GA paying fair (fare?) share

"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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:BA_uc.36617$Ly.26936@attbi_s01...

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


Pro rata works fine if all users are equal. What's a Skylane's share of a
runway built to support 747s?



If I fly on an airliner, or I step onto a bus or subway, the marginal cost
of my presence (in terms of the extra energy expenditure)
is a negligible fraction of the fare. Should I therefore expect to be
transported nearly for free?


Of course not. You get one seat, the same as every other passenger.

I say that each user or group of users should pay taxes and fees that are in
line with what they actually need to use. I use very little that I am not
mandated to use.

Fuel taxes are one way to go, because there is a likely correlation with
fuel use and system use. Though it is hardly perfect.

If they were whining for us to pay our fair share, that would be fine. That
is not what they are whining about. They are whining about how much they
pay, and they are whining about seeing much of their business go away to
small bizjets.

There has been evidence that the airlines are being milked by the overall
local, state, and federal taxation. I would support less taxes on airline
travel, but they are not getting my support with this ridiculous tact. If
there were no airlines, GA would use much LESS ATC than we do now.

Also, the airlines presently do not train pilots from the time they are
students. How will new pro pilots get trained if they shift the cost of ATC
to the flight schools?





"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...
So what would be equitable?

A per-seat capitation? A capitation based on gross weight? or a per-user
fee? While it would cost me more in the pocketbook, I have a hard time
seeing that I am financing my share of services using JUST the avgas
fuel tax.... (and if I go autogas, or deisel.. dont I get a TOTAL free
ride?). Prove that the status quo is fair and equitable. We (as GA) have
been getting a hell of a deal, in my mind.

On the other hand.. paying 50 bucks for a flight briefing and another 50
for flight following for me in a spam can would be prohibitive in the
long run (since i flight follow on almost every flight out of the
pattern).

Dave


Dude wrote:

Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
could just about throw up.

Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

Let's see how well they can compete with the charters if they start
having
to fly right traffic while announcing their position when the tower goes
away.

I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft runways either
but we use them. This whole 'aviating thing' started off with folks giving
rides from fields and now we have 7xx's and Airbus, etc. moving people
around.

The problem is with the (poor) allocation and waste of tax dollars. Don't
get me started on the liability nonsense of these lawsuits.

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote in message
...

I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft
runways either but we use them.


Of course we use them; they're there. If GA didn't exist those 10,000'
runways would still be needed to serve the airlines. If the airlines didn't
exist those 10,000' runways wouldn't exist.

Exactly my point.

Another way to look at the situation would be to see what happened if you
took the government out of it altogether.

You and I would fly around, mostly VFR, or maybe we would have to pay to use
an IFR service from a private company that was likely started to service the
airlines. Or, we could take the risk and fly IFR all on our own.

The Airlines would HAVE to have this service. We could use it or not. Then
they would have to fly around US. They would likely tell the service to
service us for free JUST TO GET US OUT OF THEIR WAY! Airports would be
privately owned, and the really big long runways would cost a lot to use, or
maybe they would cost nothing if you bought fuel there. At any rate, if
they tried to charge some guy in his Mooney a $100 landing fee, he would
take his business elsewhere. Which would be fine. Or, the airlines could
have their own airports, which would be fine (except they would have to be
in the middle of nowhere because only a government can build an airport near
a city full of NIMBY's).

Only when the government is involved does the whole idea of fair share come
up (and get perverted).

Their argument is based on the idea that they are an equal player in the
system, but that is a false premise. The system is designed mostly for
THEIR safe use, not ours.

If you start with a FAIR and EQUAL system, then publicly owned Class B
airports could not turn me away because I was not a scheduled airliner and
they were too busy. Nope, if it were fair and equal, it would be first come
first serve. They ask us and need us to use ATC for their purposes, and now
they want us to pay for the privilege.

In otherwords, they want us out of THEIR sky.




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

"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." wrote in message
...

I also remember AOPA's response that GA doesn't need 10,000ft
runways either but we use them.


Of course we use them; they're there. If GA didn't exist those 10,000'
runways would still be needed to serve the airlines. If the airlines
didn't
exist those 10,000' runways wouldn't exist.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Exactly my point.

Another way to look at the situation would be to see what happened if you
took the government out of it altogether.

You and I would fly around, mostly VFR, or maybe we would have to pay to
use
an IFR service from a private company that was likely started to service
the
airlines. Or, we could take the risk and fly IFR all on our own.

The Airlines would HAVE to have this service. We could use it or not.
Then
they would have to fly around US. They would likely tell the service to
service us for free JUST TO GET US OUT OF THEIR WAY! Airports would be
privately owned, and the really big long runways would cost a lot to use,
or
maybe they would cost nothing if you bought fuel there. At any rate, if
they tried to charge some guy in his Mooney a $100 landing fee, he would
take his business elsewhere. Which would be fine. Or, the airlines could
have their own airports, which would be fine (except they would have to be
in the middle of nowhere because only a government can build an airport
near
a city full of NIMBY's).

You've just described aviation in Britain. Apart from three things. 1) They
keep
the airliners in controlled airspace to keep us out of each other's way and
2) you only pay the IFR fees if you're over 2000kg IIRC (Eurocontrol) and
receiving a service. You can fly IFR without it, as you described above.
3) The airports are privately owned, but not by the airlines...not directly
anyway.

At least there's (2) at the moment. When Mode S transponders are made
compulsory in 2008 so they know who everyone is in the air, they can then
charge everyone....or could if they wanted to.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/activitie...ation-charges/

Paul

Dude wrote:
: Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
: could just about throw up.

: Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
: fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

It was my understanding that the diatribe from NWA had to do with fees
for use of the AIRPORT, not with the use of ATC services. Have the other
airlines' execs added ATC services to the list of things that they can't
pay for anymore?

It seems to me that when the airlines stop pricing their product below what
it costs to produce they'll be in better financial shape.
--
Aaron Coolidge

With the amount of government cash gifts given to the airlines to keep them
afloat, I fail to see where they have any room to complain. The government
cash handouts far exceed any financial burdens, real or imagined, that the GA
community has placed on the airlines.


--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Apparently, the latest guy brought up a statistic about how many ATC
functions are performed for GA vs. the scheduled carriers.

If NW is PO'd about their airport costs, they should remember how easy they
got off when MN finally caught them a few years back. They had locked up
all the gates, and many of the routes in and out of the Twin cities which
only they flew had HUGE prices. I bet this led to more GA competition, and
they are now suffering for it.

"Aaron Coolidge" wrote in message
...
Dude wrote:
: Having seen the recent diatribes from airline executives, I feel like I
: could just about throw up.

: Don't these idiots realize that if it was not for their "all important"
: fleets of precious cargo we could slash ATC by 90 plus percent?

It was my understanding that the diatribe from NWA had to do with fees
for use of the AIRPORT, not with the use of ATC services. Have the other
airlines' execs added ATC services to the list of things that they can't
pay for anymore?

It seems to me that when the airlines stop pricing their product below
what
it costs to produce they'll be in better financial shape.
--
Aaron Coolidge