Trouble ahead over small plane fees

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 06:47 PM


Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.

Huh? That doesn't stop the noise. And usually the noise is coming from
whoever they hired, who aren't going to stop either. And it drones on
hour after hour, when one neighbor stops, the other starts. And it's a
whine that is very piercing (all the energy is located in a narrow band
of the spectrum) so a mile away even at low volume it is annoying.
Neighbors who blow leaves basically have the attitude "Its my right to
make noise" coupled with the "need" to blow the leaves instead of raking




Jose: Many communities have noise ordinances that target boom boxes,
harleys with straight pipes, leaf blowers etc. If there is noise that
exceeds the community thresholds, you can call the cops. If you started
blowing leaves in a suburb at 2 am, I'll bet the cops would show up. If
you circle in a Mooney at 1000 feet at 2 am, generating even more noise,
there is no penalty. And, the noise maker is completely anonymous.

As far as transportation cross subsidies: Yes, every time you cross a NYC
bridge in a car, you are subsidizing the subways. They get direct taxpayer
subsidies also. But I was talking about direct federal subsidies by
transporation mode: roadways are not subsidized measured by federal
income (gas taxes) vs outlays.

So, I don't think I am being inconsistent. And, I think some modes of
transportation should receive tax subsidies as they create a general
public good. IMO, GA should not fall into that category because the
subsidies are huge, it benefits an extremely small segment of society
(unlike most forms of mass transit that virtually everybody has used at
some point, and some use regularly), and much of it is not even for
transportation, but for recreation.

So you pay for the dredging, the shorline maintainence, and in many
cases the gazillion dollars for the dam and land costs that created that
lake??

Public funding of small city/county airport by local govt especially
makes sense because of the economic activity it generates. its a simple
$- in $$$- out equation.



The economic benefit studies are bogus. They simply tally the payrolls,
then add a multiplier. If the airport ceased to exist entirely, the
discretionary entertainment $$ would be spent elsewhere and have some
economic value as well.

I don't know of any govt. dredging for private marinas (none that I have
ever visited), only for public ports that import/export cargo ships use.
I never really looked into it, but if public $$ go to a private marina, I
would definitely be opposed on principal: Why should you pay for what I
use if it provides no benefit to society??

Dams: built to generate power, primarily. Low cost hydro power. Not for
boaters.

Shoreline maintenance: I agree with that. But it is mostly done to
protect housing built (stupidly, I think) along the coastline. Homeowners
should bear that risk (or pay an insurer to bear the risk), not taxpayers.
(Unless it supports a military base or Cape Canaveral, or something like
that.)

by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 07:39 PM


If I provide a subsidy for something,
more of it will be created than the economics justify.

And sometimes that is a Good Thing. Economics is not the be-all and
end-all of life, something libertarians do not see.

Recreational flying does not serve the public at large




How does rec flying serve the greater public interest. Sure there is some
benefit to having a CAP, and some airline captains come from the ranks of
GA. But rec flying? Where is the benefit?

Economics is not the be-all, but allocation of scarce resources is
critical to all. Having special interest groups (whether it be GA,
agribusiness, boating, etc.) pulling the political strings is a shame,
though.

The discussion is really moot anyway, as the battle has been fought and
decided. Now, all will have to wait for the outcome.

Prediction: Nonbusiness GA continues to pay only the gas tax (maybe it
goes up), but grant cuts to GA airports result in new or increased
landing, tie-down fees. Hangar lease rates, etc. go up.

Nothing dire for GA.

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

"ET" wrote in message
...
"Skylune" wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:


Recreational flying does not serve the public at large, and
should therefore be 100% funded by the participants. At a
local airport, they charge no landing fees, charge only about
$600 per year for a tie down, and thats it. Overnight tie-down
is $5. Yet, they receive millions of dollars in AIP grants
(derived from general taxpayer dollars and commercial airline
ticket taxes), $150K annual operating subsidy, state subsidies,
etc. They even wanted the city to kick in some $$ so as not to
"burden" airport users. Hey, who subsidizes my boating: It
costs $3500 per year for the slip; transient slips will
cost upwards of $75 per night, etc. Yet, a marina has minimal
infrastructure compared to an active GA airport. Tax subsidies
make GA flying artificially cheap.

So you pay for the dredging, the shorline maintainence, and in many
cases the gazillion dollars for the dam and land costs that created that
lake??

Public funding of small city/county airport by local govt especially
makes sense because of the economic activity it generates. its a simple
$- in $$$- out equation.


We have to stop repeating this AOPA talking point, and stick with the facts.
Whenever we say this we just look like deer in the headlights; i.e. clueless
and dumbfounded. Yes, GA airports generate revenue, but measured as
dollar/acre GA revenue is abysmal. Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

In article et,
"Tom Conner" wrote:

Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

based on ....?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:07:51 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote in et::

GA airports generate revenue, but measured as
dollar/acre GA revenue is abysmal. Virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

Agreed.

The airport's value lies in it's existence in the nation's/world's
infrastructure as a portal for aerial transport. Further, the value
of the real estate upon which the airport is sited is obviously not in
the revenue the airport generates for the municipality operating it.
And the value of the property tax on the real estate if it were zoned
for development would surely be several times more than the airport
pays. Both economic issues motivate airport closures as do noise
complaints and developer lobbying.

But consider the future. If the airport real estate is allowed to be
subdivided into residential lots, the municipality's reacquiring the
property in 2020, when a local airport is being demanded by the
citizens, may prove difficult and unpopular.

There are a lot of issues in life that require foresight to achieve
long term goals, rather than failing to plan ahead in the face of
immediate gratification.

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:07:51 +0000, Tom Conner wrote:

virtually any other economic use of
airport land will produce a tremendous amount more of $$$ than GA.

This turns out to be false, much to my town's annoyance.

We're learning that new housing is *expensive*. Sure, it means taxes.
But in our town, a new home means kids. And schooling two or more kids
costs more than most houses pay in taxes.

Anything more dense than a house (ie. an apartment building) which is well
suited to children is worse. A couple of developers got projects past the
town by claiming that the resulting homes would be kid-unfriendly. This
was recent, with the projects still under construction, so it remains to
be seen if kid-unfriendly can actually work. I've my doubts.

High density commercial or industry might generate more cash than a GA
airport. But it might also have additional costs. More, an airport
nearby is an asset for corporate sites. Take the airport away, and large
corporations will be less willing to pay for the space.

- Andrew

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

Pure sophistry! Northwest doesn't want to share "their" airports, but
doesn't want to share in the solution to their desires.

The problem with "Skyloon's" "solution" is that those airports in highly
populated areas are the link with those in the less-densely-populated
areas. The airports are part of a *system* -- not just a bunch of loose
parts.



Its pretty clear that objectivity goes out the window for many when self
interests are concerned....

Sure the airport network is linked. That has nothing, zero, Nada, to do
with the appropriate ways of funding the system, and who pays. The
Heritage Foundation among others has long argued for user fees based for
private activities, which clearly includes GA. I agree with their
viewpoint, and oppose governement subsidies for private goods. Now, if
states or localities choose to support a GA airport, a local ski area or a
shooting range, with taxes, that is fine with me.


The airport system is just as important as the Interstate Highway system
-- it helps to bind the nation together. The Heritage Foundation (esp.
Mr. Poole) is blinded by ideology and ignores the big picture!

How about Rural Electrification? postal service to outlying areas? roads?

he list goes on.