If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"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/2...050106-001.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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
User Fees | Dude | Owning | 36 | March 19th 05 05:57 PM |
NAA Fees to the US Team | Doug Jacobs | Soaring | 2 | October 29th 04 01:09 AM |
LXE installation XP, strict user permissions. | Hannes | Soaring | 0 | March 21st 04 11:15 PM |
The Irony of Boeing/Jeppesen Being Charged User Fees! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 9 | January 23rd 04 12:23 PM |
Angel Flight pilots: Ever have an FBO refuse to wave landing fees? | Peter R. | Piloting | 11 | August 2nd 03 01:20 AM |