I have absolutely no idea.

In completely unrelated matters, isn't the Czech Republic doing well?

I believe they pay to fund airports they use (that is why Ryanair uses airports in the middle of nowhere which are cheaper...) I'm not sure if this money also goes towards funding the ground stations for other fligths; or if there is some kind of international payment agreement.

I suppose it is Octavious, but I guess that depends on what you compare it to. Why?

I was just thinking it was nice to see them making a splash in the world of football again

It depends. I know that in America, international airlines have to pay for the right to fly into the US or overfly it. The cost is usually pretty manageable, though.

I know you European pilots have to contend with landing fees at your paved airports. In America, landing fees are nonexistent at all but the biggest airports. My local airport has an >8,000 foot longest runway, approach/departure control, radar services, and multiple published instrument approaches including two Category I ILS approaches. All free of charge :)

American pilots are fortunate in that there are thousands of airports with paved runways and published instrument approach procedures, along with a comprehensive network of VOR/DME/TACAN and NDB ground-based navigation radios. Say what you want about the US, but we're the most pilot-friendly country on the planet.

Certainly in Europe there are changes for using the air traffic control system (http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/what-are-route-charges). No idea whether these are "a lot" or not.

Airports charge landing and parking fees, which are big enough for airlines like Ryanair to choose "cheap" airports (as Orathaic says). I recall reports that some airports actually pay Ryanair to land there.

At major airports, where capacity is limited, "landing slots" - the right to land - are worth millions. IIRC airlines have been bought just because they hold valuable slots and there were reports of airlines (BA?) flying planes almost empty from Heathrow to justify keeping their slots.

Yeah, i recall hearing about slots at heathrow when BA tried to buy Aer Lingus lately (the irish national airline is at least part-owned by the state, and though profitable, there is a big rush to sell off state assets for short-term gain, and austerity, and such...)

Anyway this became an issue because Ireland is an island, and getting off means going by air to Heathrow and then on to your destination ( cause you can get a flight to pretty much anywhere from London - of course you could take a ferry, but it is about 8 to 11 hours from Dublin to London by ferry/train, depending in connections...)

Anyway, the big issue is, what if this new BA super company doesn't bother to keep that extra slot at Heathrow where all the Irish like to land? Is tue national interest really served if we are isolated from the rest of the world? I did have some reason to wonder, how can a single slot be worth billions...

You can be sure that BA will keep that slot at Heathrow, the question is whether they would use it for a route to Ireland? Long-haul is more profitable so they will use it for a route to almost anywhere else.

PS Gatwick is quicker to get through and almost as close to London (in time) as Heathrow, plus it used to be a racecourse. What is not to like?

I guess that getting to london isn't the issue, it is using london as a hub for getting everywhere else.

I mean, honestly i've flown to bristol an gotten the ferry/train. It is convienant to be able to rock up to the ferry port on the day and buy a ticket... And you can go anywhere in the UK, not just London... (The reverse is not really true, as getting to Holyhead is a pain, and once you get to dublin the train services are fairly limited... But still, come visit Ireland Y'all; we're nearly back to pre-famine level population!)

I read recently that there are now only four domestic routes from Heathrow and getting there from one of the other "London" airports is not easy either. KLM have a subsidiary dedicated to exploiting this by having good services to a lot of UK airports to pick up passengers for their long-haul flights. For example, there are four flights a day between Norwich and Schiphol. Sadly for you, they don't operate to Ireland. In fact, I think only Air Fungus fly Dublin-Schiphol.

You could always charter a plane.

Problem solved.

Expensive solution Steephie

Nonsense, it's a cheap solution.

Since Ireland's population is roughly 2000 and a spot at Heathrow costs a few billion, each Irishman can spend a million on charter flights and they still make a profit.

I want to know why Redhouse wanted this information.

He's probably planning to connect to air traffic controllers via software radio...

Offer a discounted service perhaps.

I wanted this information, Jamiet, because when I posted it, the Dutch Safety Board had just published its investigation of the downing of MH17.

MH17 was a passenger flight that was downed last year summer over Ukraine when on its way from Amsterdam to Malaysia and one of the issues it discussed was the Ukranian civil air authorities' response to Ukranian military planes being shot down over Eastern Ukraine.

My question is intended to assess whether the decision to increase the safe flying zone over Ukraine to AL320 (IIRC) instead of closing the zone entirely could have been partly a financial one.

Since Ukraine is currently de facto at war with Russia, which I suppose is a costly enterprise, I am curious to learn how much revenues it received from airline companies that fly over the Ukraine during intercontinental flights.

Good question, then.

http://uksatse.ua/doc/foundations_cost_uk.pdf

Anyone who speaks Ukrainian or Russian can distill the costs from this document perhaps?

I can't believe I'm even suggesting this, but maybe Google Translate?

Wow, redhouse, was webdiplomacy the first place you thought to find this piece of information?

I mean, after that point, i think there is an interesting conversation we can contribute to here (though clearly i've gone way off tangent based on my limited knowledge in the area)

I speak from personal experience when I say it can be quite fruitful to dump your question on webdip before starting your own research.

Maybe it's a Dutch thing :-)

Interesting question, Redhouse.

Traffic in European airspace is coordinated through Eurocontrol (their logo is on this document) and I am pretty sure that the charges are paid to them. Rather than seek a translation perhaps you can find an equivalent document in English/language you do understand.

Or ask the question to someone who knows in English or Dutch. Don't know who that would be though. Contact Eurocontrol?

Could this be a first guess? 50 euros per flight?

http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/route-charges/unit-rates-and-tariffs/ur-2014-08.pdf

http://www.aerotime.aero/en/people/people-news/opinions/16204-no-fly-zone-over-eastern-ukraine-%E2%80%93-a-$200-million-fortune-for-neighbouring-countries,-including-russia

That second link gives you most of the information.

"From the financial point of view, in 2014 an Airbus A320 100 km flight over Ukraine would cost a carrier 57EUR/100 km (acc. to Eurocontrol)."

The missing element is the actual distance travelled in Ukrainian airspace. I have flown that Heathrow/Amsterdam to KL/Singapore dozens of times so know that a) the routes are follow pretty much the same track and that b) the route roughly follows a line from Lviv to somewhere around east Crimea; according to Google that route (by road) is 1300km. Depending on winds/weather the route is sometimes a bit further south, crossing the coast near Odessa, or further north without overflying the Black Sea at all. Respectively those routes spend less/more time in Ukrainian airspace so I reckon 1300km is a reasonable average. That makes about €750ish for an A320, which is relatively small and cannot be used on a long haul flight like that. Presumably larger jets are charged more (€1000?) and there are lots of them on this route so I can easily see how the article gets to €200m.