"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