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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in
: "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". From the dictionary definition of "effectively", including the dictionary's usage example: "For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held out, the fighting was effectively ended." The definition does NOT equate "effectively" with "absolutely", "totally", "completely", etc. A combination of landing & ramp fees will effectively, but not totally, ban GA traffic. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
... From the dictionary definition of "effectively", including the dictionary's usage example: "For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held out, the fighting was effectively ended." That definition isn't in my dictionary. Wonderful for you that it's in yours. However, even by that definition, light GA is not "effectively banned" from large Class B airports. The fact that large Class B airports still have significant light GA traffic is proof of that. Pete |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in
: That definition isn't in my dictionary. Wonderful for you that it's in yours. Try here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effectively -- |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in
: "Marty Shapiro" wrote in message ... From the dictionary definition of "effectively", including the dictionary's usage example: "For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held out, the fighting was effectively ended." That definition isn't in my dictionary. Wonderful for you that it's in yours. However, even by that definition, light GA is not "effectively banned" from large Class B airports. The fact that large Class B airports still have significant light GA traffic is proof of that. Pete Perhaps if you didn't go around spending $100+ to park at a large class B airport, you could afford a better dictionary. For free, you can use dictionary.com. Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told me I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
... Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told me I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day. Hmmm...you were at SFO, in spite of the "effective ban"? Amazing. Considering how light GA is supposed to be "effectively banned", we have a surprising number of folks even in this small group of pilots who have flown into large Class B airports. As for the definition of "light GA aircraft", I'm speaking of pretty much the same planes you probably would expect: six-seat and smaller piston aircraft (singles and twins). Perhaps some of the smallest cabin-class twins. Navajos, TBM700s, King Airs, and business jets need not apply. Pete |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in
: "Marty Shapiro" wrote in message ... Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told me I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day. Hmmm...you were at SFO, in spite of the "effective ban"? Amazing. The statement was that high fees "effectively ban". Since I knew in advance that ALL fees would be waived, the issue of fees was completely irrelevant. A fee of $0.00 nullifies both the "high" and "fees" in "high fees". Considering how light GA is supposed to be "effectively banned", we have a surprising number of folks even in this small group of pilots who have flown into large Class B airports. For some reason, you have fixated on "effectively" equating to "completely" or "totally" despite being referred to a perfectly valid dictionary definition (with usage example) which says otherwise. You've also managed to drop the "high fees". Fees are a deterrent to landing at an airport. The higher the fees, the more of a deterrent they are. If you make them high enough, you effectively (but not totally) ban light GA aircraft unless no viable alternative exists. Not all large class B airports have landing fees. Of the class B airports with landing fees that I am aware of, SFO is the most expensive, (excluding surcharges). I even posted the fact that the NYC class B airports (JFK, LGA, & EWR) have a $25 landing fee with a $100 surcharge for landing or takeoff operations during certain hours. LAX and LAS have no landing fee. (All fee examples refer to light GA aircraft.) Unless you are planning to only do a touch-and-go the ramp fee has be figured in when determining if the cost of landing is a deterrent at any airport, not just a class B airport. Where the total fees are more reasonable, regardless of class of airport, you will find more GA aircraft. Given reasonable alternatives, GA aircraft will go to the airport with the lower fees. As I previously stated, LAS is a large class B airport with no landing fee. 13 years ago, other than fuel, the fees at LAS were reasonable. Parking was free for the first 6 or 8 hours and the overnight fee, which I don't recall exactly, was also quite reasonable. Back then, there were many light GA aircraft on the LAS ramp. Last July, the ramp fee at LAS was $50 daily, no "grace" period. The fee was for one night was waived with a minimum fuel purchase. However, VGT, a class D only 8.2 NM north, was $5 per night (no waiver for fuel purchase) and $1.50 per gallon less for 100LL. Guess which transient ramp was chock full of light GA aircraft and which one had very few. As for the definition of "light GA aircraft", I'm speaking of pretty much the same planes you probably would expect: six-seat and smaller piston aircraft (singles and twins). Perhaps some of the smallest cabin-class twins. Navajos, TBM700s, King Airs, and business jets need not apply. Pete Using your definition of a light GA aircraft, which I agree with, counting me there was exactly one which landed at SFO on the day I was there. (I left around 6:30 PM, so it is possible one did arrive afterwards.) The closest I saw to a light GA aircraft at SFO that day was a Piper Malibu Mirage. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
("Marty Shapiro" wrote)
Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told me I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day. Are they pistonphobic out there at SFO? And what about the whole MoGas conversion community - I hope they too are welcome by an open FBO at SFO? Personally, I think AvGas planes come from the factory that way, but what do I know? Then there's those new diesel twins - with possible fuel identity issues... Montblack |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
... Hmmm...you were at SFO, in spite of the "effective ban"? Amazing. The statement was that high fees "effectively ban". Since I knew in advance that ALL fees would be waived, the issue of fees was completely irrelevant. A fee of $0.00 nullifies both the "high" and "fees" in "high fees". Okay, I failed to connect those two. Sorry. Considering how light GA is supposed to be "effectively banned", we have a surprising number of folks even in this small group of pilots who have flown into large Class B airports. For some reason, you have fixated on "effectively" equating to "completely" or "totally" despite being referred to a perfectly valid dictionary definition (with usage example) which says otherwise. You've also managed to drop the "high fees". The usage example provided here doesn't come close to justifying the statement as applied to large Class B airports. As far as dropping the "high fees" statement, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. The original statement made a claim only with respect to "landing fees", and while I have not made a conscious effect to distinguish between landing fees and other fees, accusing me of some sort of underhanded position shifting makes no sense whatsoever. Fees are a deterrent to landing at an airport. The higher the fees, the more of a deterrent they are. If you make them high enough, you effectively (but not totally) ban light GA aircraft unless no viable alternative exists. You would see fewer light GA aircraft at large Class B airports, even if the fees were zero. Furthermore, you (and the others) insist that "effectively" doesn't mean "actually", but you apparently refuse to explain just how many planes can be permitted at an airport before there's no "effective ban". You've got a great slippery-slope argument going, but when you look at small airports with fees that also discourage light GA aircraft (or any other, for that matter), you've either got to claim light GA aircraft are "effectively banned" there (which would obviously make no sense), or explain what makes those airports different from the others where light GA aircraft are "effectively banned" (ie, what sort of light GA traffic does an airport need to see before one doesn't consider it "effectively banned"). If you want to continue talking about this "effective ban", your first step is to define what that means. Clearly light GA aircraft are using the largest Class B airports in the US, so they clearly are not really banned. Since you feel you can equivocate on the definition of "effective", you need to explain just where you're going to draw the line. Otherwise, the definition you're using can be taken to ridiculous limits. Once you've defined your "effective ban", then you need to illustrate that by showing exactly how many light GA aircraft are using the largest Class B airports, and that that number is dramatically different from the number that would be using those airports if there were not any fees (comparing a large Class B airport to even a local reliever, never mind a small GA-only airport, won't prove anything). Only one person so far has even pretended to provide actual data supporting his thesis, and the data turned out to be bogus. It's hardly a convincing way to demonstrate one's point. I remain unconvinced that light GA aircraft are "effectively banned" from any airport, due to landing fees or otherwise. Pete |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in
: "Marty Shapiro" wrote in message ... Hmmm...you were at SFO, in spite of the "effective ban"? Amazing. The statement was that high fees "effectively ban". Since I knew in advance that ALL fees would be waived, the issue of fees was completely irrelevant. A fee of $0.00 nullifies both the "high" and "fees" in "high fees". Okay, I failed to connect those two. Sorry. Considering how light GA is supposed to be "effectively banned", we have a surprising number of folks even in this small group of pilots who have flown into large Class B airports. For some reason, you have fixated on "effectively" equating to "completely" or "totally" despite being referred to a perfectly valid dictionary definition (with usage example) which says otherwise. You've also managed to drop the "high fees". The usage example provided here doesn't come close to justifying the statement as applied to large Class B airports. As far as dropping the "high fees" statement, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. The original statement made a claim only with respect to "landing fees", and while I have not made a conscious effect to distinguish between landing fees and other fees, accusing me of some sort of underhanded position shifting makes no sense whatsoever. Please re-read what you stated and which I quoted in my reply. When you referred to the surprising number of pilots in this group who have flown into class B airports, you left out the qualifier "high fee". If a surprising number of pilots in this group have flown a light GA aircraft into a high fee class B, and they had to pay the fee, that would support your argument. Just flying into a class B does not, as there are class B airports with no fees. Fees are a deterrent to landing at an airport. The higher the fees, the more of a deterrent they are. If you make them high enough, you effectively (but not totally) ban light GA aircraft unless no viable alternative exists. You would see fewer light GA aircraft at large Class B airports, even if the fees were zero. Really? This will really surprise at least two Class B with over 100 single engine aircraft based there. Of course, these class B do NOT charge a landing fee to light GA aircraft. Lets take a look at data from AirNav for 2 high fee and 2 zero fee class B airport: High fee 1: Aircraft based on the field: 18 Single engine airplanes: 1 Multi engine airplanes: 3 Jet airplanes: 12 Helicopters: 2 Aircraft operations: avg 965/day 70% commercial 25% air taxi 5% transient general aviation 1% military High fee 2: (AirNav shows no aircraft based here) Aircraft operations: avg 760/day 87% air carriers 11% commuters 2% transient general aviation 1% military No fee 1: Aircraft based on the field: 263 Single engine airplanes: 115 Multi engine airplanes: 55 Jet airplanes: 45 Helicopters: 16 Military aircraft: 32 Aircraft operations: avg 886/day 55% commercial 24% transient general aviation 15% air taxi 5% military 2% local general aviation No fee 2: Aircraft based on the field: 237 Single engine airplanes: 118 Multi engine airplanes: 39 Jet airplanes: 55 Helicopters: 15 Military aircraft: 10 Aircraft operations: avg 1802/day 72% commercial 12% air taxi 11% transient general aviation 4% local general aviation 1% military If a location is served by both a class B airport and a class C, D, or G reliever airport, and assuming that fees are and location access are comparable between the class B and the reliever airport, I suspect most light GA aircraft pilots would not go to the class B. But, if my experience as a pilot who learned an flew for many years out of what is now a class C airport (it was an ARSA airport when I was a student) comparing notes with pilots who learned at class G airports is typical, I suspect there is a factor of unfamiliarity with big airports and the co- requisite radio communications biasing this decision. Furthermore, you (and the others) insist that "effectively" doesn't mean "actually", but you apparently refuse to explain just how many planes can be permitted at an airport before there's no "effective ban". You've got a great slippery-slope argument going, but when you look at small airports with fees that also discourage light GA aircraft (or any other, for that matter), you've either got to claim light GA aircraft are "effectively banned" there (which would obviously make no sense), or explain what makes those airports different from the others where light GA aircraft are "effectively banned" (ie, what sort of light GA traffic does an airport need to see before one doesn't consider it "effectively banned"). If you want to continue talking about this "effective ban", your first step is to define what that means. Clearly light GA aircraft are using the largest Class B airports in the US, so they clearly are not really banned. Since you feel you can equivocate on the definition of "effective", you need to explain just where you're going to draw the line. Otherwise, the definition you're using can be taken to ridiculous limits. If the airport is public use, it can not legally ban light GA aircraft. All it can do is highly discourage them from landing. One method of discouraging light GA aircraft from landing is to impose a high fee. However, if they make the fee prohibitive enough to achieve a complete ban (which is probably impossible as there is always some one with deep enough pockets who could pay it) they would then run afoul of the FAA. One airport authority tried this at their class B and got slammed down by the FAA. If you want a definition, I'll give you one. If there are viable reliever airport(s) at a location with a class B airport, a fee which effectively bans light GA aircraft at the class B is one where 98% of the transient light GA aircraft operations at that location take place at the reliever airport(s). Once you've defined your "effective ban", then you need to illustrate that by showing exactly how many light GA aircraft are using the largest Class B airports, and that that number is dramatically different from the number that would be using those airports if there were not any fees (comparing a large Class B airport to even a local reliever, never mind a small GA-only airport, won't prove anything). See the above data from AirNav contrasting high fee class B with no fee class B. Only one person so far has even pretended to provide actual data supporting his thesis, and the data turned out to be bogus. It's hardly a convincing way to demonstrate one's point. I remain unconvinced that light GA aircraft are "effectively banned" from any airport, due to landing fees or otherwise. Pete -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Montblack" wrote in
: ("Marty Shapiro" wrote) Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told me I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day. Are they pistonphobic out there at SFO? And what about the whole MoGas conversion community - I hope they too are welcome by an open FBO at SFO? Personally, I think AvGas planes come from the factory that way, but what do I know? Then there's those new diesel twins - with possible fuel identity issues... Montblack Pistonphobic? I like that!!! I think the fees at SFO do qualify the airport as pistonphobic. The ones who seem to be willing to pay them all fly turbo-props or jets. The airport & FBO will welcome any aircraft bringing them $$$$$! Should we also count major airports such at LAX which only sell Jet-A as pistonphobic? I don't think the diesel twins are for sale in the U.S. yet, nor do I know the status of their certification to burn Jet-A. -- Marty Shapiro Silicon Rallye Inc. (remove SPAMNOT to email me) |
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 |