ATC User Fees

... 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.

"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

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.

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)

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

Which airport?

Would it be located in NJ?

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.

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.

"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)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
It's a 100% to 500% difference.

So what? Twice as much traffic one place as the other does not prove an
"effective ban".

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)