ATC User Fees

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
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?

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.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
I don't understand the question. The fees at large commercial airports
are very much higher than fees elsewhere

I never said they weren't.

[...]
The high fees serve as a deterrent

I never said they didn't.

- to a sufficent extent that most spam cans avoid the airport.

Um...isn't that what "deterrent" means? If "spam cans" didn't avoid the
airport, it wouldn't be much of a deterrent, would it?

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!).

Spending an hour taxiing isn't a deterrent for you? Um, okay.

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.

"Likely not to" and "banned" are two completely different things.

Frankly, your post is simply supporting my point (well, the point I now
have, given that my question was met with zero supporting evidence regarding
the claim of "banned"). Light GA aircraft DO use the largest Class B
airports. They are NOT banned at all. If there's a good enough reason to
use the airport, they are used.

I guarantee that there is a price at which light GA aircraft would never use
a large Class B. It's at this price point which I'd consider light GA
aircraft to be "effectively banned". Below that price point, they are not
banned; they are simply discouraged, with the market showing exactly how
much landing at that airport is worth to a certain group of light GA pilots.

Pete

Spending an hour taxiing isn't a deterrent for you?

Not as much as a hundred-dollar landing fee. Especially when it's only
"maybe" I'll have a long taxi, and "certainly" I'll pay $100 to land.

"Likely not to" and "banned" are two completely different things.

Correct. And "effectively banned" is different from "banned". 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.

Your usage ("a price at which light GA aircraft would =never= use") is
another reasonable definition, and makes your (different) point.
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.

It's similar to Signature's effect on the market, and the effect of
charging for weather briefings.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"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".


From the dictionary definition of "effectively", including the
dictionary's usage example:

"For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held
out, the fighting was effectively ended."


The definition does NOT equate "effectively" with "absolutely",
"totally", "completely", etc. A combination of landing & ramp fees will
effectively, but not totally, ban GA traffic.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
From the dictionary definition of "effectively", including the
dictionary's usage example:

"For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held
out, the fighting was effectively ended."

That definition isn't in my dictionary. Wonderful for you that it's in
yours.

However, even by that definition, light GA is not "effectively banned" from
large Class B airports. The fact that large Class B airports still have
significant light GA traffic is proof of that.

Pete

Jose wrote:

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...

Actually, with controllers worth their salt, a 172 can be slipped in
between two airliners with less delay than another airliner in the same
line would induce. The one time I flew into Logan, the controller had
me fly the "something bridge visual" and I made a close-in base to maybe
a 3/4 mile final. I was in the final approach for a very short time.
And my time on the runway was far shorter than an airliner making its
roll-out.

Sure, if they line up the 172 on a 10 mile final, then you will wreak
havoc on the traffic flow, but no controller with a clue would do that.
I've flown into a number of fairly large airports (Logan, Philly, BWI,
Washington National, etc.) and I never delayed an airliner. The
controllers uniformly did an excellent job of bringing me in on a close
pattern and I either landed on a GA runway (PHL and BWI) or dropped into
the airliner chain with narry a hiccup.


Matt


Matt

Actually, with controllers worth their salt, a 172 can be slipped in between two airliners...

Sure, if they line up the 172 on a 10 mile final...[but] The controllers uniformly did an excellent job of bringing me in on a close pattern and I either landed on a GA runway (PHL and BWI) or dropped into the airliner chain with narry a hiccup.

That's my experience too at the larger hubs. Logan was amazingly easy.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.