ATC User Fees

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.

"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

"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?

"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

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.

"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

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.

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

"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

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.