ATC User Fees

"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