![]() |
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:52:29 +0000, Jose wrote:
Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there shouldn't depend on me for support. Right? Who is "you"? Airports, like any kind of network node, gain/lose value by network effects. The more airports exist, the more possible destinations for any trip and therefore the more value there is in any one airport. So airports need to be treated, economically, like a network. One doesn't just price out an individual node as an individual node has little benefit. But an incremental node does have benefit (the amount of which is determined by a function on the number of nodes that already exist). Unfortunately, the US has some very bad examples of this. For example, consider any state road that leads, at the border, to another state's road. If one state were to close their road, the value of the other state's road would drop (albeit not to zero). Yet there's no cross funding mechanism available. Of course, this is also because that type of analysis is difficult to accomplish and impossible to prove. The Interstate road system avoids this problem by adopting a single-payer model. That's part of the basis for FAA investments in airports, and it is economically sound. In other words, everyone should be paying to maintain the entire airport network. I may never use (for example) LGA. But that it exists has value for me (even if it's just to keep the crowds down a little at EWR {8^). Similarly, I might never fly into 47N. But that it exists as a possible destination makes my home airport that much more valuable. ATC functions are, I think, different. My use of that service is often forced upon me because of the requirements imposed to satisfy another user. That is, I need to chat with TRACON to get home because "home" is in class B and class B exists to satisfy the carrier crowd. With airports, every new airport provides at least a little value for everyone. With ATC, value is actually mostly accrued only to a small set of users despite its impact upon many. Yet, somehow, I feel like a single model could be built to cover both cases. I cannot believe that nobody has really studied this. - Andrew |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cirrus chute deployment -- an incredible story | Michael182/G | Instrument Flight Rules | 48 | July 14th 05 03:52 PM |
Small plane crash lands on freeway in LA area | Skywise | Piloting | 17 | June 24th 05 04:37 AM |
My first lesson | Marco Rispoli | Aerobatics | 3 | May 17th 05 08:23 AM |
My first aerobatic lesson | Marco Rispoli | Piloting | 6 | April 13th 05 02:21 PM |
Plane down - NASCAR team plane crashes... | Chuck | Piloting | 10 | October 28th 04 12:38 AM |