ATC User Fees

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
Hmmm...you were at SFO, in spite of the "effective ban"? Amazing.

The statement was that high fees "effectively ban". Since I knew in
advance that ALL fees would be waived, the issue of fees was completely
irrelevant. A fee of $0.00 nullifies both the "high" and "fees" in "high
fees".

Okay, I failed to connect those two. Sorry.

Considering how light GA is supposed to be "effectively banned", we
have a surprising number of folks even in this small group of pilots
who have flown into large Class B airports.

For some reason, you have fixated on "effectively" equating to
"completely" or "totally" despite being referred to a perfectly valid
dictionary definition (with usage example) which says otherwise. You've
also managed to drop the "high fees".

The usage example provided here doesn't come close to justifying the
statement as applied to large Class B airports. As far as dropping the
"high fees" statement, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. The
original statement made a claim only with respect to "landing fees", and
while I have not made a conscious effect to distinguish between landing fees
and other fees, accusing me of some sort of underhanded position shifting
makes no sense whatsoever.

Fees are a deterrent to landing at
an airport. The higher the fees, the more of a deterrent they are. If
you
make them high enough, you effectively (but not totally) ban light GA
aircraft unless no viable alternative exists.

You would see fewer light GA aircraft at large Class B airports, even if the
fees were zero.

Furthermore, you (and the others) insist that "effectively" doesn't mean
"actually", but you apparently refuse to explain just how many planes can be
permitted at an airport before there's no "effective ban". You've got a
great slippery-slope argument going, but when you look at small airports
with fees that also discourage light GA aircraft (or any other, for that
matter), you've either got to claim light GA aircraft are "effectively
banned" there (which would obviously make no sense), or explain what makes
those airports different from the others where light GA aircraft are
"effectively banned" (ie, what sort of light GA traffic does an airport need
to see before one doesn't consider it "effectively banned").

If you want to continue talking about this "effective ban", your first step
is to define what that means. Clearly light GA aircraft are using the
largest Class B airports in the US, so they clearly are not really banned.
Since you feel you can equivocate on the definition of "effective", you need
to explain just where you're going to draw the line. Otherwise, the
definition you're using can be taken to ridiculous limits.

Once you've defined your "effective ban", then you need to illustrate that
by showing exactly how many light GA aircraft are using the largest Class B
airports, and that that number is dramatically different from the number
that would be using those airports if there were not any fees (comparing a
large Class B airport to even a local reliever, never mind a small GA-only
airport, won't prove anything).

Only one person so far has even pretended to provide actual data supporting
his thesis, and the data turned out to be bogus. It's hardly a convincing
way to demonstrate one's point. I remain unconvinced that light GA aircraft
are "effectively banned" from any airport, due to landing fees or otherwise.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
Hmmm...you were at SFO, in spite of the "effective ban"? Amazing.

The statement was that high fees "effectively ban". Since I knew
in
advance that ALL fees would be waived, the issue of fees was
completely irrelevant. A fee of $0.00 nullifies both the "high" and
"fees" in "high fees".

Okay, I failed to connect those two. Sorry.

Considering how light GA is supposed to be "effectively banned", we
have a surprising number of folks even in this small group of pilots
who have flown into large Class B airports.

For some reason, you have fixated on "effectively" equating to
"completely" or "totally" despite being referred to a perfectly valid
dictionary definition (with usage example) which says otherwise.
You've also managed to drop the "high fees".

The usage example provided here doesn't come close to justifying the
statement as applied to large Class B airports. As far as dropping
the "high fees" statement, I'm not really sure what you're talking
about. The original statement made a claim only with respect to
"landing fees", and while I have not made a conscious effect to
distinguish between landing fees and other fees, accusing me of some
sort of underhanded position shifting makes no sense whatsoever.

Please re-read what you stated and which I quoted in my reply. When
you referred to the surprising number of pilots in this group who have
flown into class B airports, you left out the qualifier "high fee". If a
surprising number of pilots in this group have flown a light GA aircraft
into a high fee class B, and they had to pay the fee, that would support
your argument. Just flying into a class B does not, as there are class B
airports with no fees.


Fees are a deterrent to landing at
an airport. The higher the fees, the more of a deterrent they are.
If you
make them high enough, you effectively (but not totally) ban light GA
aircraft unless no viable alternative exists.

You would see fewer light GA aircraft at large Class B airports, even
if the fees were zero.

Really? This will really surprise at least two Class B with over 100
single engine aircraft based there. Of course, these class B do NOT charge
a landing fee to light GA aircraft.

Lets take a look at data from AirNav for 2 high fee and 2 zero fee
class B airport:

High fee 1:

Aircraft based on the field: 18
Single engine airplanes: 1
Multi engine airplanes: 3
Jet airplanes: 12
Helicopters: 2

Aircraft operations: avg 965/day
70% commercial
25% air taxi
5% transient general aviation
1% military

High fee 2: (AirNav shows no aircraft based here)

Aircraft operations: avg 760/day
87% air carriers
11% commuters
2% transient general aviation
1% military

No fee 1:

Aircraft based on the field: 263
Single engine airplanes: 115
Multi engine airplanes: 55
Jet airplanes: 45
Helicopters: 16
Military aircraft: 32

Aircraft operations: avg 886/day
55% commercial
24% transient general aviation
15% air taxi
5% military
2% local general aviation

No fee 2:

Aircraft based on the field: 237
Single engine airplanes: 118
Multi engine airplanes: 39
Jet airplanes: 55
Helicopters: 15
Military aircraft: 10

Aircraft operations: avg 1802/day
72% commercial
12% air taxi
11% transient general aviation
4% local general aviation
1% military


If a location is served by both a class B airport and a class C, D, or
G reliever airport, and assuming that fees are and location access are
comparable between the class B and the reliever airport, I suspect most
light GA aircraft pilots would not go to the class B. But, if my
experience as a pilot who learned an flew for many years out of
what is now a class C airport (it was an ARSA airport when I was a student)
comparing notes with pilots who learned at class G airports is typical, I
suspect there is a factor of unfamiliarity with big airports and the co-
requisite radio communications biasing this decision.

Furthermore, you (and the others) insist that "effectively" doesn't
mean "actually", but you apparently refuse to explain just how many
planes can be permitted at an airport before there's no "effective
ban". You've got a great slippery-slope argument going, but when you
look at small airports with fees that also discourage light GA
aircraft (or any other, for that matter), you've either got to claim
light GA aircraft are "effectively banned" there (which would
obviously make no sense), or explain what makes those airports
different from the others where light GA aircraft are "effectively
banned" (ie, what sort of light GA traffic does an airport need to see
before one doesn't consider it "effectively banned").

If you want to continue talking about this "effective ban", your first
step is to define what that means. Clearly light GA aircraft are
using the largest Class B airports in the US, so they clearly are not
really banned. Since you feel you can equivocate on the definition of
"effective", you need to explain just where you're going to draw the
line. Otherwise, the definition you're using can be taken to
ridiculous limits.

If the airport is public use, it can not legally ban light GA
aircraft. All it can do is highly discourage them from landing. One
method of discouraging light GA aircraft from landing is to impose a high
fee. 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.

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).


Once you've defined your "effective ban", then you need to illustrate
that by showing exactly how many light GA aircraft are using the
largest Class B airports, and that that number is dramatically
different from the number that would be using those airports if there
were not any fees (comparing a large Class B airport to even a local
reliever, never mind a small GA-only airport, won't prove anything).

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


Only one person so far has even pretended to provide actual data
supporting his thesis, and the data turned out to be bogus. It's
hardly a convincing way to demonstrate one's point. I remain
unconvinced that light GA aircraft are "effectively banned" from any
airport, due to landing fees or otherwise.

Pete






--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

... 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.

Which airport?

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

Jose wrote:

Which airport?

Dunno if it's what Marty had in mind, but Massport tried that at Logan in the
early 90s, and the FAA did indeed tell them to change the fee structure.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:04:12 GMT, Jose
wrote in : :

Which airport?

Would it be located in NJ?

Jose wrote in
:

... 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.

Which airport?

Jose

Massport - Logan (BOS) in 1988.

Basically, it's ok to have a landing fee based on weight, but you
can't discriminate. So, if you say charge $1 per 1000 pounds, a light GA
aircraft would pay $3 while a 747 would pay about $800. If you try to
adjust the weight rate to price out the little guy, you will also price out
the airlines. What Massport did was add a "per landing" fee to the weight
fee. This was ruled by DOT/FAA to be unreasonable, discriminatory, and
preempted by Federal law. Massport appealed but the U.S. Court of Appeals,
1st Circuit, upheld DOT/FAA.

An interesting result of the ruling was a DOT/FAA opinion that if an
airport can document congestion delays during certain times, it can then
implement a congestion surcharge to ALL arrivals during these times. (There
are a few permitted exemptions, but scheduled airline is not one of them.)
However, it can only do so during the hours that the documented congestion
exists. It can't, as Massport tried to do, apply the surcharge 27-7.
Currently, I am aware of JFK, EWR, and LGA using a congestion time
surcharge.

From the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Regional Review, Winter 1997:

"Logan's landing fees, like those of virtually all U.S. airports, do
not reflect congestion. Fees are based instead on weight. So a typical
wide-body jet pays roughly $800 while the smallest plane, which causes as
much congestion, pays $25.

In 1988, Massport did try a fee scheme that combined aircraft weight with
an additional fee per landing. Flights by smaller planes became relatively
more expensive, and their use of Logan dropped substantially, although that
reduction was also affected by industry consolidations. The scheme ended
after it was judged discriminatory against small planes by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, which noted that small aircraft paid higher
prices even at hours when there was ample runway capacity. At the same
time, the agency ruling opened the door to peak-load pricing, noting that
"it may be appropriate to raise fees in order to invoke market responses
during periods when the airport is congested.""

Another reference you may find interesting is the FAA's letter to
Massport of June 10, 2004 available at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airpo...er20040610.pdf



--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Which airport [was rebuked by the FAA for discriminatory fees]?

Massport - Logan (BOS) in 1988.

A few comments from airnav about Logan (BOS):

Nov 2004: $391 in fees for an overnight stay. $160 ramp, $42 GPU, $48
security fee, $52 parking, $22 Mass. GA fee and and extra $70 worth of
something-or-other fees. [note - unspecified aircraft type - GPU hints
it might be a jet?]

Nov 2003: $43.30 security fee, $27.50 landing fee, $22 MA General
Aviation fee (this is a new fee at KBOS), $27.50 parking fee, and $22
handling fee. [a three hour stay, unspecified type]

I don't know what this "security fee" is but in 2003 there were noises
that if you made noise you could get it waived.

So, I guess they found another way to discriminate. Hire Signature to
do it for you.

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

Jose wrote in
:

Which airport [was rebuked by the FAA for discriminatory fees]?

Massport - Logan (BOS) in 1988.

A few comments from airnav about Logan (BOS):

Nov 2004: $391 in fees for an overnight stay. $160 ramp, $42 GPU, $48
security fee, $52 parking, $22 Mass. GA fee and and extra $70 worth of
something-or-other fees. [note - unspecified aircraft type - GPU hints
it might be a jet?]

Nov 2003: $43.30 security fee, $27.50 landing fee, $22 MA General
Aviation fee (this is a new fee at KBOS), $27.50 parking fee, and $22
handling fee. [a three hour stay, unspecified type]

I don't know what this "security fee" is but in 2003 there were noises
that if you made noise you could get it waived.

So, I guess they found another way to discriminate. Hire Signature to
do it for you.

Jose

That's exactly how the airport authorities game the system! DOT/FAA
only ensure just and non-discriminatory landing fees. They do NOT require
an airport to provide a public ramp. So, the airport wanting to keep GA
out simply charges an outrageous rental to the FBO(s), who then pass on the
high costs to transient aircraft. I've sometimes wonder what percentage of
Signature's bad reputation with pilots of light GA aircraft should really
fall on the airport.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Pete

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.