GA paying fair (fare?) share

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

"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...

NOR can anybody assert that we ARE paying our fair share. Your assertion
is valid from both points of view.


That's true. But the assertion that we ARE paying our fair share is being
made in response to the assertion that we are not. Let those that made
the
first assertion be the first to present their evidence.


I pay for much more than I use, therefore I should be entitled to a rebate
based on this "fair" thing.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
y.com...

I pay for much more than I use,


How do you know?

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

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
y.com...

I pay for much more than I use,


How do you know?


I am making an assumption just like everybody else does that spouts off
about this topic. Prove me wrong.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
y.com...

I am making an assumption just like everybody else does that spouts off
about this topic. Prove me wrong.


I asked you first.

I was referring to IFR. Sorry.

CriticalMass wrote:
Rip wrote:

I'd be perfectly happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.


Actually, I *DO* that. You don't?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.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)? 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?

--Gary

"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

CriticalMass ) wrote:

Rip wrote:

I'd be perfectly happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.

Actually, I *DO* that. You don't?

And where is it you fly?

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

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.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"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