Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pilots and tenants urge Salem council to revise proposed airport landing fees
Summary
Pilots, aviation tenants and a training provider told the council that proposed landing fees and enforcement plans would harm flight training, small aircraft operators and community events at Salem Municipal Airport; they recommended raising weight thresholds, exemptions for flight training and using local operators to collect fees.
Several pilots, airport tenants and aviation advocacy groups urged the Salem City Council during public comment to revise proposed landing fees for the Salem Municipal Airport, raising concerns about weight thresholds, enforcement methods and impacts on flight training and community events.
George McClellan, who said he works with B-17 Alliance and the Commemorative Air Force, recommended limiting landing fees to turbine or jet aircraft with maximum takeoff weight over 12,500 pounds so corporate operators — who expect landing fees and can write them off — would pay while preserving access for smaller general-aviation users.
Neil White, representing the Oregon Pilots Association and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association members, said landing-fee impacts vary by aircraft maximum takeoff weight. He recommended a minimum gross-weight threshold of about 7,900 pounds to avoid pricing out many small private aircraft and noted the airport operates at a roughly $600,000 annual deficit that airport officials are trying to address.
Tenant and flight-training employee Hannah McLaughlin said the airport’s proposed use of ADS‑B (automatic dependent surveillance—broadcast) and cameras for fee enforcement is problematic because ADS‑B was sold to pilots as a safety tool, not a revenue-collection device; she said AOPA is reviewing legislation to restrict that use. McLaughlin also described how a per-landing fee — as drafted — would make training operations financially infeasible for her employer (she calculated an $81-per-landing fee in a draft scheme), and suggested alternatives: charge only aircraft that require a type rating (covering jets and aircraft over 12,500 pounds); exempt known flight-training providers and experimental/limited-category aircraft; waive fees for public events (for example B-17 Alliance days); increase overnight fees; and institute an industry-standard minimum fuel-purchase waiver (10 gallons) or a drop box for after-hours payments. She recommended using the fixed-base operator (FBO) to collect fees rather than hiring an outside company.
Speakers urged the council to preserve airport events and general-aviation training activity that bring economic benefit to the city. No formal council action on landing fees occurred at this meeting — the remarks were part of the public comment record for future staff consideration.
Councilors and staff listening to the public comments did not adopt a change at this meeting; several councilors later continued separate agenda business (including the levy and other hearings).
