FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1963
1963 - 1193.PDF
FLIGHT International, 4 My 1963 19 State or Airfield BERMUDA BRITISH GUIANA • BURMA CANADA (Montreal) CEYLON CYPRUS CZECHO SLOVAKIA DENMARK (Copenhagen and Aalborg) Paid by airlines Points system based on aircraft weight, cargo and number of passengers Fuel throughput charge USAF landing fee Landing: by weight on a reducing scale Telecommunications and nay aids Fuel throughput charge Landing: by weight brackets Operational charge: within Rangoon Flight Information Region Movement charge Fuel tax Landing: by rising weight scale National ... Telecommunications service fee for Atlantic, Caribbean or Polar flight ... Route Facility Fee for Atlantic or Polar flight, or both Landing Fee (international or trans- border Landing Fee (transoceanic) Montreal terminal fee Fuel throughput charge Landing: by weight categories * Landing: by weight categories Ground services fee Ground seryices fee Landing: flat rate per 1,000kg Landing: by weight, traffic type and airport class. Domestic International Lighting (land or take-off) Fuel throughput charge Paid by passenger* £1 per head on all embarking (except transits) Terminal charge of approx 3s on disembarking males Embarkation fee of approx 3s 9d if going abroad Passenger service charge of 7Kr for all leaving for abroad (ex: Malmo - 2Kr) DC-3 £ s II 0 6 1 17 13 4 28 0 41 4 6 15 4 3 1 0 II 18 3 15 15 0 7 10 6 1 32 6 4 4 36 10 1 15 6 12 2 4 1 H 1 II 12 2 4 10 5 5 9 15 6 15 4 0 10 15 (9 0 5 3 5 7 5 19 4 2 1 15 II 17 10 2 22 0 d 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 4 4 4 8 10 7 10 3 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 3 II s 8 5 6 10 4 Viscount 800 £ s d 13 0 14 3 16 17 10 75 0 92 10 14 8 4 3 18 II II 5 15 0 7 10 33 15 II 4 44 19 5 7 6 12 5 7 2 19 3 13 18 13 II 5 14 1 25 6 10 10 6 10 17 0 (14 0 II 10 12 10 13 17 5 13 3 17 23 8 27 3 50 12 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 11 7 II 7 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 0) 3 10 5 6 II 10 6 4 Comet 4 £ s d 14 0 3 17 8 18 26 15 76 0 102 15 34 4 4 3 38 7 22 10 15 0 7 10 45 0 II 8 56 8 16 2 6 12 21 5 59 15 13 5 19 18 120 16 22 10 14 5 36 15 26 5 10 10 36 15 (22 0 28 12 31 8 34 15 5 13 21 5 61 13 27 10 I 89 3 0 1 3 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 5 6 0 1 6 7 Boeing 707-320 £ s d 17 0 0 9 0 0 17 2 2 43 2 2 165 0 0 208 2 2 65 17 0 4 3 0 70 0 0 56 5 0 15 0 0 7 10 0 78 15 0 24 14 4 103 9 4 31 10 0 6 12 7 21 5 0 135 0 0 16 12 0 46 10 0 225 19 7 56 5 0 30 18 9 87 3 9 49 10 0 10 10 0 60 0 0 (22 0 0) 56 0 0 61 16 0 68 8 0 5 13 6 49 II 8 123 13 2 59 11 0 183 4 2 Date of fees, re marks and % change in Boeing fees since 1959 1959 (payable in US dollars) maximum yield Jan 1963 minimum charge petrol only + 115% 1953 petrol only maximum yield May 1, 1963 Transoceanic landing fee payable in respect of first landing after or last landing prior to transoceanic flight but not twice on turn-around w.e.f. 31/5/63 +60% 1955 maximum yield (new) +55% Oct 1959 Passenger aircraft (Freight aircraft) 1954 Apr 1958 double rate (Copenhagen only) maximum yield ? which show the increases in the relevant charges, for a Boeing 707 only, which have taken place since 1959 and are included to lend weight to the IATA complaints about the increases. These do not tell the full story, for some countries have levied more than one increase in the last four years. Indeed, the increases which have taken place since 1961 alone merit a separate mention, and they can be summarized as follows: 1963—British Guiana, 115 per cent; Israel, 202; Portugal, 23; Trinidad, 342. 1962—Australia, 10; Denmark, 11 J; Federal Germany, 38; Ghana, 40; Sweden, 53. 1961—Japan, 22; Netherlands, 66; Philippines, 28. In cases such as these percentages by themselves can be most misleading, especi ally when it is appreciated that the 28 per cent Philippines increase brings in nearly as much as the Trinidad gross product even after the 342 per cent increase has been applied. Because aviation administrations like to keep in the swim, some fairly steep increases announced this year are likely to be followed by others. These will cause considerable heartburning within IATA circles. Last September the Association's financial com mittee reported that "airline finances are being seriously under mined by continuing increases in landing fees and the imposition of new user charges by Governments." They estimated that air- iines had paid out £57m in these charges in 1960 and that the total had risen to £71£m in 1961. Official figures for 1962 are not yet available but, using a purely personal "guesstimate," I would put the figure at about £78m. Any minute now we may expect an official statement from IATA to the effect that they are being stretched to the absolute limit, or even past it, coupled with a plea for this erratic rate of increase to be halted or preferably reversed. King Canute once tried something equally impossible. IATA will present a united case with the skill and dexterity bom of long practice, but the other side of the coin will be as incon clusive and disorganized as ever. A look at some of the few avail able published figures may help to put the picture into better focus. In last year's statements of accounts BO AC recorded that they had spent £3,668,408 on landing fees and flight information services. IJI isolation this is an impressive figure; but it was only 3.7 per cent of their total operating costs and only 14 per cent more than they spent on advertising. In 1962 the Canadian Department of Transport spent £25£m on operating costs and £24Jm on capital expenditure; they got back about £5m in receipts, or just under 10 per cent. By 1972, at present rates, they hope to recover around 22 per cent. In 1961-62 the United Kingdom operating costs for ten airports were £14£m and Concluded on page 24; tables continued overleaf
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
