• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
03:25PM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesSanta Monica Airport Landing Fees to Soar, Include Local Light Aircraft

Back to Squawk list

Santa Monica Airport Landing Fees to Soar, Include Local Light Aircraft

Submitted
The Santa Monica City Council approved an increase in landing fees at the Santa Monica Airport Tuesday. The fees will more than double from $2.07 to $5.48 per 1,000 pounds of aircraft by Aug. 1. As part of the proposal, all aircraft based at the airport, including those owned by local flight schools, will be charged the fees. They are currently exempt. (santamonica.patch.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


blake1023
blake1023 5
I never knew flight students are part of wealthy 1%.

They'll still be broke! Its funny you never see a news article about raising landing fees being a success... The State of California has been raising taxes for decades, and now at em. Still broke, and always will be!
JReinertsen
One would think that politicians would notice people are not forced to land only at The Santa Monica Airport, nor are they required to keep their business there. And while on paper this fee hike seems to be a great way to raise revenue, in reality fewer and fewer people are going to elect to use SMO as their transient / destination layover. Maybe instead, they should look at ways to attract more business to the facility instead of pushing potential revenue off on another airport.
ajrudd
Anthony Rudd 7
Major problem being the locals hate SMO airport, and its stayed open only by order of the federal government. Raising landing fees in order to drive away traffic is a calculated ploy to reduce airport operations. Ultimately when the traffic dwindles, and the airport becomes an unjustifiable expense, not to mention a gateway of the evil 1%, they'll finally be able to make a case for closure, or just Meigs Field the place.
bogdawg
bogdawg 5
Correct answer! I grew up less than a mile from SMO, and got my PPL there in 1988. The local residents and government were trying to shut it down back then, and they will continue to try until the entire place is turned into condos, houses, and commercial property.
woodwd
William Wood 2
And then the idiot leftists will wonder why their business tax base dried up.
blakerl
Larry Blaker 4
In the case of SMO the city is trying to force the closure of the airport. It's a Land grab.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Cui bono?
blakerl
Larry Blaker 3
Funny thing I did a bit of reading and found that the Fed Land grant to the city for SMO said that the land could only be used as an airport and if the airport were to close the city would not gain ownership. The Federal Government would get it back. What kind of back door deal is the FAA working with the City and why now?
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
So the feds take it back, declare it surplus, and sell it to the most influential bidder. Ends up the same. Any way, thanks for the research'. I wouldn't have thought of it.
monstrok
John Clark 4
This looks a lot like an end-run effort to reduce airport usage to a point where the city council can no longer justify spending any money on an airport that does not get used. The council will say their efforts to have users help fund the airport simply didn't produced the intended revenue. It is highly likely that developers already have their eyes on the property and are lobbying to help an airport-closure agenda along.
JReinertsen
Interesting to see if mr justice and others pack up and move down to toa or out to bur in order to get away from the additional penalties from using the airport. You would think that the fuel sales alone on his 30+ ac fleet would allow the commity to keep his current exemption in place
MeanMrMustard
MeanMrMustard 4
Sounds like they are following the Canadian government's example of considering airports as money cows instead of a venue to invest in infrastructure. It's too bad, I've always admired the emphasis on airport investment south of the border.
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
This is just more taxes in California, and one more reason not to go there.
erhardman
Eric Hardman 4
Just another in a long list of reasons why individuals and business are fleeing California.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Ditto..> Right on...
MeanMrMustard
MeanMrMustard 2
But.... Schwartzenegger!
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
So, what developers have the inside track for putting up houses for an infill project after the airport closes?
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 2
Revenues will be reduced, of course, as airport users go elsewhere. Happens every time.
phealey
Peter Healey 2
I did make a comment last week on the exciting format you have produced ,where did it go.
MANBOI
MANBOI 2
Cut all federal funding to SMO. Job killer! Small business killer!
highflyer59
Bean counters where never good aviators. Hopefully this will not result in less training to the pilots thus reducing the safety of operation. I wonder how the same people will react, when the first accident in the vicinity of the airport will be connected to lack of training. I can already imagine the outcry. Flight school and charity flights should still be excempt.
gdell57
Gary Dell 1
I don't understand people. Why purchase a home near an airport in the first place if they don't like aircraft?! They know there is going to be noise. The airport officials have worked with the city by having noise limitations after certain hours or close overnight. Yet The people are not content with that and all join up to try to close the airport like their doing with Santa Monica. Apparently they drive everywhere because they don't seem to balk at the non-stop freeway noise or polution.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 1
They have socialist rent control that allow people to squat on rental property forever without paying fair market value. Now they want landing fees to double. Why can't they do the same for road traffic? SM is the worst place to drive.
TheBunnie
Bunnie Meyer 1
I used to have a business in the People's Republik of Soviet Monica. It is the most business unfriendly place in southern California, LA being neck and neck with them.

The City Council is elected by rent control voters who have a good deal and just about everyone who moved into a home by the airport knew it was there, some may have just been born to a home there.

SM is about as leftist/communist as you can get in California and if the airport were being used is smuggle in illegal aliens, the city council would give it a subsidy instead of higher fees.

Hopefully someone will challenge the fees in court, but the blood suckers of SM have unlimited funds to screw people. I am SO glad I moved out of SM and even more glad I've moved out of LA.
Jessica82
Jessica Meeks 1
Santa Monica Airport does not accept Federal funding. The offices they lease out there have some of the lowest rents on the Westside