Since this would only apply to commercial aircraft these charges will never pass the FAA's non-discrminatory rule.

Why doesn't the article report that fact?

[Editor's note: As the article states, the county counsel has reviewed the proposal, and similar fees are charged at other airports, including Palo Alto and San Jose. The linked document, part of the supervisor's packet for tomorrow's meeting, offers supporting information:
Web Link ]

"Finally the terms must be applied without unjust discrimination.
The prohibition on unjust discrimination extends to types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, as well as individual members of a class of operator. This is true whether these terms are imposed by the sponsor or by a licensee or tenant offering services or commodities normally required at the airport. The tenant’s commercial status does not relieve the sponsor of its obligation to ensure the terms for services offered to aeronautical users are fair and reasonable and without unjust discrimination."


[Editor's note: As the article states, the county counsel has reviewed the proposal, and similar fees are charged at other airports, including Palo Alto and San Jose. The linked document, part of the supervisor's packet for tomorrow's meeting, offers supporting information:
Web Link ]

This is a move in the right direction.

I'm pleased to see that the Supervisors are pursuing a strategy which recognizes that, generally speaking, there are two types of airport users. The first is the casual personal pilot who enjoys occasional use of the airport. The weekend flyer.

The second is the for-profit, commercial operator who seeks to maximize the use of the airport for financial gain. As the article and the draft Resolution point out, it has been this second type of user which has contributed to the recent increase in costs of airport operations. Hopefully, this Proposal will solve most of this problem.

If this does not pass FAA’s non-discriminatory test, I hope the Supervisors pursue similar measures which other airports have successfully implemented to hold Part 135 fixed based operators accountable for their full share of costs.

This only addresses the costs of operations. Fine, I get that. But what else can the Sups do to make it too expensive for SurfAir or similar outfits to do business at the airport?

PAO does NOT have landing fees just parking fees which apply equally to all aircraft.

Just checked - when the city took over PAO they did start charging landing fees by those fees are charged on all aircraft according to weight.

And do private airplanes using this airport have landing fees?

Web Link

I hope that this is enough to wipe Surf Air and their affiliates out for good. So many planes flying overhead today, I'm about to lose my mind. They sound like dive bombers in war time. It is rude and inconsiderate to imagine that this commerce is acceptable. Last week: 4 planes in the air at one time overhead... two planes going in opposite directions seemed like they would collide.
It could be over your home; over your head they could collide; over your child's school; over your baby's stroller.
I wonder,,, what safety measures are in place? What training requirements are presently demanded of these companies? Will we find out too late that there was a lapse in standards?

My problem with Surf Air has always been with their attitude. There is a right way and a wrong way to do business. The company has clearly found a way to exploit community airports to their advantage, and exploiting there are. Everyone else be damned. They know they disrupt communities they fly into. Instead of being proactive and seeking solutions from the communities they serve, or even apologize for their activities or chalking it up start-up issues, they have been unashamedly never-look-back, foot-on-the-gas. I attended one of few workshops where they put up a good front, but after the meeting, in a conversation amongst themselves that I couldn’t help but overhear, it was, “we can do whatever the $&%# we want and nobody can stop us.” Then lots of laughing and mocking all the people who came out to complain about aircraft. That told me all that I needed to know.

Thank you, Barbara Wood, for your continued excellent coverage of the San Carlos Airport/Surf Air et al. issue!

Lois:

you really think SA isn't going to pass the cost of landing fees on to teir wealthy customers. This won't matter a bit.

The danger with this scheme is the County, which owns and operates the Airport, effectively going into business with Surfair.

What if... Surfair is able to pay the additional fees and the County LIKES the additional revenue? If Surfair becomes a valued customer of this state run enterprise they will become even harder to regulate or eject from the airport.

The County has already sold control of San Carlos Airport to the FAA in exchange for FAA Airport Improvement Grants. If the County had not sold control of the Airport to the FAA, the County would not be constrained by the "non-discrimination" terms of the AIP Grant contract and would be free to regulate Surfair, or just kick them out.

Unless the additional fees actually force Surfair to stop operating out of SQL, the additional fees will help fund the County/Airport, but do nothing to help the residents suffering from Surfair's noise.

Caveat Venditor.

Thank you, Peter. I'll put more effort into finding information (hiding in plain sight?) rather than rely on your readily available knowledge & resources.

Here is what the resolution calls for:
") A landing fee of $75 for operators required to comply with 14 C.F.R. Part 135 at the San
Carlos and Half Moon Bay Airports"

And yet the County is a signatory to a Airport improvement Grant Assurances (SQL Grant 3-06-0210-017-2015 and following years that clearly prohibits such economic discrimination:

"22. Economic Nondiscrimination.
a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms
and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical
activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the
public at the airport.
b. In any agreement, contract, lease, or other arrangement under which a right or
privilege at the airport is granted to any person, firm, or corporation to conduct or
Airport Sponsor Assurances 3/2014 Page 11 of 20
to engage in any aeronautical activity for furnishing services to the public at the
airport, the sponsor will insert and enforce provisions requiring the contractor to-
1) furnish said services on a reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, basis to
all users thereof, and
2) charge reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, prices for each unit or
service, provided that the contractor may be allowed to make reasonable and
nondiscriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price reductions
to volume purchasers"

Note the precise language -"to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical
activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the
public at the airport." vs the proposed resolution " fee of $75 for operators required to comply with 14 C.F.R. Part 135:.


Why is this clear conflict with the existing contract not a matter of note in this reporting?

Nice idea, but the fee is not high enough to harm the likes of Surf Air. Set the fee higher and charge all users of the airport. Aviation is the most polluting form of transportation and needs to be reduced.

Peter:

I'm usually on your side on these issues. But there are plenty of airports that only charge a landing fee to Part 135 operators...PAO, RHV, HWD, etc. Read the fee schedule you posted again. It says the fee is for "Charter & Air Taxi Flight Operations (charges are per aircraft)"

I see no Grant Assurance violation here.