From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 20-May-14 22:29, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 20-May-14 17:29, conklin wrote:   
   >>>>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
      
   >>>>>Still want to hear from George as to why special taxes on   
   >>>>>passengers are required if the airport isn't being subsidized.   
      
   >>>>Taxes on passengers are not "subsidies."   
      
   >>>They are if they're not collected in proportion to their usage and   
   >>>by the provider of what they're using.   
      
   >>>The PFC, which is a flat amount per user levied by and collected by   
   >>>the airport, is a user fee.   
      
   >>You've got conklin disease and should be ashamed of yourself. It's   
   >>not a user fee. It's a tax. Passengers don't consume airport   
   >>resources in proportion to the charge they've paid. What do you think   
   >>it represents, a washroom attendant fee? Seat rental?   
      
   >>No one goes to an airport to see the damn airport. They go to   
   >>travel. Airlines and concessions should pay rental and that should be   
   >>high enough to operate the airport and retire bonds. If it's not,   
   >>something's wrong.   
      
   >A single charge only works if there is one dimension to consumption, but   
   >an airport (or train station, etc.) has multiple dimensions, which is   
   >why the airlines pay per-gate fees, per-landing fees and per-passenger fees.   
      
   Gate fees and landing fees certainly are user charges for exclusive use of   
   a resource during a particular period. My objection has been to the   
   traditional failure to charge based on high demand at 5 pm.   
      
   Per passenger charges, well, a passenger consumes a resource at the airport   
   exclusively, but it's so trivial that attempting to measure it an seek   
   reimbursement isn't worthwhile. At O'Hare, which has the world's longest   
   walks to gates, are you going to charge the poor bastard more going to the   
   most distant gate? It's not like he really wants his plane assigned to   
   that gate. There's just no way to make it a valid user fee.   
      
   >Think about it.  If an airline rents a gate for 10pax/day, that puts a   
   >much lower load on the terminal facility than the same airline renting   
   >the same gate for 1000pax/day, so should they should pay the same in   
   >both cases?   
      
   I think those commuter airlines are connecting flights. Your extreme   
   example would be for general aviation at major airports. There's still   
   a bit of that, but they discourage it. As far as I know, passengers wouldn't   
   use the main passenger terminals for that but would go to the separate   
   general aviation facility, and those flights wouldn't be charged gate fees.   
   Landing fees would be comparable.   
      
   I won't ask how you think you'd board a Lear jet from a jetway.   
      
   >That airlines pass one part of their rent on to passengers as a separate   
   >line item while they include the others in the base fare is immaterial   
   >to the multi-dimensional nature of the costs and fees.   
      
   It's a charge from the airport, not the airline, Stephen.   
      
   >I'm not claiming PFCs are perfect, but no user fee ever is; one can find   
   >plenty of problems with tolled highways, for instance, but that doesn't   
   >mean we should get rid of tolls and charge every car owner an annual   
   >rent that doesn't vary with their usage at all.   
      
   That absurd statement indicates utter cluelessness as to how user charges   
   should be set. Have you ever heard of the concept of demand?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)