GA paying fair (fare?) share

"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.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:ns1vc.27128$pt3.21321@attbi_s03...

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?


You're right. You shouldn't. Nor should any of the other riders because
they can all make the same argument. Of course, since nobody is paying to
ride, the subway ceases to operate.

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 15:41:07 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

"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.


Your analogy is flawed.

The benefits, purpose and funding, of the subway system are entirely
different than the purpose and funding and benefits of ATC.


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

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

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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:ns1vc.27128$pt3.21321@attbi_s03...

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?


You're right. You shouldn't. Nor should any of the other riders because
they can all make the same argument. Of course, since nobody is paying to
ride, the subway ceases to operate.

So isn't that a good argument against using marginal cost as a basis for
determining fair payment? Yet when discussing GA fees, you seem to favor a
marginal-cost assessment:

"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?

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Remember -
IFR traffic gets vectored around VFR pilots not on radar service.


Only if they ask to be vectored around them.

Not true at all.

If I am flying a commercial plane, and get warning of traffic on my course,
I really have NO choice but to accept vectors or other avoidance measures.
The VFR pilot is oblivious to the fact that he is about to get squished by
the ridiculously fast jet traffic, and has no way to avoid it.

Even if an IFR plane is right on altitude, he will be blamed for the midair
if he fails to avoid the traffic.

On the other hand, when VFR pilots use radar service, they almost always
voluntarily comply with altitudes and vectors rather than drop radar
service. That allows the IFR pilot, and the airlines, to continue through
like they own the place.

Which apparently the airlines have gotten all to used to.

GA's use of the system improves the cost of operations for the airlines, not
the other way around.



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

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Remember -
IFR traffic gets vectored around VFR pilots not on radar service.


Only if they ask to be vectored around them.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:ir3vc.37599$Ly.13077@attbi_s01...

So isn't that a good argument against using marginal cost as a basis for
determining fair payment?


In subway trains, yes; in aviation, no.



Yet when discussing GA fees, you seem to favor a
marginal-cost assessment:


Of course. That's the fair way to do it. Think about it for a moment.
What portion of the national aviation infrastructure would not exist if GA
did not exist? Whatever it costs to support that portion is GA's fair
share. Now, what portion of the bus or subway system would not exist if
there were no bus or subway riders? All of it, of course!

It's fair for bus or subway riders to all pay the same fare because they all
pose the same cost on the system. It's not fair to charge GA and air
carriers the same fees because GA poses far smaller costs on the system.

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Not true at all.


Of course it's true. Why do you say it isn't?



If I am flying a commercial plane, and get warning of traffic on my
course,
I really have NO choice but to accept vectors or other avoidance measures.


It's been my experience that very few commercial planes request vectors
around VFR targets which they've been advised of.



The VFR pilot is oblivious to the fact that he is about to get squished by
the ridiculously fast jet traffic, and has no way to avoid it.


He can't see it?



Even if an IFR plane is right on altitude, he will be blamed for the
midair
if he fails to avoid the traffic.


No more so than the other participant in the midair.



On the other hand, when VFR pilots use radar service, they almost always
voluntarily comply with altitudes and vectors rather than drop radar
service. That allows the IFR pilot, and the airlines, to continue through
like they own the place.


Comply with altitudes and vectors? What altitudes or vectors would there be
for them to comply with?



Which apparently the airlines have gotten all to used to.

GA's use of the system improves the cost of operations for the airlines,
not
the other way around.


You have a poor understanding of the system.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
Yet when discussing GA fees, you seem to favor a
marginal-cost assessment:

Of course. That's the fair way to do it. Think about it for a moment.
What portion of the national aviation infrastructure would not exist if GA
did not exist? Whatever it costs to support that portion is GA's fair
share. Now, what portion of the bus or subway system would not exist if
there were no bus or subway riders? All of it, of course!

You're missing my analogy. I'm comparing the use of the aviation
infrastructure by GA to the use of the subway structure by my relatives and
me. If my relatives and I didn't ride the subway, there'd be little
difference to the subway system's needs; if GA didn't use the airspace,
there'd be little difference to the aviation system's needs. (Yes, if
everyone stopped riding the subway--not just the group in
question--there'd be no subway. And similarly, if everyone stopped using
the aviation infrastructure--not just the group in question--there'd be no
aviation infrastructure.)

It's fair for bus or subway riders to all pay the same fare because they
all
pose the same cost on the system. It's not fair to charge GA and air
carriers the same fees because GA poses far smaller costs on the system.

To the extent that GA imposes a smaller cost, I agree it should pay a
smaller share. What I'm disputing is your claim that the marginal cost is
the right measure.

Similarly, if I have five immediate relatives, then it's fair for us to
collectively pay half the daily subway fare than some group that has ten
members. Less resource use, lower fees. But that's not the same concept as
assessing our fare according to the marginal cost of our ridership, which
would have us paying practically nothing. Same principle applies to GA.

--Gary