Introducing landing fees at regional and local aerodromes in Australia—particularly those catering to general aviation (GA)—may appear to offer a short-term revenue boost for councils. However, long-term evidence and economic logic suggest this approach is counterproductive and may actually reduce overall income for local governments while harming regional economies.
1. Reduced Aerodrome Traffic Leads to Lower Revenue
The imposition of landing fees deters private and small commercial pilots, including flying schools, aero clubs, and tourism operators. Most GA flights operate on thin margins, and even modest fees can discourage visits.
Case Study: When Moorabbin Airport introduced higher fees, some flight training operations reported a 20–30% decline in touch-and-go training circuits.
Data Point: A 2021 report by the Australian General Aviation Alliance found that every $1 in landing fees led to a $4 loss in associated spending (fuel, food, accommodation, maintenance) at small aerodromes.
2. Negative Economic Ripple Effect on Local Business
Aerodromes are gateways to small towns, supporting:
- Local tourism (fly-in events, airshows, weekend getaways)
- Emergency services (RFDS, firefighting aircraft, search and rescue)
- Local trades and service businesses (mechanics, hospitality, fuel suppliers)
When landing fees are introduced:
- Tourism pilots choose alternative destinations with free landing.
- Events like fly-ins and charity airshows relocate or shrink.
- Charter operators route away from fee-imposing aerodromes.
Example: After the introduction of landing fees at Albany Airport (WA) in 2018, local tourism businesses saw a 15% drop in aviation-linked visits within a year, according to the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA).
3. Councils Face Higher Administrative and Opportunity Costs
Fee collection infrastructure requires systems, staff time, and enforcement—often outweighing the revenue generated, especially when compliance is low.
Loss of goodwill: Aero clubs and volunteer groups often maintain infrastructure, mow grass, and promote the aerodrome at no cost. If driven away, these contributions disappear.
Missed grants: Active GA use often qualifies councils for aviation safety and infrastructure grants. Declining traffic can disqualify them.
4. Long-Term Income Decline Plus Community Benefit Loss
Short-term gain:
Landing fees barely offset costs.
- Landing fees equal a loss of tourism and aviation business that can cost towns in annual visitor spending.
- How much could ratepayers have saved if club members' ideas were acted upon?
- Could aerodrome running costs be saved if club members feel appreciated rather than unappreciated?
- Is there a misconception that club members are only interested in themselves and not the wider community?
- Is there a misconception that "they are rich pilots; they can afford it"?
- Are there double standards when it comes to public utilities such as sporting grounds versus recreational aviation?
- Are hobbies such as "Men's Sheds" a positive for mental health?
- Is there an opportunity if we try a different approach rather than following everyone off the end of a proven financial cliff?
- Is there merit in Yarram becoming the "Centre of Growth" in general aviation and thus aviation-related tourism—the Centre of Gippsland, if not Victoria's general aviation tourism and training?
- Could the club help make new hangars happen (more income) and break the "chicken and egg" roadblock?
- Are Yarram traders in favor of the aerodrome growing fly-in business?
Landing fees for GA at local Australian aerodromes undermine their core purpose: to serve the community and stimulate regional growth. Rather than increasing council income, these fees reduce traffic, deter aviation activity, and create a cascade of lost revenue across multiple sectors. Councils should instead focus on encouraging GA use by maintaining fee-free access, seeking grant funding, and promoting aviation as a vital component of rural economic development.
Yarram Aero Club Inc. (YAC) is seeking to offer a growth-based plan designed to increase rather than decrease income from the Yarram Aerodrome and enhance safety.
Yarram Aero Club's proposal includes cost savings (costed items YAC can carry out at no charge) plus increased income via safer aerodrome growth that will equal or most likely exceed ever-decreasing income from landing fees.
We already know where a landing fees-based course will take us, and it's not positive for safety or growth—it's time to try something different!
The below safety-enhancing changes will allow the club to grow members and promote Yarram, as per above; thus, the Shire's income will grow along with the club's, reversing the downward trend.
Key Changes Required for Plan A or B:
(1) Wherever all private aircraft are hangared.
(2) One aircraft registration per separate corporate membership.
(3) All aircraft weights.
(4) YAC management to have direct email contact with WSC management.
(5) YAC management to have direct email contact with Avdata.
Important Notes: Most of the club's profit is and will be channeled back to the aerodrome. That's essentially why the club exists—to promote flying at Yarram. (1) Members may have farms or simply use more than one aerodrome; they may also own several aircraft. (2) Multiple corporate memberships allowed, one aircraft per membership. (3) This will generate more income in fuel sales. (4) Upper management will get things done. (5) To update registrations. YAC = Yarram Aero Club Inc. AC = Aircraft. WSC = Wellington Shire Council.
YAC will endeavor to help lease as many hangar sites as available at the aerodrome. This alone will produce more income on a predictable basis than landing fees. "Plan B" will generate the most income. The club will also lower costs to the Shire, such as cleaning, etc.
Safety via "Plan B"
YAC fosters a culture of safety, learning, and continuous improvement. If club members are part of a win-win agreement with the shire, they would tend to see themselves more as custodians of the aerodrome. They have a vested interest in upholding high safety standards, including proper radio usage, because poor safety or sloppy procedures could damage the aerodrome’s reputation if an accident were to happen. While all of the above is basically the case now, with more "skin in the game" pilots may have more to say when they notice something can be improved.
Commercial operators (including operators that are not part of "Plan B") must adhere to strict procedures, including standard radio communications as outlined in their Operations Manuals and CASA’s AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication).
Charging landing fees at council-operated aerodromes provides a direct source of revenue for local governments, helping to cover the costs of maintaining runways, lighting, navigation aids, and general infrastructure. These aerodromes, often underfunded, require consistent maintenance to remain safe and operational. Charging fees shifts some financial responsibility to the users of the facility—aircraft operators—rather than relying solely on ratepayers, many of whom may never use the aerodrome. In addition, modest fees can help councils better track usage and plan for future improvements based on actual traffic.
Imposing landing fees can discourage general aviation traffic, particularly recreational and training flights, which are highly price-sensitive. For small regional towns, aerodromes are vital for emergency services, tourism, business travel, and attracting new residents or industries. A reduction in aircraft traffic due to fees can hurt local economies, make flying unaffordable for some, and reduce the viability of flying schools and aero clubs. Many pilots may choose to bypass fee-charging aerodromes altogether, leading to long-term stagnation or closure. As local infrastructure that benefits the broader community, aerodromes should be supported through general rates like roads and parks.
While the financial logic for landing fees is understandable, the broader economic and social benefits of accessible, active aerodromes outweigh the relatively minor revenue gains. Encouraging aviation traffic by keeping access free supports tourism, education, emergency services, and regional development. For most councils, the indirect economic benefits and community goodwill of a vibrant aerodrome far surpass the limited income that landing fees provide. Therefore, the best approach is not to charge landing fees and instead fund aerodromes as essential public infrastructure.