But that analogy is no good at all.

The closest thing to this analogy would be if the subway trains were
privately run, competitively, and for profit. While the tracks remained
public property maintained byt the state. The large subway operators get
preferential use of the tracks, while other citizens have to wait to cross
them (assume that all or part of the tracks are above ground).

You want to charge the public to cross the subway tracks because they are
using them too? Maybe you want to charge those that use the facility to get
out of the rain, even when not riding? Sure, there may be private trains on
the tracks, but they have to conform to the safety system set up for the big
operators at their own expense, AND give way to the scheduled operators.

The private trains should certainly pay something for the wear and tear, and
cost to the state for the use of the facilities. In the case of a subway,
there is a cost, but what is the cost of the sky?

Remember, the sky is a public property. We all have the right to use it,
and there is no expense for its construction and maintenance. If you can
figure out a way to charge the GA user who desires services over and above
what he is FORCED to use, then go for it. The problem is that the result is
a diminished safety and efficiency for the users of the system. Remember -
IFR traffic gets vectored around VFR pilots not on radar service.

The airlines could not function without the system, but you and I can do
just fine. When we use the system it reduces THEIR costs. In fact, it
allows them to operate in the first place. Their livelihoods depend on our
agreement to make way for them, and the fact that we pay to train their
future pilots.

The better analogy is the tanner blaming the rancher for stinking up the
neighborhood.






"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:ns1vc.27128$pt3.21321@attbi_s03...
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:25:06 GMT, "Gary Drescher"

wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

What is your share of services? What do you feel is the marginal
cost
of
providing services to you?

Why is the marginal cost what's relevant (rather than a pro rata
share
of
the total cost)?

Because the services are in place due to airlines, and you have no
choice
about using them. If there were not GA, the cost would be virtually
unchanged.

And if my immediate relatives and I didn't ride the subway, the subway
system would still be in place and the cost would be virtually unchanged.
So
why should my relatives and I be required to pay a fare to ride the
subway?

For just about any transportation service with a large clientele, you can
say of any single client--or any tiny subset of clients--that their
marginal
cost is much less than their pro rata share. If marginal cost is your
basis
for saying what everyone's fair share is, then it turns out that
everyone's
fair share is near zero.

--Gary