ATC User Fees

[Larry Dighera]

More port for big business?



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 17a -- April 25, 2005

-------------------------------------------------------------------

D.C. LOOKS AT PRIVATIZATION...
The House Aviation Subcommittee last Wednesday held a hearing on
the commercialization of air traffic services, saying the FAA is
now in crisis and at a "crossroads." The FAA has failed to meet
schedules and deploy new technology despite billions of dollars in
spending, the committee said. At least 30 other countries have
switched from government services to private providers. The
committee heard testimony from representatives of Nav Canada and a
German air-traffic agency, but noted that in terms of operational
scale and airspace complexity it is difficult to compare the U.S.
National Airspace System and foreign systems.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/391-full.html#189632

...AS NATCA RESPONDS
U.S. air traffic controllers handle more than 64 million takeoffs
and landings each year, and Cleveland controllers alone handle
more operations annually than Canada's entire privatized system
... according to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(NATCA). NATCA President John Carr last week spoke out against
privatization. "We have the world's safest, largest and most
complex system. Why in the world would we ever dream of changing
it?" Carr said. "Risking the public's safety by putting air
traffic control up for sale should never be an option." The fiscal
crunch at the FAA is also raising more fears of user fees.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/391-full.html#189633

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Larry Dighera > said:
> and landings each year, and Cleveland controllers alone handle
> more operations annually than Canada's entire privatized system

Misleading if not outright lies.

According to NavCanada, they handle 11 million operations per year.
According to the FAA, Cleveland Center handles 3 million operations per
year.

Possibly they're counting Cleveland Center *plus* every take off and
landing handled by the controllers at the airports within the Cleveland
Center zone. But that's misleading too, because an aircraft that took off
from, say, Detroit and landed at, say, Pittsburg would could as three
operations then, but with NavCanada's integrated system, a similar flight
from Toronto to Montreal, or even Toronto to Vancouver, would only count
as one.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"The first rule of Usenet Cabal is: you do not talk about Usenet Cabal."

[Jay Honeck]

If I thought they would truly privatize ATC, I'd be for it. It would be
wonderful to truly take advantage of modern technology in a way that only
private business can roll out and employ.

However, you *know* what would happen. It would be "privatized" in the
same way that Chicago Tollways are "privatized", and become nothing but
sink-holes for graft and kickbacks.

Or, worse, it would be "privatized" like the Postal Service, or Medicare --
both of which exist in a half-private/half-public netherworld that seems to
combine the worst of both worlds...

At the moment I'm of the mind that if it's working, don't screw with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Srpce.26243$c24.22849@attbi_s72...
>
> If I thought they would truly privatize ATC, I'd be for it. It would be
> wonderful to truly take advantage of modern technology in a way that only
> private business can roll out and employ.
>

To truly privatize it would require free market competition among providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

[Jay Honeck]

> To truly privatize it would require free market competition among
providers
> of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

Exactly.

Economic sectors where only monopoly businesses can function pretty much
defines (in my mind) where "government" should exist.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Srpce.26243$c24.22849@attbi_s72...
> If I thought they would truly privatize ATC, I'd be for it. It would be
> wonderful to truly take advantage of modern technology in a way that only
> private business can roll out and employ.
>
> However, you *know* what would happen. It would be "privatized" in the
> same way that Chicago Tollways are "privatized", and become nothing but
> sink-holes for graft and kickbacks.
>
> Or, worse, it would be "privatized" like the Postal Service, or
Medicare --
> both of which exist in a half-private/half-public netherworld that seems
to
> combine the worst of both worlds...

Think: Amtrak

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:2mqce.34479$r53.15777@attbi_s21...
> > To truly privatize it would require free market competition among
> providers
> > of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

They used to say that the phone company or the utility companies needed to
be monopolies.

>
> Exactly.
>
> Economic sectors where only monopoly businesses can function pretty much
> defines (in my mind) where "government" should exist.

Such as?

[David Bridgham]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> To truly privatize it would require free market competition among providers
> of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

If you look at ATC services as being people who talk to you on the
radio and tell you where to go, then you're probably right. It's hard
to see how there could be competing services with that system.
However, if you look at ATC services as primarily being separation and
sequencing into the busiest airports, then I think we can find
different mechanisms for those that might allow for competition.

Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots can
"see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
service.

Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
it.

I think a better answer would be to extend the datalink system so that
it could transmit approach corridor information to inbound aircraft
who then sequence themselves through different approach gates sorted
by speed.

I'm not sure we're ready to replace tower controllers with something
like this though Canada's idea of Mandatory Frequency airports is one
option that could reduce the number of airports that need towers.

-Dave

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:07:14 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<Srpce.26243$c24.22849@attbi_s72>::

>However, you *know* what would happen. It would be "privatized" in the
>same way that Chicago Tollways are "privatized", and become nothing but
>sink-holes for graft and kickbacks.

Or in the same way that energy was privatized in California:
http://www.westmarinalliance.org/global/energy_crisis.htm

Deregulation and Privatization of Public Services under FTAA

California’s energy crisis is quickly becoming old news. The
mainstream press is saturated with reports of exorbitant rates and
rolling blackouts that have plagued the state in the years since
its ill-fated move to deregulate and privatize utilities. Hardly a
soul in Sacramento these days would dare subscribe to the notion
that deregulation has been good for the California economy.
Thousands of utility workers have been laid off, union contracts
have been steadily eroded, the health and safety of low-income,
elderly and sick Californians – all of whom suffer the most
because of blackouts and rate hikes – has been put at risk. And
yet further deregulation and privatization of essential public
services is exactly what the federal government has in store for
us under the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). ...


Can you say Enron? :-(

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> They used to say that the phone company or the utility companies needed to
> be monopolies.
>

That's not quite the same situation. True competition between phone and
utility companies would require each company to create their own
distribution networks in the same area. Separate phone, gas, and electrical
lines for each company. It could be done but at greater cost to the
consumer and less profit for the company.

You could have separate ATC providers, each providing their own
infrastructure in the form of radar sites, radio transceivers, etc., but
their clients would all be operating in the same airspace. Customers of
Acme ATC would be separated from other Acme ATC customers, and Consolidated
ATC clients would be separated from each other, but Acme ATC customers could
not be separated from Consolidated ATC clients.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Bridgham" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you look at ATC services as being people who talk to you on the
> radio and tell you where to go, then you're probably right. It's hard
> to see how there could be competing services with that system.
> However, if you look at ATC services as primarily being separation and
> sequencing into the busiest airports, then I think we can find
> different mechanisms for those that might allow for competition.
>
> Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots can
> "see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
> Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
> service.
>

I don't see any free market competition among providers of ATC services
there. It appears to me you've eliminated the provision of ATC services!
Who then is responsible for separation?


>
> Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
> say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
> the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
> contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
> it.
>

But then there'd be no free market competition among providers of ATC
services.

[David Bridgham]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> > Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots
> > can "see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
> > Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
> > service.
>
> I don't see any free market competition among providers of ATC services
> there. It appears to me you've eliminated the provision of ATC services!
> Who then is responsible for separation?

The pilots of course. They've always had the responsibility for the
aircraft, technology just now allows us to give them the information
needed to also have the ability to make their own decisions instead of
handing that job over to someone on the ground.

> > Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
> > say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
> > the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
> > contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
> > it.
>
> But then there'd be no free market competition among providers of ATC
> services.

Right, the only competition is in the bidding process for the various
contracts to provide approach services at those airports that think
they need them. That's why I went on to describe what I think is a
better system; one that does away with the need and again puts
responsibility with the pilots, where it belongs.

The point I'd hoped to make was not my particular ideas of how to make
a better system for air traffic (though I'm happy to talk about that
too). My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.

-Dave

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Bridgham" > wrote in message
...
>
> The pilots of course. They've always had the responsibility for the
> aircraft, technology just now allows us to give them the information
> needed to also have the ability to make their own decisions instead of
> handing that job over to someone on the ground.
>

If everybody's responsible then nobody's responsible.


>
> Right, the only competition is in the bidding process for the various
> contracts to provide approach services at those airports that think
> they need them. That's why I went on to describe what I think is a
> better system; one that does away with the need and again puts
> responsibility with the pilots, where it belongs.
>

Many pilots just aren't up to that level of responsibility.

[Newps]

David Bridgham wrote:

>
> The point I'd hoped to make was not my particular ideas of how to make
> a better system for air traffic (though I'm happy to talk about that
> too). My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
> with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
> reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
> so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
> worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
> with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.

There is no way that 50 airplanes, each with a computer trying to figure
out a sequence, will ever be as efficient as one controller. Cannot be
done. Your system would immediately fall apart when you start
introducing everyday variables into the mix. Such as vehicles/aircraft
needing to cross or access the runway, aircraft missing their turnoff,
aircraft aborting takeoff, debris falling off aircraft and needing to be
cleaned up, mowing, snow removal, the list is endless.

[Peter]

Newps wrote:

> David Bridgham wrote:
>> The point I'd hoped to make was not my particular ideas of how to make
>> a better system for air traffic (though I'm happy to talk about that
>> too). My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
>> with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
>> reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
>> so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
>> worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
>> with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.
>
>
> There is no way that 50 airplanes, each with a computer trying to figure
> out a sequence, will ever be as efficient as one controller. Cannot be
> done. Your system would immediately fall apart when you start
> introducing everyday variables into the mix. Such as vehicles/aircraft
> needing to cross or access the runway, aircraft missing their turnoff,
> aircraft aborting takeoff, debris falling off aircraft and needing to be
> cleaned up, mowing, snow removal, the list is endless.

Yes, it might be almost as complex as this post managing to find its way
through a network of thousands of computers without any central control.

I'm sure the system will immediately fall apart and you'll never see
this response.

[Newps]

Peter wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>> David Bridgham wrote:
>>
>>> The point I'd hoped to make was not my particular ideas of how to make
>>> a better system for air traffic (though I'm happy to talk about that
>>> too). My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
>>> with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
>>> reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
>>> so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
>>> worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
>>> with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no way that 50 airplanes, each with a computer trying to
>> figure out a sequence, will ever be as efficient as one controller.
>> Cannot be done. Your system would immediately fall apart when you
>> start introducing everyday variables into the mix. Such as
>> vehicles/aircraft needing to cross or access the runway, aircraft
>> missing their turnoff, aircraft aborting takeoff, debris falling off
>> aircraft and needing to be cleaned up, mowing, snow removal, the list
>> is endless.
>
>
> Yes, it might be almost as complex as this post managing to find its way
> through a network of thousands of computers without any central control.
>
> I'm sure the system will immediately fall apart and you'll never see
> this response.
>

Apples and oranges. If your post made it immediately to the server or
was delayed by 5 minutes it would be irrelavant. Air traffic doesn't
work that way. Take a simple example. There is an aircraft on fianl,
put there by the computer. There is an aircraft cleared for takeoff by
the computer. There is an aircraft told to taxi into position and hold
by the computer. The aircraft on takeoff roll has to abort and as you
know there could be a million reasons for that. Perhaps it's a non
mechanical reason, and therefore not known by the computer, a deer ran
on to the runway. How does the aircraft on final know what to do? It
all has to be inputted into a computer immediately. Where will he fly?
How will the aircraft, who is in position and hold, know what to do.
The computer needs to be told that it can't go. If everything works
perfectly every second of every day it probably still wouldn't work.
Add in one typical variable and the house of cards collapses.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, it might be almost as complex as this post managing to find its way
> through a network of thousands of computers without any central control.
>
> I'm sure the system will immediately fall apart and you'll never see this
> response.
>

How do the consequences of losing a message compare to the consequences of a
midair collision?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:02:19 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>The aircraft on takeoff roll has to abort and as you
>know there could be a million reasons for that. Perhaps it's a non
>mechanical reason, and therefore not known by the computer, a deer ran
>on to the runway. How does the aircraft on final know what to do? It
>all has to be inputted into a computer immediately.

If the computer is aware of the position of the aircraft it is
controlling through GPS interrogation, RADAR/transponder, ADDS-B, or
...., it would be programmed to issue the appropriate instructions to
the aircraft. Beyond departure and destination information, little
else need be "inputted" into the computer.

[Peter]

Newps wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>> David Bridgham wrote:
>>>
>>>> My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
>>>> with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
>>>> reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
>>>> so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
>>>> worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
>>>> with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.

>>> There is no way that 50 airplanes, each with a computer trying to
>>> figure out a sequence, will ever be as efficient as one controller.
>>> Cannot be done. Your system would immediately fall apart when you
>>> start introducing everyday variables into the mix.

>> Yes, it might be almost as complex as this post managing to find its
>> way through a network of thousands of computers without any central
>> control.
>>
>> I'm sure the system will immediately fall apart and you'll never see
>> this response.
>>
>
> Apples and oranges.

Apparently it managed to get through afterall.

> If your post made it immediately to the server or
> was delayed by 5 minutes it would be irrelavant. Air traffic doesn't
> work that way. Take a simple example. There is an aircraft on fianl,
> put there by the computer. There is an aircraft cleared for takeoff by
> the computer. There is an aircraft told to taxi into position and hold
> by the computer. The aircraft on takeoff roll has to abort and as you
> know there could be a million reasons for that. Perhaps it's a non
> mechanical reason, and therefore not known by the computer, a deer ran
> on to the runway. How does the aircraft on final know what to do? It
> all has to be inputted into a computer immediately. Where will he fly?

Same thing that happens now. If the runway isn't clear when he starts to
land then he does a go around and negotiates a new reservation slot in
the queue. If he's far enough back when the delay occurs then he slows
or does a 360. Certainly the algorithms would be different for ATC than
computer networks ('retransmit after collision' can work for packets but
isn't so good for aircraft), but I don't see it as inherently less soluable.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If the computer is aware of the position of the aircraft it is
> controlling through GPS interrogation, RADAR/transponder, ADDS-B, or
> ..., it would be programmed to issue the appropriate instructions to
> the aircraft. Beyond departure and destination information, little
> else need be "inputted" into the computer.
>

What's the backup to the computer?

[Peter]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Peter" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yes, it might be almost as complex as this post managing to find its way
>>through a network of thousands of computers without any central control.
>>
>>I'm sure the system will immediately fall apart and you'll never see this
>>response.
>>
>
>
> How do the consequences of losing a message compare to the consequences of a
> midair collision?

I expect one of the criteria before transitioning to a more distributed
computerized system of ATC would be that it would reduce the probability
of collisions. I'm not expecting it to happen anytime soon.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> Same thing that happens now. If the runway isn't clear when he starts to
> land then he does a go around and negotiates a new reservation slot in the
> queue. If he's far enough back when the delay occurs then he slows or
> does a 360. Certainly the algorithms would be different for ATC than
> computer networks ('retransmit after collision' can work for packets but
> isn't so good for aircraft), but I don't see it as inherently less
> soluable.
>

What's the backup to the computer?

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:02:19 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>The aircraft on takeoff roll has to abort and as you
>>know there could be a million reasons for that. Perhaps it's a non
>>mechanical reason, and therefore not known by the computer, a deer ran
>>on to the runway. How does the aircraft on final know what to do? It
>>all has to be inputted into a computer immediately.
>
>
> If the computer is aware of the position of the aircraft it is
> controlling through GPS interrogation, RADAR/transponder, ADDS-B, or
> ..., it would be programmed to issue the appropriate instructions to
> the aircraft. Beyond departure and destination information, little
> else need be "inputted" into the computer.

The computer doesn't know that the aircraft aborted, only that it has
been released and will fly the computer assigned heading. It knows whre
the plane is but not why it isn't doing what it's supposed to.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:47:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If the computer is aware of the position of the aircraft it is
>> controlling through GPS interrogation, RADAR/transponder, ADDS-B, or
>> ..., it would be programmed to issue the appropriate instructions to
>> the aircraft. Beyond departure and destination information, little
>> else need be "inputted" into the computer.
>>
>
>What's the backup to the computer?
>

So you agree that the information wouldn't need be "inputted" into the
computer?

[Newps]

Peter wrote:


>
> Same thing that happens now. If the runway isn't clear when he starts to
> land then he does a go around and negotiates a new reservation slot in
> the queue.

So the pilot isn't busy enough and now has to be a controller?


If he's far enough back when the delay occurs then he slows
> or does a 360.

No airplane on final in busy airspace does a 360. Ever.


Certainly the algorithms would be different for ATC than
> computer networks ('retransmit after collision' can work for packets but
> isn't so good for aircraft), but I don't see it as inherently less
> soluable.

I said the computer could do it. The problem is the controller can do
it better. You cannot make a computer do what the controller does and
do it more efficiently. You will never remove the human.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you agree that the information wouldn't need be "inputted" into the
> computer?
>

Of course, but the computer would certainly need input. A computer without
input is not particularly useful.

[Jose]

I think the idea is that the pilot, with sufficient information in a
sufficiently good display and interface, would be able to handle
separation (under IMC) as well as he could under VMC. If this is true
(and I'm not convinced that it is yet), then much of the need for the
IFR system would be eliminated.

I am aware that under high traffic conditions this breaks down (which is
presumably why we have alphabet airspace to begin with)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Matt Barrow" > writes:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:2mqce.34479$r53.15777@attbi_s21...
>> > To truly privatize it would require free market competition among
>> providers
>> > of ATC services. That simply is not possible.
>
> They used to say that the phone company or the utility companies needed to
> be monopolies.

And, in fact, there is only *one* gas pipe, *one* water pipe, *one*
sewer pipe running down the street out front of my house. And only
*one* set of electrical wires in the neighborhood. And *one* set of
phone wires. And *one* set of cable company coax.

It's possible to multiplex services from different companies on them,
to some extent. It's not very meaningful for the water, phone,
electricity, or sewer; for the phone wires, also used for DSL, it
actually seems to work well to allow multiple ISPs to connect
through those lines. But tht's because it's a separate run from the
switching office to each house, whereas all the rest use shared
wiring/piping.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> I expect one of the criteria before transitioning to a more distributed
> computerized system of ATC would be that it would reduce the probability
> of collisions. I'm not expecting it to happen anytime soon.
>

So it's pretty much outside the scope of this discussion then.

[Rich Lemert]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:02:19 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>
>>The aircraft on takeoff roll has to abort and as you
>>know there could be a million reasons for that. Perhaps it's a non
>>mechanical reason, and therefore not known by the computer, a deer ran
>>on to the runway. How does the aircraft on final know what to do? It
>>all has to be inputted into a computer immediately.
>
>
> If the computer is aware of the position of the aircraft it is
> controlling through GPS interrogation, RADAR/transponder, ADDS-B, or
> ..., it would be programmed to issue the appropriate instructions to
> the aircraft. Beyond departure and destination information, little
> else need be "inputted" into the computer.

Your comment assumes that all unusual circumstances can be identified
in advance and therefore prepared for. Unfortunately we are past the
point where this is true.

Rich Lemert

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

> I think the idea is that the pilot, with sufficient information in a
> sufficiently good display and interface, would be able to handle
> separation (under IMC) as well as he could under VMC. If this is true
> (and I'm not convinced that it is yet), then much of the need for the
> IFR system would be eliminated.
>
> I am aware that under high traffic conditions this breaks down (which is
> presumably why we have alphabet airspace to begin with)

It's not just high traffic conditions. An airplane can seperate itself
from nearby airplanes but it doesn't have the ability to take into
account the whole system. A disabled aircraft on the runway at say LAX
riplles thru out the whole NAS.

[Jose]

> It's not just high traffic conditions. An airplane can seperate itself from nearby airplanes but it doesn't have the ability to take into account the whole system. A disabled aircraft on the runway at say LAX riplles thru out the whole NAS.

Why? (serious question)

I suspect the answer involves a sea of airplanes each of which needs the
other to do something (such as clear the airspace) before -it- can do
something (such as enter it), and this has to do with IFR separation
requirements, which is (one reason) why bad weather can tie airspace in
knots, where as in good weather traffic is more resiliant.

If all air traffic were VFR, would a disabled aircraft at LAX impact the
whole NAS?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> It's not just high traffic conditions. An airplane can seperate
>> itself from nearby airplanes but it doesn't have the ability to take
>> into account the whole system. A disabled aircraft on the runway at
>> say LAX riplles thru out the whole NAS.
>
>
> Why? (serious question)

A 1/2 hour runway shutdown at a major hub means an instantaneous ground
stop for that airport. Too many airplanes all in the same space.


>
> If all air traffic were VFR, would a disabled aircraft at LAX impact the
> whole NAS?

Separation requirements don't really affect much. You can have 8 stacks
of 10 airplanes at 40, 50, 60, 70,..... miles from the airport.
Basically unlimited.

[Larry Dighera]

Here's the latest AOPA information on this issue:


AOPA DEFENDS MEMBERS' INTERESTS AT FAA FUNDING FORUM

There should be no doubt in the aviation community about where
AOPA members stand on user fees—no, no, and NO! That was the
clear message that AOPA leaders delivered at the high-level FAA
funding forum in Washington, D.C., Monday and Tuesday. Because tax
revenues are declining while the FAA's costs are increasing,
transportation officials have called for an overhaul of the FAA's
funding mechanisms when Congress reauthorizes the aviation trust
fund in 2007. And while the prevailing opinion at the forum seemed
to be that user fees were the &quot;solution&quot; to the FAA's
budget woes, AOPA President Phil Boyer said, &quot;The FAA must
get its costs under control first.&quot; AOPA called on the FAA to
request recommendations from the industry on cost reductions,
noting that the association had stepped up to the plate by
supporting the FAA's efforts to find more efficient ways to
provide flight service information and its plans to decommission
underused NDB approaches. See
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050426funding.html


USER FEES GET COLD SHOULDER IN HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

Some of the first salvos in the latest user-fee battle were fired
last week in a House aviation subcommittee hearing room. The
committee called officials from the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) and the privatized air traffic control systems of
Canada and Germany. But so far there seems to be little support on
this committee for going down the same path in the United States.
On a cost-per-operation basis, most of the supposedly more
&quot;efficient&quot; privatized systems cost a lot more than the
FAA's government-run, tax-supported air traffic control system. As
it turns out, the average controller in the United States handles
about 3,500 IFR operations each year at a cost of $172 each. By
comparison, in Germany the average controller handles only 490
operations at a cost of $390 each. See
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050426fees.html

[Larry Dighera]

Yet more smoke on the ATC User Fees issue:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 18a -- May 2, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------

THE FUTURE OF FAA FUNDING...
You never get a bill for it, and there's no entry for it on your books
or your tax form, but that doesn't mean access to the National
Airspace System is free. And just how (perhaps more important, who's)
to pay for the increasingly expensive system was the subject of
invitation-only meetings between FAA officials and aviation industry
representatives last Monday and Tuesday. Nothing was resolved, but FAA
spokesman Greg Martin told AVweb aviation is changing and the FAA must
adapt its method of doing business to meet forecast increases in
traffic -- while revenues decrease. "To suggest that the status quo
remain in place is appallingly naive," Martin said in an exclusive
interview with AVweb. "It just doesn't add up." The FAA maintains that
a number of divergent factors have precipitated the current funding
situation.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/394-full.html#189670

....WHO WILL PAY...
And it now appears the initial softening-up period on the potential
for user fees is over. The term was, until recently, banished from the
FAA lexicon, but the volatile verbiage is now clearly on the table.
"Some groups have some very strong views when terms like 'user fees'
are used," Martin acknowledged. At the same time, he insists they are
not a foregone conclusion. "I don't think there's any predetermined
direction to go in this," he added. But he did say the intention is to
dissolve the Trust Fund at the end of the current budget-allocation
period in 2007, and that the new system that replaces it will need
more revenue. "There is no revenue [now] for the FAA that matches up
with what it costs," he said. And, as he predicted, the U-word
provoked a voluble response.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/394-full.html#189671

....FEES CAN BE COSTLY TOO...
While some of the attendees, Boyer included, came away with the
impression that user fees are the favored option, the National
Business Aviation Association's position is that the current system of
fuel taxes is perhaps the most fair. "There's no simpler and more
accurate way to distinguish between heavy and light users of the
system than to measure the amount of fuel burned," President Ed Bolen
said. He also noted that the introduction of user fees would require
establishment of another bureaucracy to administer, bill and collect
the money. He claimed it cost some user-fee-based agencies in Europe
up to $125 to process each transaction. And while opinions varied on
revenue creation, there was virtual unanimity on the need for the FAA
to get control of spending.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/394-full.html#189672

....CRISIS, WHAT CRISIS?
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) weighed in
with a 52-page analysis of not only the FAA's funding situation but a
comparison with the way other countries fund and manage their aviation
systems. NATCA's broad conclusion is that aviation affects virtually
all facets of modern life and should therefore be a shared burden. The
report, authored by NATCA Executive Vice President Ruth Marlin,
acknowledges that direct consumers of aviation activities (i.e.,
passengers and cargo customers) should pay a significant portion of
the FAA's costs but "they should not be required to fund the entire
cost as there is a portion of the costs that is clearly in the public
interest and therefore appropriately funded by the general treasury."
The FAA's Martin said it's a simplistic argument considering the other
pressures facing the government.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/394-full.html#189673

[Larry Dighera]

I hope this isn't a 'divide and conquer scenario. First implement
user fees for airlines only, then once the fee structure is in place,
add GA to those paying user fees.




-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 19a -- May 9, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------

USER-FEE AFTERMATH: OTHER OPTIONS EXPLORED...
Following last week's hearing on the state of the Aviation Trust Fund,
members of the House Aviation Subcommittee didn't seem very convinced
that user fees would be the answer to the FAA's funding woes.
"Switching to a user-fee system raises more questions than answers,"
according to ranking committee member Jerry Costello (D-Ill.). Other
financing alternatives discussed at the hearing included increasing
the current aviation taxes, fixing the annual contribution from the
General Fund, and providing the FAA with borrowing authority. Ken
Mead, inspector general for the Transportation Department, testified,
"The Congress and the aviation community need assurances that [the]
FAA is doing all it can to control costs before decisions can be made
about the adequacy of current funding levels and whether or not
additional revenue is needed."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/396-full.html#189713

....AS REASON PREVAILS
Meanwhile, the Reason Public Policy Institute, a libertarian think
tank that has proven influential in some D.C. circles in recent years,
released a report* last week on the issue of funding the nation's air
traffic control system. The institute has long been a supporter of
user fees, but now has backed down somewhat on the argument as it
pertains to GA. The new report recommends that piston-powered GA
aircraft pay only the aviation fuel tax, and no user fees at all. "We
think [the report] still misses the point," said AOPA President Phil
Boyer. "GA shouldn't be charged for a system we don't need and for the
most part don't use."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/396-full.html#189714




* http://www.rppi.org/ps332.pdf
R e a s o n F o u n d a t i o n
Resolving the Crisis in Air Traffic Control Funding
By Vaughn Cordle and Robert W. Poole, Jr.

Executive Summary
The air traffic control system is faced with a major funding crisis,
which puts at risk ambitious plans to double or triple the system’s
capacity over the next 20 years. Just over a year after the start-up
of the reorganized Air Traffic Organization (ATO), its ability to
modernize the system is seriously threatened.

The immediate cause of this crisis is dramatic reductions in average
airline fares, brought about by the lowcost-carrier (LCC) revolution
of the past five years. Intensified competition from LCCs has forced
large reductions in most airfares. But since the major funding source
for the ATO is a 7.5 percent tax on the price of airline tickets, the
ATO’s projected revenue over the next 5, 10, and 20 years is many
billions less than expected and needed. And in the current airline
financial climate, increasing taxes on this beleaguered
industry is simply not an option.

Therefore, it is time to rethink the way we pay for air traffic
control. It turns out the United States is the last remaining
developed country to use a ticket tax for this purpose. Nearly all
other countries follow the guidelines of the International Civil
Aviation Organization (to which the United States is a signatory) and
charge aviation users directly for air traffic services. Indeed, the
1997 Mineta Commission report, which led to the creation of the ATO,
strongly recommended that funding for the new ATO be based on payments
for air traffic services, paid directly by aviation users to the ATO.
The Mineta Commission pointed out that in addition to creating a
stronger customer/provider relationship, such direct user payments
would constitute a bondable revenue stream. That would permit funding
air traffic control modernization by issuing long-term revenue bonds,
rather than via annual appropriations.

This study recommends that Congress make the ATO a self-supporting
unit of the FAA, by authorizing it to charge aviation users directly
for its services. The ATO would also be authorized to raise money for
capital spending (modernization) by issuing long-term revenue bonds in
the capital markets. The FAA’s safety regulation and miscellaneous
other functions would still be supported, as they are now, by $2
billion per year of general fund monies. And the airport grants
program (AIP) would be supported by a modest tax on airline
tickets and cargo waybills (in the vicinity of 1 percent).

The transition period to bond-funding of modernization would produce
net savings to airlines of hundreds of millions of dollars per year,
especially in the early years. At the same time, modernization would
be accelerated, thanks to the ability to raise large amounts up front
to finance capital expenditures for which there was a demonstrated
business case. Modernization plans would first have to be approved by
a new ATO Board, consisting largely of aviation stakeholders. This
Board would also determine the structure of the new charges for air
traffic control services.

We recommend that only that small segment of general aviation which
makes extensive use of air traffic control services—jets and
turboprops—pay fees under the new system and be represented on the
stakeholder board. The large majority of piston-powered general
aviation would continue to pay the aviation fuel tax, which would help
to support the airport grants program. And we consider the Flight
Service Station program used by general aviation to be basically a
safety function, which should be paid for out of FAA’s safety
budget; in no cases should there be user fees for those services.
There is a real window of opportunity for reforming the way we pay for
air traffic control:

... The funding crunch urgently needs addressing, before serious harm
occurs thanks to the aging and deteriorating ATC infrastructure.

... The new ATO needs the basic tools the Mineta Commission
recommended, especially a dependable, bondable revenue stream that is
not constrained by federal budget problems.

... New technology, combined with the impending retirement of more than
half the controller workforce, offers a one-time opportunity to change
the way air traffic is managed, permitting a huge increase in capacity
without increasing the workforce.

... The ATO will soon have in place the cost-accounting system, which
is a precondition for developing cost-based charges for its services.

... The current aviation taxes sunset in FY 2007, making their
replacement an urgent topic for debate this year.

We are proposing a dramatic change, but it’s no less dramatic than the
change Congress authorized 20 years ago for the Washington, D.C.
airports. Like the ATO, Dulles and National airports were then part of
the FAA’s appropriated budget. They were unable to modernize, and they
were not directly responsive to what their customers wanted. Congress
had the wisdom in 1986 to permit those two airports to become
selffunding entities, outside the federal budget structure (though
still owned by the federal government).

Thanks to developing their own bondable revenue base, the airports
embarked on dramatic modernization programs to better serve their
customers. No one today would go back to the old model for these
airports.

What Congress did for the Washington, D.C. airports in 1986 it can and
should do for the Air Traffic Organization in 2005 or 2006.

....






On Wed, 04 May 2005 02:32:05 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >::

>
>Yet more smoke on the ATC User Fees issue:
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>AVflash Volume 11, Number 18a -- May 2, 2005
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>THE FUTURE OF FAA FUNDING...
>You never get a bill for it, and there's no entry for it on your books
>or your tax form, but that doesn't mean access to the National
>Airspace System is free. And just how (perhaps more important, who's)
>to pay for the increasingly expensive system was the subject of
>invitation-only meetings between FAA officials and aviation industry
>representatives last Monday and Tuesday. Nothing was resolved, but FAA
>spokesman Greg Martin told AVweb aviation is changing and the FAA must
>adapt its method of doing business to meet forecast increases in
>traffic -- while revenues decrease. "To suggest that the status quo
>remain in place is appallingly naive," Martin said in an exclusive
>interview with AVweb. "It just doesn't add up." The FAA maintains that
>a number of divergent factors have precipitated the current funding
>situation.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/394-full.html#189670
>
>...WHO WILL PAY...
>And it now appears the initial softening-up period on the potential
>for user fees is over. The term was, until recently, banished from the
>FAA lexicon, but the volatile verbiage is now clearly on the table.
>"Some groups have some very strong views when terms like 'user fees'
>are used," Martin acknowledged. At the same time, he insists they are
>not a foregone conclusion. "I don't think there's any predetermined
>direction to go in this," he added. But he did say the intention is to
>dissolve the Trust Fund at the end of the current budget-allocation
>period in 2007, and that the new system that replaces it will need
>more revenue. "There is no revenue [now] for the FAA that matches up
>with what it costs," he said. And, as he predicted, the U-word
>provoked a voluble response.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/394-full.html#189671
>
>...FEES CAN BE COSTLY TOO...
>While some of the attendees, Boyer included, came away with the
>impression that user fees are the favored option, the National
>Business Aviation Association's position is that the current system of
>fuel taxes is perhaps the most fair. "There's no simpler and more
>accurate way to distinguish between heavy and light users of the
>system than to measure the amount of fuel burned," President Ed Bolen
>said. He also noted that the introduction of user fees would require
>establishment of another bureaucracy to administer, bill and collect
>the money. He claimed it cost some user-fee-based agencies in Europe
>up to $125 to process each transaction. And while opinions varied on
>revenue creation, there was virtual unanimity on the need for the FAA
>to get control of spending.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/394-full.html#189672
>
>...CRISIS, WHAT CRISIS?
>The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) weighed in
>with a 52-page analysis of not only the FAA's funding situation but a
>comparison with the way other countries fund and manage their aviation
>systems. NATCA's broad conclusion is that aviation affects virtually
>all facets of modern life and should therefore be a shared burden. The
>report, authored by NATCA Executive Vice President Ruth Marlin,
>acknowledges that direct consumers of aviation activities (i.e.,
>passengers and cargo customers) should pay a significant portion of
>the FAA's costs but "they should not be required to fund the entire
>cost as there is a portion of the costs that is clearly in the public
>interest and therefore appropriately funded by the general treasury."
>The FAA's Martin said it's a simplistic argument considering the other
>pressures facing the government.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/394-full.html#189673

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> I hope this isn't a 'divide and conquer scenario. First implement
> user fees for airlines only, then once the fee structure is in place,
> add GA to those paying user fees.

Do you seriously think there's any doubt that will happen? Of course it's divide
and conquer. The airlines are harping now (with very little real ammunition)
that GA isn't paying its way and they are. Once this goes in, they will be able
to "prove" that's true with very little (if any) slanting.

The airlines will use this exemption to argue that GA should be excluded from
"their" airports, and some politicians will be able to make political hay by
"correcting" this "inequity." From what I know about people in New Jersey, there
will be a strong public outcry to quit using "their" tax money to support those
"rich" people flying all those "noisy little airplanes."

We'll wind up being banned from major airports *and* have to pay user fees on
top of that.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> I hope this isn't a 'divide and conquer scenario. First implement
> user fees for airlines only, then once the fee structure is in place,
> add GA to those paying user fees.


And then, shift more of the burden onto GA in order to kill it, which I
suspect the airlines would just love.

I am a huge free market capitalist supporter, but the free market only
works when the market is free. Since the FAA will have a monopoly,
there will be little advantage for accountability and efficiency, and
potentially huge costs to those with the political short stick--which is
GA.

The trend toward user fees also needs to be accompanied by a reduction
in costs (won't happen if there's no competition) and a reduction or
elimination of the taxes currently levied to fund the FAA. The ability
of the FAA to operate with multiple revenue sources (taxes and user
fees) is nothing but a gravy train that demotes cost accountability even
further.



JKG

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 09 May 2005 14:54:49 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> I hope this isn't a 'divide and conquer scenario. First implement
>> user fees for airlines only, then once the fee structure is in place,
>> add GA to those paying user fees.
>
>And then, shift more of the burden onto GA in order to kill it, which I
>suspect the airlines would just love.

That's why I support keeping the source of FAA revenue tied to fuel
receipts. Those who burn the most fuel pay the most. There was 58
times more jet fuel than avgas sold last year.

>I am a huge free market capitalist supporter, but the free market only
>works when the market is free. Since the FAA will have a monopoly,
>there will be little advantage for accountability and efficiency, and
>potentially huge costs to those with the political short stick--which is
>GA.

It's worse than that. Boeing has an ATC division that would love to
get the privatized ATC contract. Given Boeing's airline customer
base, that would be like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

>The trend toward user fees also needs to be accompanied by a reduction
>in costs (won't happen if there's no competition) and a reduction or
>elimination of the taxes currently levied to fund the FAA. The ability
>of the FAA to operate with multiple revenue sources (taxes and user
>fees) is nothing but a gravy train that demotes cost accountability even
>further.

The National Airspace System, being a nationwide resource, should be
government operated. For the government to abdicate responsibility
for our skies to corporate interests is irresponsible. But the
Republicans have no more qualms about handouts to big business than
they have permitting oil drilling, logging, and mining in 1/3 of our
national forests as occurred last week.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 09 May 2005 18:45:26 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <adOfe.6049$EC6.1415@trndny06>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> I hope this isn't a 'divide and conquer scenario. First implement
>> user fees for airlines only, then once the fee structure is in place,
>> add GA to those paying user fees.
>
>Do you seriously think there's any doubt that will happen?

If the FAA revenue source if tied to fuel purchases, it will be more
difficult for airlines to squeeze GA out.

>Of course it's divide
>and conquer. The airlines are harping now (with very little real ammunition)
>that GA isn't paying its way and they are. Once this goes in, they will be able
>to "prove" that's true with very little (if any) slanting.

The 200% to 300% expansion in air traffic expected in the next decade
or two will not be a result of GA growth, and it shouldn't be funded
by additional taxes on GA.

>The airlines will use this exemption to argue that GA should be excluded from
>"their" airports, and some politicians will be able to make political hay by
>"correcting" this "inequity." From what I know about people in New Jersey, there
>will be a strong public outcry to quit using "their" tax money to support those
>"rich" people flying all those "noisy little airplanes."

That's why, if ATC privatization should take place, there should not
be an exemption for GA; the revenue to fund ATC should be tied to fuel
sales so that those who use it the most and demand its expansion are
paying for it.

>We'll wind up being banned from major airports *and* have to pay user fees on
>top of that.

With the landing fees currently in effect at many large metro'
airports, GA is already effectively banned from their use.

[Flyin'[email protected]]

> But the Republicans have no more qualms about handouts to big business
> than they have permitting oil drilling, logging, and mining in 1/3 of our
> national forests as occurred last week.

I do not see that Democrat/Republican has anything to do with this
discussion.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> they have permitting oil drilling, logging, and mining in 1/3 of our
> national forests as occurred last week.

Dilling, logging, and mining have *always* been permitted in the National
Forests. Much of the land there is private, also.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Mike Rapoport]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:IbQfe.4074$7G.487@trndny01...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> they have permitting oil drilling, logging, and mining in 1/3 of our
>> national forests as occurred last week.
>
> Dilling, logging, and mining have *always* been permitted in the National
> Forests. Much of the land there is private, also.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

Much of the land in National Forests is private?


Mike
MU-2

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>>We'll wind up being banned from major airports *and* have to pay user fees
>>on
>>top of that.
>
> With the landing fees currently in effect at many large metro'
> airports, GA is already effectively banned from their use.

Really? What's a "typical" landing fee at the airports you describe?

I haven't flown into the largest Class B airports in the US, but I've flown
into a couple of the smaller ones. Landing fees generally seem to run
around $50-100. Expensive, but not an insurmountable barrier. Someone in a
Cub would surely find that outrageous, but for those of us flying
high-performance aircraft long distances, an extra $50-100 isn't
intolerable, assuming there's a good reason to land at such an airport.

Are there airports with GA landing fees significantly higher than that?

Pete

[George Patterson]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> Much of the land in National Forests is private?

Privately owned. Yes.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Marty Shapiro]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>>>We'll wind up being banned from major airports *and* have to pay user
>>>fees on
>>>top of that.
>>
>> With the landing fees currently in effect at many large metro'
>> airports, GA is already effectively banned from their use.
>
> Really? What's a "typical" landing fee at the airports you describe?
>
> I haven't flown into the largest Class B airports in the US, but I've
> flown into a couple of the smaller ones. Landing fees generally seem
> to run around $50-100. Expensive, but not an insurmountable barrier.
> Someone in a Cub would surely find that outrageous, but for those of
> us flying high-performance aircraft long distances, an extra $50-100
> isn't intolerable, assuming there's a good reason to land at such an
> airport.
>
> Are there airports with GA landing fees significantly higher than
> that?
>
> Pete
>
>
>

It is NOT just the landing fees which can eat you alive. Many larger
airports (even class C) have a ramp fee. Some airports impose these ramp
fees even if you just drop/off or pick up a passenger.

I did an Angel Flight into SFO almost 3 years ago in an Arrow. The
landing fee was $74 and the minimum ramp fee was $33. IIRC, the ramp fee
was good for only 8 hours and then was something like $6 per hour after
that. Both fees were waived for Angel Flight.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:
> The National Airspace System, being a nationwide resource, should be
> government operated. For the government to abdicate responsibility
> for our skies to corporate interests is irresponsible. But the
> Republicans have no more qualms about handouts to big business than
> they have permitting oil drilling, logging, and mining in 1/3 of our
> national forests as occurred last week.

I suspect that there were many more Democrats pandering to big business
that Republicans over the last 50 years. The bottom line is that
politicians pander to those with the money, and big business donates to
whomever is in power, or has a good shot of gaining power, in the hopes
that they will be rewarded with kickbacks. It usually works. The last
time I looked, the combined wealth of the Democrats in the US Congress
exceeded that of the Republicans, but that's pretty much irrelevant
other than to dispel the myth that Republicans are rich and Democrats
are for the "middle class."

I'm all for using all of our natural resources, as long as they are open
to competition.

The entire issue of "public" and "private" with regards to aviation
plays out on a much smaller scale at the local airport. More
communities seem to be forming "airport authority" boards which are
basically controlled by commercial interests. The commercial interests
take over the administration of the airport, jack the rates up, slap on
some new restrictions intended to stifle the small guy who doesn't bring
in huge margins, and all of a sudden you have a declining light plane
population at an airport that was intended to be a public resource.
Usually, this is done in the name of "jobs for the region" or some such
nonsense that doesn't materialize. I'm sure there are success stories,
but I suspect that there are many more failures.



JKG

[Peter Duniho]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> It is NOT just the landing fees which can eat you alive. Many larger
> airports (even class C) have a ramp fee. Some airports impose these ramp
> fees even if you just drop/off or pick up a passenger.

True. And I am aware of the other fees. Still, even for SFO the total cost
only comes to a little over $100. Assuming one has a good reason for
wanting to land there as opposed to one of the other nearby airports, the
$100 doesn't seem prohibitive to me.

I flew into Oakland a couple of years ago, to stay downtown in San
Francisco. Between the FBO's shuttle and public transportation (train), it
wasn't terrible, but we DID take a cab back, and I could easily see someone
deciding it was worth $100 if their destination was more convenient to SFO
than OAK.

What I'm wondering if is there are actually airports who charge as much as
$250-$500 for light GA aircraft (which I *would* consider prohibitive).

Pete

[Marty Shapiro]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It is NOT just the landing fees which can eat you alive. Many
>> larger
>> airports (even class C) have a ramp fee. Some airports impose these
>> ramp fees even if you just drop/off or pick up a passenger.
>
> True. And I am aware of the other fees. Still, even for SFO the
> total cost only comes to a little over $100. Assuming one has a good
> reason for wanting to land there as opposed to one of the other nearby
> airports, the $100 doesn't seem prohibitive to me.
>
> I flew into Oakland a couple of years ago, to stay downtown in San
> Francisco. Between the FBO's shuttle and public transportation
> (train), it wasn't terrible, but we DID take a cab back, and I could
> easily see someone deciding it was worth $100 if their destination was
> more convenient to SFO than OAK.
>
> What I'm wondering if is there are actually airports who charge as
> much as $250-$500 for light GA aircraft (which I *would* consider
> prohibitive).
>
> Pete
>
>
>


The actual cost for a stay of more than a few hours at SFO is far more
than $100. The $103 only covers the first 8 hours at SFO. Each hour after
that would have cost $6. Your costs for one full day's parking + landing
fee would have been $203. Add $144 for each additional full day. I think
you will agree this reaches your "prohibitive" numbers pretty quickly.

Did you buy fuel? Currently, 100LL is $1.22 per gallon more at SFO
than at OAK, comparing full-serve to full-serve.

For a comparison, I looked at The Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey's web pages. The current charge to land at JFK, LGA, or EWR for a
small aircraft is only $25.00 but there is a $100 surcharge if you land OR
takeoff between 8 AM and 9 PM at LGA, 3 PM and 10 PM at JFK, and 8 to 10 AM
or 5 to 10 PM at EWR. Public ramp parking is $25 per 8 hours.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 9 May 2005 16:30:59 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>>>We'll wind up being banned from major airports *and* have to pay user fees
>>>on
>>>top of that.
>>
>> With the landing fees currently in effect at many large metro'
>> airports, GA is already effectively banned from their use.
>
>Really? What's a "typical" landing fee at the airports you describe?
>
>I haven't flown into the largest Class B airports in the US, but I've flown
>into a couple of the smaller ones. Landing fees generally seem to run
>around $50-100. Expensive, but not an insurmountable barrier. Someone in a
>Cub would surely find that outrageous, but for those of us flying
>high-performance aircraft long distances, an extra $50-100 isn't
>intolerable, assuming there's a good reason to land at such an airport.

I understand your feelings about landing fees. It is a subjective
judgment after all.

>Are there airports with GA landing fees significantly higher than that?
>
You'll find some information about landing fees at these links:

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/faiiap/pdfs/feesched.pdf#search='airport%20landing%20fee%20sch edule'
http://web.nbaa.org/public/news/pr/2005/20050106-001.php
http://www.flywichita.org/pdf/FeeChargesSchedule.pdf#search='airport%20landing%2 0fee%20schedule'
http://www.yxe.ca/about/pdf/Fees.pdf
http://www.ci.palm-springs.ca.us/city_clerk/2004%20COMP%20FEE%20SCH.pdf#search='airport%20land ing%20fee%20schedule'
http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/seatac/Tariff2-04.doc

More here:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?_adv_prop=web&x=op&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-top&va=airport+landing+fee+schedule&va_vt=any&vp_vt=any&vo_vt=any&ve_vt=any&vd=all&vst=0&vf=all&vm=i&fl=0&n=10

[Jose]

> Still, even for SFO the total cost
> only comes to a little over $100. Assuming one has a good reason for
> wanting to land there as opposed to one of the other nearby airports, the
> $100 doesn't seem prohibitive to me.

It would have to be a =much= better reason than most.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> The actual cost for a stay of more than a few hours at SFO is far more
> than $100. The $103 only covers the first 8 hours at SFO.

The original statement was that "GA is already effectively banned from their
use". If you have to keep adding qualifications to your defense of the
statement, I would hardly agree that you're actually defending the
statement.

That's even assuming we ignore overt errors such as adding $74 and $33 and
getting $103 (I get $107) or suggesting that "a stay of more than a few
hours at SFO is far more than $100" (by my calculation, a stay of eight
hours, which is IMHO "more than a few hours", is still only $107...hardly
"far more"), or probable errors in suggesting that the hourly parking rate
continues indefinitely (at all of the locations I'm familiar with, the daily
rate is significantly discounted from the hourly rate).

There's no debate whatsoever that the cost of operations at the largest
airports in the US is high. Of course it is. But I don't see how that
"effectively" bans GA from those airports.

For those operators for whom use of the largest airports is important
enough, the costs involved are not an inordinate increase to the overall
cost of the flight to "effectively ban" those flights. For the others,
there are plenty of non-economic incentives to go to other alternate
airports anyway, that pointing to the cost as an "effective ban" seems
misleading to me (how is it that the long taxiing, or the dense traffic, or
more complicated taxiway routes, or the delays involved in arrivals and
departures, or any number of other things aren't just as an "effective ban"
as the cost?).

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> It would have to be a =much= better reason than most.

It would have to be in any case, given all the other reasons not to go to a
large Class B airport. So what?

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> I understand your feelings about landing fees. It is a subjective
> judgment after all.

Hmmm...sounds like equivocation to me.

>>Are there airports with GA landing fees significantly higher than that?
>>
> You'll find some information about landing fees at these links:

Really? Good! Let's see...

> http://www.dot.state.ak.us/faiiap/pdfs/feesched.pdf#search='airport%20landing%20fee%20sch edule'

Your search turned up no hits in Acrobat. As near as I can tell from the
document, aircraft under 6000 lbs are exempt from landing fees.

> http://web.nbaa.org/public/news/pr/2005/20050106-001.php

Santa Monica is not a Class B airport, nor is an airport where the fees have
specifically been found to be illegal a good justification for your
statement.

> http://www.flywichita.org/pdf/FeeChargesSchedule.pdf#search='airport%20landing%2 0fee%20schedule'

Again, your search turned up nothing. Schedule 7 (which is what applies to
light GA aircraft) shows "None" as the landing free.

Hmmm...you provided a bunch of links. The first three completely fail to
address your point. I hereby refuse to bother looking at the rest...you are
wasting my time.

If you want to provide the ACTUAL information IN YOUR POST, that's great.
But don't go sending me off on some wild goose chase. I can Google just as
well as anyone else, but I'm not the one who made the statement. If you
think your statement is justified, provide information that justifies it.
Don't spam the newsgroup with irrelevant links.

Pete

[Jose]

>>It would have to be a =much= better reason than most.
> It would have to be in any case, given all the other reasons not to go to a
> large Class B airport. So what?

I don't understand the question. The fees at large commercial airports
are very much higher than fees elsewhere, although I have found bargains
at times. I've landed spam cans at Logan and National for example
during times when they were holding a sale.

The high fees serve as a deterrent - to a sufficent extent that most
spam cans avoid the airport. Long taxiways do not act as strongly as a
deterrent (though I've taxiied for more than an hour at Dulles - I was
glad I was on tach time and not hobbs!). While the exec who flies his
jet into the city for an important meeting can justify a hundred dollar
landing fee, the small business owner who is also a pilot and flies a
172 is likely to have a much harder time justifying it. He's likely to
fly elsewhere and take a cab, even if it takes a bit longer.

Yes, a 172 landing in front of a line of 747s will have a strong impact
on the airport's traffic pattern, and this should be figured in. It
wouldn't be so bad if there were nearby reliever airports (or even
reliever runways), but around the big hubs, the relievers are generally
not all that close. Flushing Airport would have been nice, alas it's
gone. There's nothing in Boston except Logan. We all know about DC...

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> I don't understand the question. The fees at large commercial airports
> are very much higher than fees elsewhere

I never said they weren't.

> [...]
> The high fees serve as a deterrent

I never said they didn't.

> - to a sufficent extent that most spam cans avoid the airport.

Um...isn't that what "deterrent" means? If "spam cans" didn't avoid the
airport, it wouldn't be much of a deterrent, would it?

> Long taxiways do not act as strongly as a deterrent (though I've taxiied
> for more than an hour at Dulles - I was glad I was on tach time and not
> hobbs!).

Spending an hour taxiing isn't a deterrent for you? Um, okay.

> While the exec who flies his jet into the city for an important meeting
> can justify a hundred dollar landing fee, the small business owner who is
> also a pilot and flies a 172 is likely to have a much harder time
> justifying it. He's likely to fly elsewhere and take a cab, even if it
> takes a bit longer.

"Likely not to" and "banned" are two completely different things.

Frankly, your post is simply supporting my point (well, the point I now
have, given that my question was met with zero supporting evidence regarding
the claim of "banned"). Light GA aircraft DO use the largest Class B
airports. They are NOT banned at all. If there's a good enough reason to
use the airport, they are used.

I guarantee that there is a price at which light GA aircraft would never use
a large Class B. It's at this price point which I'd consider light GA
aircraft to be "effectively banned". Below that price point, they are not
banned; they are simply discouraged, with the market showing exactly how
much landing at that airport is worth to a certain group of light GA pilots.

Pete

[Jose]

> Spending an hour taxiing isn't a deterrent for you?

Not as much as a hundred-dollar landing fee. Especially when it's only
"maybe" I'll have a long taxi, and "certainly" I'll pay $100 to land.

> "Likely not to" and "banned" are two completely different things.

Correct. And "effectively banned" is different from "banned". I think
the OP was using "effectively banned" to mean "so dissuaided that most
spam cans avoid the airport". I find this usage to be accurately
descriptive and helps make his point.

Your usage ("a price at which light GA aircraft would =never= use") is
another reasonable definition, and makes your (different) point.
Arguing whether "(effectively) banned" is the correct word to use is a
silly argument about words, not an argument about the substance of the
post, which is the high degree of discouragement these fees apply to
spam can pilots wishing to fly into a major city served (only) by a
giant hub with high landing fees.

It's similar to Signature's effect on the market, and the effect of
charging for weather briefings.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>>> It would have to be a =much= better reason than most.
>>
>> It would have to be in any case, given all the other reasons not to go
>> to a large Class B airport. So what?
>
>
> I don't understand the question. The fees at large commercial airports
> are very much higher than fees elsewhere, although I have found bargains
> at times. I've landed spam cans at Logan and National for example
> during times when they were holding a sale.
>
> The high fees serve as a deterrent - to a sufficent extent that most
> spam cans avoid the airport. Long taxiways do not act as strongly as a
> deterrent (though I've taxiied for more than an hour at Dulles - I was
> glad I was on tach time and not hobbs!). While the exec who flies his
> jet into the city for an important meeting can justify a hundred dollar
> landing fee, the small business owner who is also a pilot and flies a
> 172 is likely to have a much harder time justifying it. He's likely to
> fly elsewhere and take a cab, even if it takes a bit longer.
>
> Yes, a 172 landing in front of a line of 747s will have a strong impact
> on the airport's traffic pattern, and this should be figured in. It
> wouldn't be so bad if there were nearby reliever airports (or even
> reliever runways), but around the big hubs, the relievers are generally
> not all that close. Flushing Airport would have been nice, alas it's
> gone. There's nothing in Boston except Logan. We all know about DC...

Actually, with controllers worth their salt, a 172 can be slipped in
between two airliners with less delay than another airliner in the same
line would induce. The one time I flew into Logan, the controller had
me fly the "something bridge visual" and I made a close-in base to maybe
a 3/4 mile final. I was in the final approach for a very short time.
And my time on the runway was far shorter than an airliner making its
roll-out.

Sure, if they line up the 172 on a 10 mile final, then you will wreak
havoc on the traffic flow, but no controller with a clue would do that.
I've flown into a number of fairly large airports (Logan, Philly, BWI,
Washington National, etc.) and I never delayed an airliner. The
controllers uniformly did an excellent job of bringing me in on a close
pattern and I either landed on a GA runway (PHL and BWI) or dropped into
the airliner chain with narry a hiccup.


Matt


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> Correct. And "effectively banned" is different from "banned".

How so? Have you actually looked at the definition of "effectively"? All
the word implies is that a ban is in place without it being overt. A
nominal ban would be an actual regulation that says "no GA aircraft
allowed". An "effective ban" is one that does the same thing, through other
means.

> I think the OP was using "effectively banned" to mean "so dissuaided that
> most spam cans avoid the airport". I find this usage to be accurately
> descriptive and helps make his point.

He hasn't stated that was his usage. However, if it was, it's contrary to
the definition of "effectively".

I will agree that redefining after the fact the terms one uses helps one
make one's point. It's a common tactic for people who say one thing, but
either mean something else or find that what they originally meant wasn't
correct in the first place.

> Your usage ("a price at which light GA aircraft would =never= use") is
> another reasonable definition, and makes your (different) point.

My definition matches the actual definition of "effectively".

> Arguing whether "(effectively) banned" is the correct word to use is a
> silly argument about words, not an argument about the substance of the
> post, which is the high degree of discouragement these fees apply to spam
> can pilots wishing to fly into a major city served (only) by a giant hub
> with high landing fees.

I suppose that depends on what the actual intent of the original post was.
All I can go on is the actual words in that post. As written, the post
appears to be incorrect.

Pete

[Jose]

> Actually, with controllers worth their salt, a 172 can be slipped in between two airliners...
>
> Sure, if they line up the 172 on a 10 mile final...[but] The controllers uniformly did an excellent job of bringing me in on a close pattern and I either landed on a GA runway (PHL and BWI) or dropped into the airliner chain with narry a hiccup.

That's my experience too at the larger hubs. Logan was amazingly easy.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Marty Shapiro]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Correct. And "effectively banned" is different from "banned".
>
> How so? Have you actually looked at the definition of "effectively"?
> All the word implies is that a ban is in place without it being overt.
> A nominal ban would be an actual regulation that says "no GA aircraft
> allowed". An "effective ban" is one that does the same thing, through
> other means.
>
>> I think the OP was using "effectively banned" to mean "so dissuaided
>> that most spam cans avoid the airport". I find this usage to be
>> accurately descriptive and helps make his point.
>
> He hasn't stated that was his usage. However, if it was, it's
> contrary to the definition of "effectively".
>
> I will agree that redefining after the fact the terms one uses helps
> one make one's point. It's a common tactic for people who say one
> thing, but either mean something else or find that what they
> originally meant wasn't correct in the first place.
>
>> Your usage ("a price at which light GA aircraft would =never= use")
>> is another reasonable definition, and makes your (different) point.
>
> My definition matches the actual definition of "effectively".
>

From the dictionary definition of "effectively", including the
dictionary's usage example:

"For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held
out, the fighting was effectively ended."


The definition does NOT equate "effectively" with "absolutely",
"totally", "completely", etc. A combination of landing & ramp fees will
effectively, but not totally, ban GA traffic.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Peter Duniho]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> From the dictionary definition of "effectively", including the
> dictionary's usage example:
>
> "For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held
> out, the fighting was effectively ended."

That definition isn't in my dictionary. Wonderful for you that it's in
yours.

However, even by that definition, light GA is not "effectively banned" from
large Class B airports. The fact that large Class B airports still have
significant light GA traffic is proof of that.

Pete

[John Godwin]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> That definition isn't in my dictionary. Wonderful for you that
> it's in yours.

Try here <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effectively>

--

[Marty Shapiro]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
> ...
>> From the dictionary definition of "effectively", including the
>> dictionary's usage example:
>>
>> "For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still
>> held
>> out, the fighting was effectively ended."
>
> That definition isn't in my dictionary. Wonderful for you that it's
> in yours.
>
> However, even by that definition, light GA is not "effectively banned"
> from large Class B airports. The fact that large Class B airports
> still have significant light GA traffic is proof of that.
>
> Pete
>
>

Perhaps if you didn't go around spending $100+ to park at a large
class B airport, you could afford a better dictionary.

For free, you can use dictionary.com.

Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told me
I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Peter Duniho]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told me
> I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day.

Hmmm...you were at SFO, in spite of the "effective ban"? Amazing.

Considering how light GA is supposed to be "effectively banned", we have a
surprising number of folks even in this small group of pilots who have flown
into large Class B airports.

As for the definition of "light GA aircraft", I'm speaking of pretty much
the same planes you probably would expect: six-seat and smaller piston
aircraft (singles and twins). Perhaps some of the smallest cabin-class
twins. Navajos, TBM700s, King Airs, and business jets need not apply.

Pete

[Marty Shapiro]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they
>> told me
>> I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day.
>
> Hmmm...you were at SFO, in spite of the "effective ban"? Amazing.

The statement was that high fees "effectively ban". Since I knew in
advance that ALL fees would be waived, the issue of fees was completely
irrelevant. A fee of $0.00 nullifies both the "high" and "fees" in "high
fees".

>
> Considering how light GA is supposed to be "effectively banned", we
> have a surprising number of folks even in this small group of pilots
> who have flown into large Class B airports.

For some reason, you have fixated on "effectively" equating to
"completely" or "totally" despite being referred to a perfectly valid
dictionary definition (with usage example) which says otherwise. You've
also managed to drop the "high fees". Fees are a deterrent to landing at
an airport. The higher the fees, the more of a deterrent they are. If you
make them high enough, you effectively (but not totally) ban light GA
aircraft unless no viable alternative exists.

Not all large class B airports have landing fees. Of the class B
airports with landing fees that I am aware of, SFO is the most expensive,
(excluding surcharges). I even posted the fact that the NYC class B
airports (JFK, LGA, & EWR) have a $25 landing fee with a $100 surcharge for
landing or takeoff operations during certain hours. LAX and LAS have no
landing fee. (All fee examples refer to light GA aircraft.) Unless you are
planning to only do a touch-and-go the ramp fee has be figured in when
determining if the cost of landing is a deterrent at any airport, not just
a class B airport.

Where the total fees are more reasonable, regardless of class of
airport, you will find more GA aircraft. Given reasonable alternatives, GA
aircraft will go to the airport with the lower fees.

As I previously stated, LAS is a large class B airport with no landing
fee. 13 years ago, other than fuel, the fees at LAS were reasonable.
Parking was free for the first 6 or 8 hours and the overnight fee, which I
don't recall exactly, was also quite reasonable. Back then, there were many
light GA aircraft on the LAS ramp. Last July, the ramp fee at LAS was $50
daily, no "grace" period. The fee was for one night was waived with a
minimum fuel purchase. However, VGT, a class D only 8.2 NM north, was $5
per night (no waiver for fuel purchase) and $1.50 per gallon less for
100LL. Guess which transient ramp was chock full of light GA aircraft and
which one had very few.

>
> As for the definition of "light GA aircraft", I'm speaking of pretty
> much the same planes you probably would expect: six-seat and smaller
> piston aircraft (singles and twins). Perhaps some of the smallest
> cabin-class twins. Navajos, TBM700s, King Airs, and business jets
> need not apply.
>
> Pete
>
Using your definition of a light GA aircraft, which I agree with,
counting me there was exactly one which landed at SFO on the day I was
there. (I left around 6:30 PM, so it is possible one did arrive
afterwards.) The closest I saw to a light GA aircraft at SFO that day was
a Piper Malibu Mirage.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Montblack]

("Marty Shapiro" wrote)
> Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told me I
> was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day.


Are they pistonphobic out there at SFO?

And what about the whole MoGas conversion community - I hope they too are
welcome by an open FBO at SFO? Personally, I think AvGas planes come from
the factory that way, but what do I know?

Then there's those new diesel twins - with possible fuel identity issues...


Montblack

[Peter Duniho]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
>> Hmmm...you were at SFO, in spite of the "effective ban"? Amazing.
>
> The statement was that high fees "effectively ban". Since I knew in
> advance that ALL fees would be waived, the issue of fees was completely
> irrelevant. A fee of $0.00 nullifies both the "high" and "fees" in "high
> fees".

Okay, I failed to connect those two. Sorry.

>> Considering how light GA is supposed to be "effectively banned", we
>> have a surprising number of folks even in this small group of pilots
>> who have flown into large Class B airports.
>
> For some reason, you have fixated on "effectively" equating to
> "completely" or "totally" despite being referred to a perfectly valid
> dictionary definition (with usage example) which says otherwise. You've
> also managed to drop the "high fees".

The usage example provided here doesn't come close to justifying the
statement as applied to large Class B airports. As far as dropping the
"high fees" statement, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. The
original statement made a claim only with respect to "landing fees", and
while I have not made a conscious effect to distinguish between landing fees
and other fees, accusing me of some sort of underhanded position shifting
makes no sense whatsoever.

> Fees are a deterrent to landing at
> an airport. The higher the fees, the more of a deterrent they are. If
> you
> make them high enough, you effectively (but not totally) ban light GA
> aircraft unless no viable alternative exists.

You would see fewer light GA aircraft at large Class B airports, even if the
fees were zero.

Furthermore, you (and the others) insist that "effectively" doesn't mean
"actually", but you apparently refuse to explain just how many planes can be
permitted at an airport before there's no "effective ban". You've got a
great slippery-slope argument going, but when you look at small airports
with fees that also discourage light GA aircraft (or any other, for that
matter), you've either got to claim light GA aircraft are "effectively
banned" there (which would obviously make no sense), or explain what makes
those airports different from the others where light GA aircraft are
"effectively banned" (ie, what sort of light GA traffic does an airport need
to see before one doesn't consider it "effectively banned").

If you want to continue talking about this "effective ban", your first step
is to define what that means. Clearly light GA aircraft are using the
largest Class B airports in the US, so they clearly are not really banned.
Since you feel you can equivocate on the definition of "effective", you need
to explain just where you're going to draw the line. Otherwise, the
definition you're using can be taken to ridiculous limits.

Once you've defined your "effective ban", then you need to illustrate that
by showing exactly how many light GA aircraft are using the largest Class B
airports, and that that number is dramatically different from the number
that would be using those airports if there were not any fees (comparing a
large Class B airport to even a local reliever, never mind a small GA-only
airport, won't prove anything).

Only one person so far has even pretended to provide actual data supporting
his thesis, and the data turned out to be bogus. It's hardly a convincing
way to demonstrate one's point. I remain unconvinced that light GA aircraft
are "effectively banned" from any airport, due to landing fees or otherwise.

Pete

[Marty Shapiro]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Hmmm...you were at SFO, in spite of the "effective ban"? Amazing.
>>
>> The statement was that high fees "effectively ban". Since I knew
>> in
>> advance that ALL fees would be waived, the issue of fees was
>> completely irrelevant. A fee of $0.00 nullifies both the "high" and
>> "fees" in "high fees".
>
> Okay, I failed to connect those two. Sorry.
>
>>> Considering how light GA is supposed to be "effectively banned", we
>>> have a surprising number of folks even in this small group of pilots
>>> who have flown into large Class B airports.
>>
>> For some reason, you have fixated on "effectively" equating to
>> "completely" or "totally" despite being referred to a perfectly valid
>> dictionary definition (with usage example) which says otherwise.
>> You've also managed to drop the "high fees".
>
> The usage example provided here doesn't come close to justifying the
> statement as applied to large Class B airports. As far as dropping
> the "high fees" statement, I'm not really sure what you're talking
> about. The original statement made a claim only with respect to
> "landing fees", and while I have not made a conscious effect to
> distinguish between landing fees and other fees, accusing me of some
> sort of underhanded position shifting makes no sense whatsoever.

Please re-read what you stated and which I quoted in my reply. When
you referred to the surprising number of pilots in this group who have
flown into class B airports, you left out the qualifier "high fee". If a
surprising number of pilots in this group have flown a light GA aircraft
into a high fee class B, and they had to pay the fee, that would support
your argument. Just flying into a class B does not, as there are class B
airports with no fees.

>
>> Fees are a deterrent to landing at
>> an airport. The higher the fees, the more of a deterrent they are.
>> If you
>> make them high enough, you effectively (but not totally) ban light GA
>> aircraft unless no viable alternative exists.
>
> You would see fewer light GA aircraft at large Class B airports, even
> if the fees were zero.

Really? This will really surprise at least two Class B with over 100
single engine aircraft based there. Of course, these class B do NOT charge
a landing fee to light GA aircraft.

Lets take a look at data from AirNav for 2 high fee and 2 zero fee
class B airport:

High fee 1:

Aircraft based on the field: 18
Single engine airplanes: 1
Multi engine airplanes: 3
Jet airplanes: 12
Helicopters: 2

Aircraft operations: avg 965/day
70% commercial
25% air taxi
5% transient general aviation
<1% military

High fee 2: (AirNav shows no aircraft based here)

Aircraft operations: avg 760/day
87% air carriers
11% commuters
2% transient general aviation
<1% military

No fee 1:

Aircraft based on the field: 263
Single engine airplanes: 115
Multi engine airplanes: 55
Jet airplanes: 45
Helicopters: 16
Military aircraft: 32

Aircraft operations: avg 886/day
55% commercial
24% transient general aviation
15% air taxi
5% military
2% local general aviation

No fee 2:

Aircraft based on the field: 237
Single engine airplanes: 118
Multi engine airplanes: 39
Jet airplanes: 55
Helicopters: 15
Military aircraft: 10

Aircraft operations: avg 1802/day
72% commercial
12% air taxi
11% transient general aviation
4% local general aviation
<1% military


If a location is served by both a class B airport and a class C, D, or
G reliever airport, and assuming that fees are and location access are
comparable between the class B and the reliever airport, I suspect most
light GA aircraft pilots would not go to the class B. But, if my
experience as a pilot who learned an flew for many years out of
what is now a class C airport (it was an ARSA airport when I was a student)
comparing notes with pilots who learned at class G airports is typical, I
suspect there is a factor of unfamiliarity with big airports and the co-
requisite radio communications biasing this decision.

> Furthermore, you (and the others) insist that "effectively" doesn't
> mean "actually", but you apparently refuse to explain just how many
> planes can be permitted at an airport before there's no "effective
> ban". You've got a great slippery-slope argument going, but when you
> look at small airports with fees that also discourage light GA
> aircraft (or any other, for that matter), you've either got to claim
> light GA aircraft are "effectively banned" there (which would
> obviously make no sense), or explain what makes those airports
> different from the others where light GA aircraft are "effectively
> banned" (ie, what sort of light GA traffic does an airport need to see
> before one doesn't consider it "effectively banned").
>
> If you want to continue talking about this "effective ban", your first
> step is to define what that means. Clearly light GA aircraft are
> using the largest Class B airports in the US, so they clearly are not
> really banned. Since you feel you can equivocate on the definition of
> "effective", you need to explain just where you're going to draw the
> line. Otherwise, the definition you're using can be taken to
> ridiculous limits.

If the airport is public use, it can not legally ban light GA
aircraft. All it can do is highly discourage them from landing. One
method of discouraging light GA aircraft from landing is to impose a high
fee. However, if they make the fee prohibitive enough to achieve a
complete ban (which is probably impossible as there is always some one with
deep enough pockets who could pay it) they would then run afoul of the FAA.
One airport authority tried this at their class B and got slammed down by
the FAA.

If you want a definition, I'll give you one. If there are viable
reliever airport(s) at a location with a class B airport, a fee which
effectively bans light GA aircraft at the class B is one where 98% of the
transient light GA aircraft operations at that location take place at the
reliever airport(s).

>
> Once you've defined your "effective ban", then you need to illustrate
> that by showing exactly how many light GA aircraft are using the
> largest Class B airports, and that that number is dramatically
> different from the number that would be using those airports if there
> were not any fees (comparing a large Class B airport to even a local
> reliever, never mind a small GA-only airport, won't prove anything).

See the above data from AirNav contrasting high fee class B with no
fee class B.

>
> Only one person so far has even pretended to provide actual data
> supporting his thesis, and the data turned out to be bogus. It's
> hardly a convincing way to demonstrate one's point. I remain
> unconvinced that light GA aircraft are "effectively banned" from any
> airport, due to landing fees or otherwise.
>
> Pete
>
>
>



--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("Marty Shapiro" wrote)
>> Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told
>> me I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day.
>
>
> Are they pistonphobic out there at SFO?
>
> And what about the whole MoGas conversion community - I hope they too
> are welcome by an open FBO at SFO? Personally, I think AvGas planes
> come from the factory that way, but what do I know?
>
> Then there's those new diesel twins - with possible fuel identity
> issues...
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

Pistonphobic? I like that!!!

I think the fees at SFO do qualify the airport as pistonphobic. The
ones who seem to be willing to pay them all fly turbo-props or jets. The
airport & FBO will welcome any aircraft bringing them $$$$$!

Should we also count major airports such at LAX which only sell Jet-A
as pistonphobic? I don't think the diesel twins are for sale in the U.S.
yet, nor do I know the status of their certification to burn Jet-A.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Jose]

> ... if they make the fee prohibitive enough to achieve a
> complete ban (which is probably impossible as there is always some one with
> deep enough pockets who could pay it) they would then run afoul of the FAA.
> One airport authority tried this at their class B and got slammed down by
> the FAA.

Which airport?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> Lets take a look at data from AirNav for 2 high fee and 2 zero fee
> class B airport: [snipped]

The data you posted simply supports my point. Even at the no-fee airports,
there aren't that many airplanes (especially considering the size of the
airport). 100 planes just isn't that many. There are plenty of reasons to
stay away from large Class B airports other than landing fees.

But regardless, looking at based aircraft isn't relevant. What you want is
operations. And the data you show don't actually suggest an "effective
ban". At one "high fee" airport, GA makes up 5% of the traffic, with the
"no fee" airports showing only between 11% and 24%. That's hardly a slam
dunk for the point you're trying to make.

> If the airport is public use, it can not legally ban light GA
> aircraft. All it can do is highly discourage them from landing.

Yes.

> One
> method of discouraging light GA aircraft from landing is to impose a high
> fee.

Yes.

> However, if they make the fee prohibitive enough to achieve a
> complete ban (which is probably impossible as there is always some one
> with
> deep enough pockets who could pay it) they would then run afoul of the
> FAA.
> One airport authority tried this at their class B and got slammed down by
> the FAA.

Airports have had trouble imposing unreasonable fees, yes. But one would
think that the FAA would consider a fee high enough to "ban light GA for all
practical purposes" to be unreasonable. After all, that's the point of
their objection. If anything, that state of affairs suggests that no
airports "effectively ban" light GA.

> If you want a definition, I'll give you one. If there are viable
> reliever airport(s) at a location with a class B airport, a fee which
> effectively bans light GA aircraft at the class B is one where 98% of the
> transient light GA aircraft operations at that location take place at the
> reliever airport(s).

That definition has no logical validity, since it ignores reasons for using
the reliever airport unrelated to the landing fee.

> See the above data from AirNav contrasting high fee class B with no
> fee class B.

I did. It doesn't support what you're saying.

Pete

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> Which airport?

Dunno if it's what Marty had in mind, but Massport tried that at Logan in the
early 90s, and the FAA did indeed tell them to change the fee structure.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[Marty Shapiro]

Jose > wrote in
:

>> ... if they make the fee prohibitive enough to achieve a
>> complete ban (which is probably impossible as there is always some
>> one with deep enough pockets who could pay it) they would then run
>> afoul of the FAA. One airport authority tried this at their class B
>> and got slammed down by the FAA.
>
> Which airport?
>
> Jose

Massport - Logan (BOS) in 1988.

Basically, it's ok to have a landing fee based on weight, but you
can't discriminate. So, if you say charge $1 per 1000 pounds, a light GA
aircraft would pay $3 while a 747 would pay about $800. If you try to
adjust the weight rate to price out the little guy, you will also price out
the airlines. What Massport did was add a "per landing" fee to the weight
fee. This was ruled by DOT/FAA to be unreasonable, discriminatory, and
preempted by Federal law. Massport appealed but the U.S. Court of Appeals,
1st Circuit, upheld DOT/FAA.

An interesting result of the ruling was a DOT/FAA opinion that if an
airport can document congestion delays during certain times, it can then
implement a congestion surcharge to ALL arrivals during these times. (There
are a few permitted exemptions, but scheduled airline is not one of them.)
However, it can only do so during the hours that the documented congestion
exists. It can't, as Massport tried to do, apply the surcharge 27-7.
Currently, I am aware of JFK, EWR, and LGA using a congestion time
surcharge.

From the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Regional Review, Winter 1997:

"Logan's landing fees, like those of virtually all U.S. airports, do
not reflect congestion. Fees are based instead on weight. So a typical
wide-body jet pays roughly $800 while the smallest plane, which causes as
much congestion, pays $25.

In 1988, Massport did try a fee scheme that combined aircraft weight with
an additional fee per landing. Flights by smaller planes became relatively
more expensive, and their use of Logan dropped substantially, although that
reduction was also affected by industry consolidations. The scheme ended
after it was judged discriminatory against small planes by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, which noted that small aircraft paid higher
prices even at hours when there was ample runway capacity. At the same
time, the agency ruling opened the door to peak-load pricing, noting that
"it may be appropriate to raise fees in order to invoke market responses
during periods when the airport is congested.""

Another reference you may find interesting is the FAA's letter to
Massport of June 10, 2004 available at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airports/bos/FAALetter20040610.pdf



--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:04:12 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>Which airport?

Would it be located in NJ?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:15:26 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>At one "high fee" airport, GA makes up 5% of the traffic, with the
>"no fee" airports showing only between 11% and 24%. That's hardly a slam
>dunk for the point you're trying to make.

It's a 100% to 500% difference.

[Jose]

>> Which airport [was rebuked by the FAA for discriminatory fees]?

> Massport - Logan (BOS) in 1988.

A few comments from airnav about Logan (BOS):

Nov 2004: $391 in fees for an overnight stay. $160 ramp, $42 GPU, $48
security fee, $52 parking, $22 Mass. GA fee and and extra $70 worth of
something-or-other fees. [note - unspecified aircraft type - GPU hints
it might be a jet?]

Nov 2003: $43.30 security fee, $27.50 landing fee, $22 MA General
Aviation fee (this is a new fee at KBOS), $27.50 parking fee, and $22
handling fee. [a three hour stay, unspecified type]

I don't know what this "security fee" is but in 2003 there were noises
that if you made noise you could get it waived.

So, I guess they found another way to discriminate. Hire Signature to
do it for you.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Marty Shapiro]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lets take a look at data from AirNav for 2 high fee and 2 zero fee
>> class B airport: [snipped]
>
> The data you posted simply supports my point. Even at the no-fee
> airports, there aren't that many airplanes (especially considering the
> size of the airport). 100 planes just isn't that many. There are
> plenty of reasons to stay away from large Class B airports other than
> landing fees.

I was comparing high fee class B with no fee class B, not class B with
non-class B. The data shows that either no fee class B airports have more
than 100 times the based single engine aircraft as the class B airport with
high fees. That's on the order of 10,000% more single engine aircraft
based at each no fee field. If we combine the based single engine aircraft
at both no fee fields as opposed to those based at both high fee fields,
you get 23,200% more based aircraft at the no fee fields.

>
> But regardless, looking at based aircraft isn't relevant. What you
> want is operations. And the data you show don't actually suggest an
> "effective ban". At one "high fee" airport, GA makes up 5% of the
> traffic, with the "no fee" airports showing only between 11% and 24%.
> That's hardly a slam dunk for the point you're trying to make.
>

Unless the based aircraft are permanently grounded, they contribute to
the airport's operation count every time they fly. They do not show up in
the transient GA traffic count. If they were to be included, the GA
percentage would be much higher at the two no fee class B airports as they
both have flight schools.

The 5% transient GA traffic at the high fee airport are almost all
private jet or turbo prop aircraft, none of which are light GA aircraft.
Using the day I was there, light GA aircraft accounted for only 2% of the
GA traffic. The transient GA traffic counts (and disregarding the size of
the aircraft), comprises 1/4 of the traffic at one of the no fee class B
airports while at one of the high fee class B airports it is only 1/20 of
the traffic. To put these numbers in perspective, The 24% transient GA
traffic at the no fee airport results in over 58,000 more operations per
year than at the 5% GA traffic high fee airport.

>> If the airport is public use, it can not legally ban light GA
>> aircraft. All it can do is highly discourage them from landing.
>
> Yes.
>
>> One
>> method of discouraging light GA aircraft from landing is to impose a
>> high fee.
>
> Yes.
>
>> However, if they make the fee prohibitive enough to achieve a
>> complete ban (which is probably impossible as there is always some
>> one with
>> deep enough pockets who could pay it) they would then run afoul of
>> the FAA.
>> One airport authority tried this at their class B and got slammed
>> down by the FAA.
>
> Airports have had trouble imposing unreasonable fees, yes. But one
> would think that the FAA would consider a fee high enough to "ban
> light GA for all practical purposes" to be unreasonable. After all,
> that's the point of their objection. If anything, that state of
> affairs suggests that no airports "effectively ban" light GA.
>
>> If you want a definition, I'll give you one. If there are viable
>> reliever airport(s) at a location with a class B airport, a fee which
>> effectively bans light GA aircraft at the class B is one where 98% of
>> the transient light GA aircraft operations at that location take
>> place at the reliever airport(s).
>
> That definition has no logical validity, since it ignores reasons for
> using the reliever airport unrelated to the landing fee.
>

You are now obtusely ducking the issue. I intentionally did NOT
attempt to address other factors. All I attempted to address was the issue
of fees incurred on landing (landing fee, parking fee) vis-a-vis the
decision to land or not to land at a high fee class B airport. If you want
to now throw in other factors, further discussion on the original issue is
pointless. There is no definition which you won't dismiss with "no logical
validity" when you can't justify not agreeing with it. Obviously, that's
your game.

Just as there are reasons to use the reliever unrelated to the landing
fees, so are there equally good reasons to use the class B unrelated to the
landing fees. The only way to determine if the landing fees are
determinant in the light GA aircraft choosing the class B or the reliever
is to remove these other factors.

I gave you a real world example at one location where the reliever was
similarly located and provided similar accessability to the city as the
class B. The lower fees at the reliver pulled in most of the transient
light GA aircraft. Neither airport in this case had landing fess. The
reliever was $45 less per night to park and $1.50 less per gallon for
100LL.

>> See the above data from AirNav contrasting high fee class B with
>> no
>> fee class B.
>
> I did. It doesn't support what you're saying.

You simply looked at absolute numbers without analyzing them.

>
> Pete
>
>



--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> It's a 100% to 500% difference.

So what? Twice as much traffic one place as the other does not prove an
"effective ban".

[Marty Shapiro]

Jose > wrote in
:

>>> Which airport [was rebuked by the FAA for discriminatory fees]?
>
>> Massport - Logan (BOS) in 1988.
>
> A few comments from airnav about Logan (BOS):
>
> Nov 2004: $391 in fees for an overnight stay. $160 ramp, $42 GPU, $48
> security fee, $52 parking, $22 Mass. GA fee and and extra $70 worth of
> something-or-other fees. [note - unspecified aircraft type - GPU hints
> it might be a jet?]
>
> Nov 2003: $43.30 security fee, $27.50 landing fee, $22 MA General
> Aviation fee (this is a new fee at KBOS), $27.50 parking fee, and $22
> handling fee. [a three hour stay, unspecified type]
>
> I don't know what this "security fee" is but in 2003 there were noises
> that if you made noise you could get it waived.
>
> So, I guess they found another way to discriminate. Hire Signature to
> do it for you.
>
> Jose

That's exactly how the airport authorities game the system! DOT/FAA
only ensure just and non-discriminatory landing fees. They do NOT require
an airport to provide a public ramp. So, the airport wanting to keep GA
out simply charges an outrageous rental to the FBO(s), who then pass on the
high costs to transient aircraft. I've sometimes wonder what percentage of
Signature's bad reputation with pilots of light GA aircraft should really
fall on the airport.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("Marty Shapiro" wrote)
>> Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told
>> me I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day.
>
>
> Are they pistonphobic out there at SFO?
>
> And what about the whole MoGas conversion community - I hope they too
> are welcome by an open FBO at SFO? Personally, I think AvGas planes
> come from the factory that way, but what do I know?
>
> Then there's those new diesel twins - with possible fuel identity
> issues...
>
>
> Montblack
>
>
Pistonphobic? I like that!!!

I think the fees at SFO do qualify the airport as pistonphobic. The
ones who seem to be willing to pay them all fly turbo-props or jets. The
airport & FBO will welcome any aircraft bringing them $$$$$!

Should we also count major airports such at LAX which only sell Jet-A
as pistonphobic? I don't think the diesel twins are for sale in the U.S.
yet, nor do I know the status of their certification to burn Jet-A.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)