|
Longmont airport, like other GA airports across the country, is in a fight to become financially viable. One proposed solution is the adoption of landing fees. Across the country, some airports are adopting landing fee policies that offer discounts or exemptions for “based” aircraft — those that are tied-down or hangared at the airport — while charging higher fees to “transient” aircraft.
At first glance, this may seem ‘fair’. After all, based operators contribute to the airport through hangar leases and fuel purchases. But in reality there is a serious legal and ethical issue: such fee structures are discriminatory, distort competition, and violate the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) grant assurances that every publicly funded airport must uphold. The Legal Foundation: FAA Grant Assurances When an airport accepts federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds — which virtually all public GA airports do — it signs a binding contract with the U.S. government. The FAA’s Grant Assurance 22, “Economic Nondiscrimination,” is explicit: airports must make their facilities “available for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities.” A landing fee discount that favors “based” aircraft over transient visitors is a textbook case of unjust discrimination. Both aircraft are engaged in identical aeronautical use — landing, taxiing, and departing — yet are treated unequally based solely on where they are stored. The FAA has repeatedly affirmed that such distinctions are impermissible unless they are based on objective, cost-justified differences in service or facility use. Landing fees are meant to recover a portion of the airport’s operating and maintenance costs attributable to aircraft operations. These costs are incurred equally whether a plane is based or transient. Offering one group a discount doesn’t reduce those costs; it simply shifts the financial burden unfairly. Moreover, these policies create economic favoritism. Transient pilots would be effectively subsidizing based operators and creating an unequal playing field, discouraging visiting aircraft from using the airport, buying fuel, or patronizing local businesses. The FAA’s own guidance reinforces this point. In the Airport Compliance Manual (Order 5190.6B), the agency warns that “fee differentials must reflect reasonable and nonarbitrary distinctions” and that unjustly favoring based users over transients “may constitute prohibited discrimination.” Several FAA compliance decisions — including City of Pompano Beach and Santa Monica Airport — have found that preferential treatment of certain users violates the airport’s federal obligations. The Myth of “Local Loyalty” Airport managers often defend these discounts as loyalty rewards for those who “support the airport year-round.” But this logic collapses under scrutiny. Based operators already pay rent for hangars or tie-downs and purchase local services — those are separate, voluntary transactions. Landing fees are not a reward system; they are user fees for use of a federally funded airfield. By accepting federal money, the airport agreed to serve the entire flying public — not just its tenants. The moment an airport accepts federal grants, it ceases to be a private club. The Broader Consequences Discriminatory landing fee policies erode trust between the aviation community and local authorities. Visiting pilots may choose to avoid airports with unfair pricing, diverting fuel sales, maintenance revenue, and goodwill to neighboring fields. Over time, this can undermine the economic viability of the very airports these policies were meant to protect. Equally important, they expose airport sponsors to FAA enforcement risk. A single complaint under 14 CFR Part 16 can trigger a federal investigation, and if the FAA finds noncompliance, the airport can face penalties, including suspension of future AIP funding — a devastating outcome for small communities reliant on federal dollars for runway maintenance and safety upgrades. A Better Path Forward Airports that wish to reward loyalty have lawful alternatives: they can offer volume-based fuel discounts, long-term lease incentives, or other options that don’t involve discriminatory airfield charges. These approaches maintain equity while encouraging based-operators to invest in their home airports. The FAA’s grant assurances exist for a reason: to ensure that every taxpayer-funded runway serves the public fairly and uniformly. Landing fee discounts for based aircraft may seem harmless, but they strike at the heart of that commitment. The law — and the City of Longmont — should demand better. Most people in Longmont don’t see what all the fuss is about. Having been told for years that the Longmont airport is an asset to the city, it seems fitting that the city should quantify those claims. The majority of things I’ve learned show that the airport is more of a liability than an asset. The airport is being run like it is too big to fail.
If you're not under the pattern, you're not going to get what the fuss is about. And, since the airport drains your tax dollars, you should know what’s going on. Given its proximity to bigger general aviation airports--Loveland, RMMA, Centennial--is the Longmont airport truly an economic driver for the city or simply a play thing that is subsidized by the greater community? Is the city receiving the true value of the airport to the community? Longmont is not alone in this hand-wavy narrative. Sadly, this is the case for a lot of GA airports across the country. Not only is Longmont’s airport not an economic driver, it's a subsidized plaything for a few, and we're also a patsy of greedy parties that do not reside in Longmont, let alone Boulder County. The Jefferson County flight school take-over of Longmont is a game-changer. Not only did they move their touch-and-go operations to LMO, they created their own training areas out of thin air that are mostly using Boulder County Open Space lands, without approval of the FAA, without taking it to the Boulder County Commissioners, or the Boulder County public. There are also unauthorized training areas in Larimer and Weld Counties. The flight schools use Longmont's airport, and Longmont's land, at no charge, without the citizens' approval, for their profit. And yet, the airport operates hand to mouth, with no plan for a sustainable future without government subsidies. What kind of sense does that make? Glenwood Springs did an opportunity cost study with their airport that was quite eye-opening, and they don't have five other airports within spitting distance. The report notes the FAA and aviation driven economic driver estimates are based on the state's commercial airports, like DIA, which then use cost multipliers for every municipal airport. That's like someone saying, my local software business is worth $200MM because Google is worth $1 billion. It's time we called out the nonsense. These economic impact report numbers are bloated, at best, and contribute to a narrative that isn’t true. County commissioners, city councils, airports and pilots treat the mystical and outlandish figures in these reports as gospel simply because the numbers come from CDOT (through a subcontractor, Kimley-Horn). As seen with the Town of Glenwood study, an accurate and local estimate is where real numbers exist. CDOT claims that lowly Nucla, CO, airport (AIB) adds $907,000 to the local economy. You could buy the entire town with that amount and have money left over. CDOT’s report says that Longmont airport supposedly adds nearly $74MM to the local economy. Yet the airport has to live on grant money to survive. The airport manager is paid with transferred city money because the airport isn't self-sufficient. It's a good bet that $74MM is more than the top three industries in Longmont combined. Every single airport in Colorado, and especially the smaller ones, have ridiculous estimates based on assumptions (that aren’t locally based) and “multipliers.” Airport Managers can’t back these numbers up. Nucla has no employees at all--just a runway and a tank of fuel. But their study still maintains that there are 10 employees with a payroll of $287,000, which somehow equates to $546,000 “total value added,” coupled with the imaginary figure of $684,000 of “visitor spending.” Perhaps five people a year actually fly into Nucla to “visit.” It's way easier to see the glaring discrepancy in the CDOT numbers when looking at rural airports. The larger airport's impact is equally flawed. Real unbiased studies are needed. Perhaps we need a real economic impact study done by a third party that doesn’t have a conflict of interest. Or, we can continue making real life decisions on fantasy and spin. Citations: Vance Brand’s Economic Impact Report https://www.coloradoaviationsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/LMO_Vance-Brand-Municipal-1.pdf How the CDOT reports were made: https://www.codot.gov/programs/aeronautics/studies-plans-reports/2025ceis We don’t know what happens in Kimley-Horn (the consultancy that makes these reports)’‘s black box of assumptions and multipliers. It seems that the crafting of such reports is based on the premise to maximize fantasy numbers to the extent possible using gross assumptions that aren't locally based. LMO’s numbers were based on regional numbers -- since our region includes DIA, those numbers are quite larger than they appear in reality at the local level. Individual Airport’s Impact Reports https://www.coloradoaviationsystem.com/2025-ceis-deliverables/ Nucla’s Impact Report: https://www.coloradoaviationsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AIB_Hopkins-Field-1.pdf Glenwood Springs Airport back on the radar with recent Colorado aeronautics study https://www.postindependent.com/news/glenwood-springs-airport-back-on-the-radar-with-recent-colorado-aeronautics-study/ Firstly, let me remind you: if you do not live within the city limits of Longmont, your voice still matters. Please read up, write to the council, and call the TC line on this matter and explain why it matters to you. They are listening. As for the City Council (CC) and AAB meetings: If you are outside the city limits, you may speak at both meetings. You get 3 minutes at CC and 5 minutes at AAB. Some CC meetings allow "Longmont City Residents only" to speak at the top of the agenda, but this is not the case for every CC meeting. (Last week's CC meeting exemplified this, and we had great representation.) This group has received significant press coverage, including op-eds, regarding the airport issue over the past year. For those who want to know the issues and how to address them, here is a bundle of information for your reading and activist pleasure. Check out the Op-eds below. Below are some links and light commentary to notable past CC meetings. In case you want to track this issue across the past year. November 19, 2024 City Council Meeting Listen to the Public invited to speak. And, Kaplan Kirsh also speaks in this meeting. Here's what you need to know: The counsel for airport issues is Kaplan Kirsch. They represent the aviation industry, not those affected by aviation impacts. They also represent Jefferson County in the BoCo vs. JeffCo suits. Also - at minute 20:53, Dan Leftwich told the Council about the Reserved Powers Doctrine and said the FAA grant conditions requiring them to seek approval from, and grant a veto to, the FAA before enacting any noise regulation was void and unenforceable. The Mayor Pro Tem (Susie Hildalgo-Fahring) built on Dan's earlier comment and asked Peter Kirsch during the Q and A whether the grant conditions prevented protecting public health and safety. Kirsch said "Of course not" then he changed the subject. Council has obligations to follow Colorado Supreme Court law regarding the Reserved Powers Doctrine (which states the City Council does not have the authority to agree to a contract that gives another agency a veto over its power to protect public health, safety, and welfare). This is reason enough to demand new legal counsel. June 3 City Council Meeting discusses the airport finances. The Airport Manager's presentation starts at 3:48 followed by City Council questions and discussion. There were a few omissions and mis-representations in this presentation. For a while it looked like Landing Fees went out the window. But the community intervened, and rest assured: they will be voted on Nov. 3. Sept 23 City Council Meeting discusses Airport Budget The Airport Fund Budget Summary was presented to City Council. The presentation begins around 2:58 of the video. "For those who say the airport isn't fully paying it's way, that is technically true" - Sandi Seader Op-EdsGood afternoon residents and neighbors, Below is another update for those of you following closely and interested in airport-specific issues:
As always, you can find past materials, recordings, and upcoming agenda/packets (typically 5 days before the meeting) online here. Hope this is helpful, Matthew Electric Planes Will Not Solve the Immediate Airport Issues
Could electric planes solve our noise and lead pollution problems from planes flying over our homes, schools, parks? Maybe, if you live long enough to see it happen. Don’t be fooled by those that say that electric planes are the solution to today’s noise and pollution issues with planes. The reality is, replacing these planes is a long way out--like, 50 years out. Let’s focus on the small, private piston engine planes using Longmont’s airspace over our neighborhoods, which are the cause of most of the nuisance and frustration by residents today. Some aviation advocates, public officials and aspiring local politicians point to the promise of electric planes as the solution to this issue, but such an assertion is simply incorrect. Electric sounds good, but when we look at the technology advancements and many millions needed to get infrastructure in place, combined with the airport’s current budget shortfalls and inability to generate revenue, Longmont won’t see electric planes taking over the sky anytime soon. Technology adoption rates are almost always significantly overly optimistic and the adoption of electric planes is likely much slower than most other technologies. Can you guess how many full electric cars are on the road today? 1.4%, and that's with significant government subsidies and 35 years of evangelization to get them adopted. The average age of non-electric general aviation planes (including prop driven planes) in the US is over 50 years! Most private planes are for recreation, and owners have no real incentive to get rid of their old hobby airplanes. The love of old airplanes and the cost of new ones will be a slow changeover. Plane noise is a function of propellers as much as it is engines, so unless these electric planes use three or four blades instead of the standard two, it won't make much of a difference to those of us on the ground. Imagine if there was a high adoption rate for electric planes… if there's only chargers at LMO, and the current flight time on a charged plane is 60-90 minutes, they will only have enough time to fly around the airport, which only compounds our problems. Without a network of infrastructure they won't be able to go anywhere else. Longmont can’t tolerate the nuisance, pollution and safety risks that flight school planes continue to have on our growing community. (But it does make you wonder: Who stands to benefit from the installation of electric infrastructure at Longmont’s airport? I’m not sure it’s the residents of Longmont.) |
Archives
October 2025
Categories |
-
National
-
FIND YOUR STATE
>
- ALABAMA
- ALASKA
- ARIZONA >
- ARKANSAS
- CALIFORNIA >
- COLORADO >
- CONNECTICUT
- DELAWARE
- FLORIDA >
- GEORGIA
- HAWAII
- IDAHO
- ILLINOIS
- INDIANA
- IOWA
- KANSAS
- KENTUCKY
- LOUISIANA
- MAINE
- MARYLAND
- MASSACHUSETTS >
- MICHIGAN
- MINNESOTA
- MISSISSIPPI
- MISSOURI
- MONTANA
- NEBRASKA
- NEVADA
- NEW HAMPSHIRE
- NEW JERSEY
- NEW MEXICO
- NEW YORK
- NORTH CAROLINA
- NORTH DAKOTA
- OHIO
- OKLAHOMA
- OREGON
- PENNSYLVANIA
- RHODE ISLAND
- SOUTH CAROLINA
- SOUTH DAKOTA
- TENNESSEE
- TEXAS
- UTAH
- VERMONT
- VIRGINIA
- WASHINGTON
- WASHINGTON DC
- WEST VIRGINIA
- WISCONSIN
- WYOMING
-
FIND YOUR STATE
>
-
CO Front Range
-
Affected Areas
>
-
Front Range Airports
>
- Boulder Municipal Airport | BDU >
- Centennial Airport | APA >
- Colorado Springs Municipal Airport | COS
- Denver International Airport | DIA
- Erie Municipal Airport | EIK
- Front Range Airport | CFO
- Greely-Weld County Airport | GXY
- Meadow Lake Airport | FLY
- Northern Colorado Regional Airport | FNL
- Parkland Estates Airpark
- Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport | BJC >
- Van Aire Skyport |
- Vance Brand Municipal Airport | LMO >
- Front Range Plane Crashes
-
Affected Areas
>
- Background
-
Issues
- Press
- Get In Touch + Get Involved
RSS Feed
|
|
Brought to you by concerned citizens from all across the Front Range and beyond.
|