might cost for you to show up at the business’s location? The reason they want you to call is that they have a complex matrix of fees based on the size of your aircraft, the value of your aircraft, and the amount of over-priced fuel you might purchase. As one observer pointed out, it’s as if the prices you pay at Walmart depend on whether you drive up in a Chevy or a Mercedes.

So in an effort to help you avoid having to make all those individual phone calls, AOPA has been attempting to make them for you, and to publish what we find as part of our online airport directory. Contacting more than 3,000 FBOs on a regular basis for such information would be difficult enough, but the task is further complicated by the lack of cooperation from some FBOs and by the complexity of their fees structures. Some of the FBOs, usually part of a chain, refuse to provide the fees for publication. Their excuse is that the fees are complicated and variable. Or, in some cases, because the chain’s headquarters has simply told the individual locations not to provide the fees to us. Some have even told us that they don’t want to report them because they don’t want their competitors to know. This in an era when everything from gasoline prices to used car prices is readily available with a few keystrokes.

Particularly grating is that even if you do call, sometimes when you show up the fees you are actually charged are higher than those quoted on the phone, or additional fees not revealed are added in.

Another area where transparency is lacking is in the charting of parking areas and access gates not leased to the FBOs. Some pilots only want a place to tie down and leave the airport for a few hours. They don’t need to access an FBO’s services—and don’t want to pay for them. AOPA is urging the FAA to identify and chart such locations on airport and taxiway diagrams. There are complications, of course. Some airports have no space for such parking. At others, especially airline airports, security is a concern at unmanned gates. However, AOPA believes there are technology solutions that can solve that issue and are willing to work with the FAA, TSA, and Congress to find and fund solutions.

Pilots need to recognize that federal funds only pay for airport improvements. Landing fees, flowage fees, and reasonable parking fees are necessary in some locations to help the airport cover its costs. Likewise, FBOs need to be profitable. We don’t want what we see in Europe, which are many airports with no services available. AOPA is not asking that pilots receive free services. However, the fees charged by a small number of FBOs—but often at important access points—are unreasonable by any measure, except perhaps their own.

And the lack of transparency around fees in particular is indefensible. No argument can be made as to why that is a good idea. It will take awhile for the FBOs to come around, but I believe AOPA’s continuing work to shine a light on this subject will bring about change. In a few years, I predict FBOs will look back, recognize how foolish they appear, and wonder just what it was they were trying to achieve by hiding their fees.

Email [email protected]