GA paying fair (fare?) share

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:af5vc.28592$IB.4693@attbi_s04...

You're missing my analogy.


It's not that I'm missing it, your analogy just doesn't work.



I'm comparing the use of the aviation
infrastructure by GA to the use of the subway structure by my relatives
and
me.


Do you consider you and your relatives to be of a different class than other
riders of the subway?



If my relatives and I didn't ride the subway, there'd be little
difference to the subway system's needs; if GA didn't use the airspace,
there'd be little difference to the aviation system's needs. (Yes, if
everyone stopped riding the subway--not just the group in
question--there'd be no subway. And similarly, if everyone stopped using
the aviation infrastructure--not just the group in question--there'd be no
aviation infrastructure.)


With regard to subway riders there is only one distinct group; subway
riders. With regard to civil aviation there are two distinct groups;
airlines and GA. That's why your subway analogy doesn't work; you treat one
part of the group, you and your relatives, differently than the rest of the
group.



To the extent that GA imposes a smaller cost, I agree it should pay a
smaller share. What I'm disputing is your claim that the marginal cost
is
the right measure.


That's fine, but you should provide something to support your position.
Your subway analogy is demonstrably flawed.



Similarly, if I have five immediate relatives, then it's fair for us to
collectively pay half the daily subway fare than some group that has ten
members. Less resource use, lower fees. But that's not the same concept as
assessing our fare according to the marginal cost of our ridership,
which
would have us paying practically nothing. Same principle applies to GA.


By that reasoning Cardinals should be charged less than Skyhawks. You need
to rethink your position.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
With regard to subway riders there is only one distinct group; subway
riders. With regard to civil aviation there are two distinct groups;
airlines and GA. That's why your subway analogy doesn't work; you treat
one
part of the group, you and your relatives, differently than the rest of
the
group.

Any group we care to delineate is "distinct" in some respect or other
(including the arbitrarily delineated group in my analogy). How does the
degree of "distinctness" of a given group bear on the question of whether
marginal cost is the the right measure to use when assessing fees for that
group? It seems to me that you're arbitrarily requiring the group to be very
"distinct" just because that gives the answer you want to arrive at
regarding GA fees. The wider public, which does not share our incentive to
invent reasons to keep GA fees low, will not be persuaded that the degree of
the group's distinctness is relevant.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:Zb6vc.38159$Ly.15351@attbi_s01...

Any group we care to delineate is "distinct" in some respect or other
(including the arbitrarily delineated group in my analogy).


In what meaningful way are you and your relatives distinct from other subway
riders?



How does the
degree of "distinctness" of a given group bear on the question of whether
marginal cost is the the right measure to use when assessing fees for that
group?


Nobody should be required to pay for things they do not use.



It seems to me that you're arbitrarily requiring the group to be very
"distinct" just because that gives the answer you want to arrive at
regarding GA fees.


I'm not requiring them to be distinct, they simply are distinct. Do you not
agree? Does a Cessna 172 have the same runway needs as a Boeing 747?



The wider public, which does not share our incentive to
invent reasons to keep GA fees low, will not be persuaded that the degree
of
the group's distinctness is relevant.


We're not inventing them, were simply pointing them out. I think the wider
public can see the difference. It's easy to put it in terms the non-flying
public understands. Most of them operate motor vehicles. How many Toyota
drivers believe they should pay the same fees as Peterbuilt operators?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

How does the
degree of "distinctness" of a given group bear on the question of
whether
marginal cost is the the right measure to use when assessing fees for
that
group?


Nobody should be required to pay for things they do not use.

How does that reply address the question it's replying to? In essence, the
question has to do with how we quantify the "things they use"--in
particular, is the marginal cost the right measure? You're proposing that
it is the right measure for "distinct" groups, but not for groups that
are not very "distinct" (such as in my analogy). What I'm wondering, and
what you have yet to address, is why you think a group's "distinctness" has
anything to do with whether marginal cost is the right way to quantify what
they "use".

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:kS6vc.27832$3x.24720@attbi_s54...

How does that reply address the question it's replying to?


Sorry, I don't see how I can state it any simpler.



In essence, the
question has to do with how we quantify the "things they use"--in
particular, is the marginal cost the right measure?


Yes.



You're proposing that
it is the right measure for "distinct" groups, but not for groups that
are not very "distinct" (such as in my analogy). What I'm wondering, and
what you have yet to address, is why you think a group's "distinctness"
has
anything to do with whether marginal cost is the right way to quantify
what
they "use".


Because to do it any other way would require a group to pay for things they
do not use. Everyone should pay their own way. Don't you agree?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:kS6vc.27832$3x.24720@attbi_s54...

How does that reply address the question it's replying to?


Sorry, I don't see how I can state it any simpler.

Ok, then we're at an impasse.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:MZ6vc.28250$pt3.11333@attbi_s03...

Ok, then we're at an impasse.


I don't think so. An impasse exists when no progress can be made. I think
progress could be made if you'd attempt to answer my questions.

Primarily the northeast. I've rarely had any luck getting clearance for
GPS direct anywhere around the New York, Washington, or Philly class
B's. It happens (Philly seems to be more accomodating), but not often.

Peter R. wrote:
CriticalMass ) wrote:


Rip wrote:


I'd be perfectly happy flying GPS direct, with no ATC involvement at all.

Actually, I *DO* that. You don't?


And where is it you fly?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Not true at all.


Of course it's true. Why do you say it isn't?


Every pilots' number one responsibility is safety.





If I am flying a commercial plane, and get warning of traffic on my
course,
I really have NO choice but to accept vectors or other avoidance
measures.

It's been my experience that very few commercial planes request vectors
around VFR targets which they've been advised of.



Approach: Lear 1234 VFR traffic your 12 o'clock same altitude, same heading,
5 miles, do you see them?

Lear: No Visual

Approach: Lear 1234 - Immediate right turn to 090.

Lear: ???????

You propose to ignore this warning?



The VFR pilot is oblivious to the fact that he is about to get squished
by
the ridiculously fast jet traffic, and has no way to avoid it.


He can't see it?


Even if he is trying, he may not see it, its going 350 knots straight at
him, maybe from behind.



Even if an IFR plane is right on altitude, he will be blamed for the
midair
if he fails to avoid the traffic.


No more so than the other participant in the midair.


I would not make that bet. The IFR traffic has been told to change course
by ATC to avoid a possible mid air. The VFR pilot could be flying perfectly
legally.



On the other hand, when VFR pilots use radar service, they almost always
voluntarily comply with altitudes and vectors rather than drop radar
service. That allows the IFR pilot, and the airlines, to continue
through
like they own the place.


Comply with altitudes and vectors? What altitudes or vectors would there
be
for them to comply with?


Yes, even outside the class B, I have been assigned altitude and vectors by
ATC to avoid VFR and IFR traffic. I once had a VFR plane coming right at
me, and the controller's voice had enough fear in it that you would have
thought he was in the plane with me. He did not vector me around it, I told
him I was changing course, but I have had my altitude and vector changed to
avoid possible conflicts.




Which apparently the airlines have gotten all to used to.

GA's use of the system improves the cost of operations for the airlines,
not
the other way around.


You have a poor understanding of the system.


On what do you make this assumption? I will be at the FSDO tomorrow, should
I as them a question for you?

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Every pilots' number one responsibility is safety.


That's swell, but it doesn't answer my question.



Approach: Lear 1234 VFR traffic your 12 o'clock same altitude,
same heading, 5 miles, do you see them?

Lear: No Visual

Approach: Lear 1234 - Immediate right turn to 090.

Lear: ???????

You propose to ignore this warning?


What do mean by "this warning"? The traffic advisory or the improper ATC
instruction? The traffic is five miles away and moving in the same
direction, there's certainly no imminent threat.



Even if he is trying, he may not see it, its going 350 knots straight at
him, maybe from behind.


So what prevents the Lear from spotting the traffic?



I would not make that bet. The IFR traffic has been told to change
course
by ATC to avoid a possible mid air. The VFR pilot could be flying
perfectly
legally.


What bet? Does IFR traffic have a greater responsibility than VFR traffic
to see and avoid other traffic? Why do you have the controller issuing
improper instructions in your scenario?



Yes, even outside the class B, I have been assigned altitude and vectors
by
ATC to avoid VFR and IFR traffic. I once had a VFR plane coming right at
me, and the controller's voice had enough fear in it that you would have
thought he was in the plane with me. He did not vector me around it, I
told
him I was changing course, but I have had my altitude and vector changed
to
avoid possible conflicts.


ATC can issue headings and altitudes to VFR aircraft in Class B and Class C
airspace, in the outer area associated with Class C airspace, and in a TRSA.
Nowhere else.



On what do you make this assumption?


From your statements.



I will be at the FSDO tomorrow, should
I as them a question for you?


I have no questions on this subject.