"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:af5vc.28592$IB.4693@attbi_s04...

You're missing my analogy.


It's not that I'm missing it, your analogy just doesn't work.



I'm comparing the use of the aviation
infrastructure by GA to the use of the subway structure by my relatives
and
me.


Do you consider you and your relatives to be of a different class than other
riders of the subway?



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.)


With regard to subway riders there is only one distinct group; subway
riders. With regard to civil aviation there are two distinct groups;
airlines and GA. That's why your subway analogy doesn't work; you treat one
part of the group, you and your relatives, differently than the rest of the
group.



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.


That's fine, but you should provide something to support your position.
Your subway analogy is demonstrably flawed.



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.


By that reasoning Cardinals should be charged less than Skyhawks. You need
to rethink your position.