ATC User Fees

On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:15:26 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

At one "high fee" airport, GA makes up 5% of the traffic, with the
"no fee" airports showing only between 11% and 24%. That's hardly a slam
dunk for the point you're trying to make.

It's a 100% to 500% difference.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
Lets take a look at data from AirNav for 2 high fee and 2 zero fee
class B airport: [snipped]

The data you posted simply supports my point. Even at the no-fee
airports, there aren't that many airplanes (especially considering the
size of the airport). 100 planes just isn't that many. There are
plenty of reasons to stay away from large Class B airports other than
landing fees.

I was comparing high fee class B with no fee class B, not class B with
non-class B. The data shows that either no fee class B airports have more
than 100 times the based single engine aircraft as the class B airport with
high fees. That's on the order of 10,000% more single engine aircraft
based at each no fee field. If we combine the based single engine aircraft
at both no fee fields as opposed to those based at both high fee fields,
you get 23,200% more based aircraft at the no fee fields.


But regardless, looking at based aircraft isn't relevant. What you
want is operations. And the data you show don't actually suggest an
"effective ban". At one "high fee" airport, GA makes up 5% of the
traffic, with the "no fee" airports showing only between 11% and 24%.
That's hardly a slam dunk for the point you're trying to make.


Unless the based aircraft are permanently grounded, they contribute to
the airport's operation count every time they fly. They do not show up in
the transient GA traffic count. If they were to be included, the GA
percentage would be much higher at the two no fee class B airports as they
both have flight schools.

The 5% transient GA traffic at the high fee airport are almost all
private jet or turbo prop aircraft, none of which are light GA aircraft.
Using the day I was there, light GA aircraft accounted for only 2% of the
GA traffic. The transient GA traffic counts (and disregarding the size of
the aircraft), comprises 1/4 of the traffic at one of the no fee class B
airports while at one of the high fee class B airports it is only 1/20 of
the traffic. To put these numbers in perspective, The 24% transient GA
traffic at the no fee airport results in over 58,000 more operations per
year than at the 5% GA traffic high fee airport.

If the airport is public use, it can not legally ban light GA
aircraft. All it can do is highly discourage them from landing.

Yes.

One
method of discouraging light GA aircraft from landing is to impose a
high fee.

Yes.

However, if they make the fee prohibitive enough to achieve a
complete ban (which is probably impossible as there is always some
one with
deep enough pockets who could pay it) they would then run afoul of
the FAA.
One airport authority tried this at their class B and got slammed
down by the FAA.

Airports have had trouble imposing unreasonable fees, yes. But one
would think that the FAA would consider a fee high enough to "ban
light GA for all practical purposes" to be unreasonable. After all,
that's the point of their objection. If anything, that state of
affairs suggests that no airports "effectively ban" light GA.

If you want a definition, I'll give you one. If there are viable
reliever airport(s) at a location with a class B airport, a fee which
effectively bans light GA aircraft at the class B is one where 98% of
the transient light GA aircraft operations at that location take
place at the reliever airport(s).

That definition has no logical validity, since it ignores reasons for
using the reliever airport unrelated to the landing fee.


You are now obtusely ducking the issue. I intentionally did NOT
attempt to address other factors. All I attempted to address was the issue
of fees incurred on landing (landing fee, parking fee) vis-a-vis the
decision to land or not to land at a high fee class B airport. If you want
to now throw in other factors, further discussion on the original issue is
pointless. There is no definition which you won't dismiss with "no logical
validity" when you can't justify not agreeing with it. Obviously, that's
your game.

Just as there are reasons to use the reliever unrelated to the landing
fees, so are there equally good reasons to use the class B unrelated to the
landing fees. The only way to determine if the landing fees are
determinant in the light GA aircraft choosing the class B or the reliever
is to remove these other factors.

I gave you a real world example at one location where the reliever was
similarly located and provided similar accessability to the city as the
class B. The lower fees at the reliver pulled in most of the transient
light GA aircraft. Neither airport in this case had landing fess. The
reliever was $45 less per night to park and $1.50 less per gallon for
100LL.

See the above data from AirNav contrasting high fee class B with
no
fee class B.

I did. It doesn't support what you're saying.

You simply looked at absolute numbers without analyzing them.


Pete





--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

("Marty Shapiro" wrote)
Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told me I
was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day.


Are they pistonphobic out there at SFO?

And what about the whole MoGas conversion community - I hope they too are
welcome by an open FBO at SFO? Personally, I think AvGas planes come from
the factory that way, but what do I know?

Then there's those new diesel twins - with possible fuel identity issues...


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in
:

("Marty Shapiro" wrote)
Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told
me I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day.


Are they pistonphobic out there at SFO?

And what about the whole MoGas conversion community - I hope they too
are welcome by an open FBO at SFO? Personally, I think AvGas planes
come from the factory that way, but what do I know?

Then there's those new diesel twins - with possible fuel identity
issues...


Montblack



Pistonphobic? I like that!!!

I think the fees at SFO do qualify the airport as pistonphobic. The
ones who seem to be willing to pay them all fly turbo-props or jets. The
airport & FBO will welcome any aircraft bringing them $$$$$!

Should we also count major airports such at LAX which only sell Jet-A
as pistonphobic? I don't think the diesel twins are for sale in the U.S.
yet, nor do I know the status of their certification to burn Jet-A.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Montblack" wrote in
:

("Marty Shapiro" wrote)
Define light GA aircraft. When I was on the ramp at SFO, they told
me I was the only piston powered aircraft to land there that day.


Are they pistonphobic out there at SFO?

And what about the whole MoGas conversion community - I hope they too
are welcome by an open FBO at SFO? Personally, I think AvGas planes
come from the factory that way, but what do I know?

Then there's those new diesel twins - with possible fuel identity
issues...


Montblack


Pistonphobic? I like that!!!

I think the fees at SFO do qualify the airport as pistonphobic. The
ones who seem to be willing to pay them all fly turbo-props or jets. The
airport & FBO will welcome any aircraft bringing them $$$$$!

Should we also count major airports such at LAX which only sell Jet-A
as pistonphobic? I don't think the diesel twins are for sale in the U.S.
yet, nor do I know the status of their certification to burn Jet-A.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)