A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Trouble ahead over small plane fees



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #14  
Old April 11th 06, 10:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Trouble ahead over small plane fees

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.