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.