Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Fees Fuel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cleveland Airport board debates landing fees, fuel policy and AirNav listing
Summary
Board members, tenants and airport staff discussed whether to charge landing fees for heavy corporate jets, options to waive fees with minimum fuel purchases, concerns about grant assurances and ADS‑B tracking, and efforts to add Cleveland to AirNav so pilots can find fuel prices.
Airport board members, tenants and staff at the Cleveland Airport discussed possible new landing fees and related fuel policies during the board meeting, focusing on heavy corporate aircraft, how fees could be collected and ways to avoid discouraging fuel sales.
Airport staff member Aaron said the airport has seen two to three corporate jet visits weekly and that visiting pilots have approached staff asking how to pay a fee. “Those jets are…they're pounding it, weekly,” Aaron said, arguing the airport pays for runway maintenance and “we would like that fuel.”
Board members and tenants pressed caution. A pilot and tenant who described himself as a corporate operator said landing fees are a significant deterrent: “The minute you see landing fees, you're looking for a fuel stop elsewhere within 30, 40, 50 nautical miles.” He urged the board to avoid fees that would drive away general aviation traffic and said small airports typically rely on hangar rents and fuel sales for revenue.
Several board members and tenants recommended a compromise many airports use: set fees for aircraft above a weight threshold and waive fees when a minimum fuel purchase is made. “If you buy fuel, you don't pay a fee,” said a board member during the discussion, describing fee-waiver practices used elsewhere.
Legal and compliance questions framed much of the debate. Participants referenced the FAA Airport Compliance Manual (FAA Order 5190.6B) and noted that any fees must be “fair and reasonable” and not conflict with grant assurances tied to federal funding. One board member recommended consulting the Texas Airport Management Council and TxDOT Aviation for models of how other Texas airports set and collect fees.
Other operational points raised included the airport’s current fueling infrastructure: large jets often require single-point or truck refueling rather than self-service pumps, and the airport does not yet have a fuel truck, which complicates servicing larger aircraft. A tenant noted that obtaining a truck could be financially viable once hangar growth increases fuel sales.
Board members also flagged data-collection issues. Using ADS‑B and tail-number tracking to bill visiting aircraft was raised as a possible path to automated billing, but several speakers warned that using ADS‑B for billing is controversial, has prompted federal attention, and could undermine pilot trust.
No formal motion was made on landing fees during the meeting; board members agreed to research the issue further and to consult TxDOT, FAA guidance and industry groups. Several speakers asked staff to return with options that distinguish based on aircraft weight, that include fee waivers for minimum fuel purchases, and that consider the costs of adding fuel-truck service.
The board asked staff to place a more detailed landing-fees discussion on a future agenda so members and tenants can examine legal risks, collection methods and operational requirements before any policy change.
