GA paying fair (fare?) share

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
Yet when discussing GA fees, you seem to favor a
marginal-cost assessment:

Of course. That's the fair way to do it. Think about it for a moment.
What portion of the national aviation infrastructure would not exist if GA
did not exist? Whatever it costs to support that portion is GA's fair
share. Now, what portion of the bus or subway system would not exist if
there were no bus or subway riders? All of it, of course!

You're missing my analogy. I'm comparing the use of the aviation
infrastructure by GA to the use of the subway structure by my relatives and
me. If my relatives and I didn't ride the subway, there'd be little
difference to the subway system's needs; if GA didn't use the airspace,
there'd be little difference to the aviation system's needs. (Yes, if
everyone stopped riding the subway--not just the group in
question--there'd be no subway. And similarly, if everyone stopped using
the aviation infrastructure--not just the group in question--there'd be no
aviation infrastructure.)

It's fair for bus or subway riders to all pay the same fare because they
all
pose the same cost on the system. It's not fair to charge GA and air
carriers the same fees because GA poses far smaller costs on the system.

To the extent that GA imposes a smaller cost, I agree it should pay a
smaller share. What I'm disputing is your claim that the marginal cost is
the right measure.

Similarly, if I have five immediate relatives, then it's fair for us to
collectively pay half the daily subway fare than some group that has ten
members. Less resource use, lower fees. But that's not the same concept as
assessing our fare according to the marginal cost of our ridership, which
would have us paying practically nothing. Same principle applies to GA.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:af5vc.28592$IB.4693@attbi_s04...

You're missing my analogy.


It's not that I'm missing it, your analogy just doesn't work.



I'm comparing the use of the aviation
infrastructure by GA to the use of the subway structure by my relatives
and
me.


Do you consider you and your relatives to be of a different class than other
riders of the subway?



If my relatives and I didn't ride the subway, there'd be little
difference to the subway system's needs; if GA didn't use the airspace,
there'd be little difference to the aviation system's needs. (Yes, if
everyone stopped riding the subway--not just the group in
question--there'd be no subway. And similarly, if everyone stopped using
the aviation infrastructure--not just the group in question--there'd be no
aviation infrastructure.)


With regard to subway riders there is only one distinct group; subway
riders. With regard to civil aviation there are two distinct groups;
airlines and GA. That's why your subway analogy doesn't work; you treat one
part of the group, you and your relatives, differently than the rest of the
group.



To the extent that GA imposes a smaller cost, I agree it should pay a
smaller share. What I'm disputing is your claim that the marginal cost
is
the right measure.


That's fine, but you should provide something to support your position.
Your subway analogy is demonstrably flawed.



Similarly, if I have five immediate relatives, then it's fair for us to
collectively pay half the daily subway fare than some group that has ten
members. Less resource use, lower fees. But that's not the same concept as
assessing our fare according to the marginal cost of our ridership,
which
would have us paying practically nothing. Same principle applies to GA.


By that reasoning Cardinals should be charged less than Skyhawks. You need
to rethink your position.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
With regard to subway riders there is only one distinct group; subway
riders. With regard to civil aviation there are two distinct groups;
airlines and GA. That's why your subway analogy doesn't work; you treat
one
part of the group, you and your relatives, differently than the rest of
the
group.

Any group we care to delineate is "distinct" in some respect or other
(including the arbitrarily delineated group in my analogy). How does the
degree of "distinctness" of a given group bear on the question of whether
marginal cost is the the right measure to use when assessing fees for that
group? It seems to me that you're arbitrarily requiring the group to be very
"distinct" just because that gives the answer you want to arrive at
regarding GA fees. The wider public, which does not share our incentive to
invent reasons to keep GA fees low, will not be persuaded that the degree of
the group's distinctness is relevant.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:Zb6vc.38159$Ly.15351@attbi_s01...

Any group we care to delineate is "distinct" in some respect or other
(including the arbitrarily delineated group in my analogy).


In what meaningful way are you and your relatives distinct from other subway
riders?



How does the
degree of "distinctness" of a given group bear on the question of whether
marginal cost is the the right measure to use when assessing fees for that
group?


Nobody should be required to pay for things they do not use.



It seems to me that you're arbitrarily requiring the group to be very
"distinct" just because that gives the answer you want to arrive at
regarding GA fees.


I'm not requiring them to be distinct, they simply are distinct. Do you not
agree? Does a Cessna 172 have the same runway needs as a Boeing 747?



The wider public, which does not share our incentive to
invent reasons to keep GA fees low, will not be persuaded that the degree
of
the group's distinctness is relevant.


We're not inventing them, were simply pointing them out. I think the wider
public can see the difference. It's easy to put it in terms the non-flying
public understands. Most of them operate motor vehicles. How many Toyota
drivers believe they should pay the same fees as Peterbuilt operators?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

How does the
degree of "distinctness" of a given group bear on the question of
whether
marginal cost is the the right measure to use when assessing fees for
that
group?


Nobody should be required to pay for things they do not use.

How does that reply address the question it's replying to? In essence, the
question has to do with how we quantify the "things they use"--in
particular, is the marginal cost the right measure? You're proposing that
it is the right measure for "distinct" groups, but not for groups that
are not very "distinct" (such as in my analogy). What I'm wondering, and
what you have yet to address, is why you think a group's "distinctness" has
anything to do with whether marginal cost is the right way to quantify what
they "use".

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:kS6vc.27832$3x.24720@attbi_s54...

How does that reply address the question it's replying to?


Sorry, I don't see how I can state it any simpler.



In essence, the
question has to do with how we quantify the "things they use"--in
particular, is the marginal cost the right measure?


Yes.



You're proposing that
it is the right measure for "distinct" groups, but not for groups that
are not very "distinct" (such as in my analogy). What I'm wondering, and
what you have yet to address, is why you think a group's "distinctness"
has
anything to do with whether marginal cost is the right way to quantify
what
they "use".


Because to do it any other way would require a group to pay for things they
do not use. Everyone should pay their own way. Don't you agree?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:kS6vc.27832$3x.24720@attbi_s54...

How does that reply address the question it's replying to?


Sorry, I don't see how I can state it any simpler.

Ok, then we're at an impasse.