U.S. airports plan ground restrictions for A380

A350XWB · Post by **A350XWB** » 28 Apr 2007, 09:36

In some cases, all other aircraft on the ground may need to stop completely while the A380 lumbers through," said Rep. John Mica of Florida

http://www.reuters.com/article/business ... 4920070427

john mica... anti A380

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 28 Apr 2007, 16:47

Oh he's been doing this before...

More trouble for A 380 in the USA??

:(

He'd rather throw my money down the drain on Amtrack than improve air travel.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 28 Apr 2007, 18:30

If airports need to be expanded to accommodate any plane, the costs of such expansion (more land, wider separation for runways, terminal additions, etc.) should be charged to each airline that flies the plane into the airport. This is a fair allocation of user fees. It may result in higher ticket charges to those passengers flying on these planes, but it fairly apportions the costs. Or, the airline can swallow the costs and keep fares at the previous level.

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 28 Apr 2007, 18:36

The article is biased against A380 in my opinion. We here in Houston are ready willing and able to handle the A380 at the Bush airport. I say bring the big bird in

IAH is designated as an alternate for the Air France CDG-MEX flights.

Post by **ElcoB** » 28 Apr 2007, 19:20

smokejumper wrote:If airports need to be expanded to accommodate any plane, the costs of such expansion (more land, wider separation for runways, terminal additions, etc.) should be charged to each airline that flies the plane into the airport. This is a fair allocation of user fees. It may result in higher ticket charges to those passengers flying on these planes, but it fairly apportions the costs. Or, the airline can swallow the costs and keep fares at the previous level.

Yes, sounds very logic but reality is totally different.
Every major airport, international, national and even regional is supported by governments and/or local authorities.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 28 Apr 2007, 22:01

ElcoB wrote:
smokejumper wrote:If airports need to be expanded to accommodate any plane, the costs of such expansion (more land, wider separation for runways, terminal additions, etc.) should be charged to each airline that flies the plane into the airport. This is a fair allocation of user fees. It may result in higher ticket charges to those passengers flying on these planes, but it fairly apportions the costs. Or, the airline can swallow the costs and keep fares at the previous level.
Yes, sounds very logic but reality is totally different.
Every major airport, international, national and even regional is supported by governments and/or local authorities.

True, every major airport is supported by governments or local authorities. However, these governments have other obligations including, social services, health services, transportation infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges and public transport used by the general populace, not just the flying public, police and fire services, etc). The taxpayer is already burdened paying the taxes to provide services, including services for the poor. It is hard to argue that the poor benefit from airports, rather, more wealthy travelers will benefit.

Cities need airports for travel and commerce. In fact, major airports are cities in themselves, requiring police and fire services, food and lodging services, roads, etc., in addition to aircraft sevices like fuel storage, terminals, tarmacs and runways (to handle 1,000,000+ pound / 454 metric ton aircraft) and, passenger amenities. Taxes or user fees are the only mechanism public agencies have to raise the money (or pay the bonds) needed to support such projects. The money has got to come from somewhere. Here in the United States, user fees are frequently used to pay for governmental services. Toll roads, bridges, national parks, and even airports extract user fees for the service they provide.

As someone who is well within the top 5 percent of all US citizens in terms of income and net worth, I recognize my responsibility to pay my share of taxes to support a variety of public services, including those for the less fortunate.

I fly from DC to Atlanta 7-8 times a year to see family, my wife and I fly to distant places for vacations; In all, I probably fly 12-15 times a year for personal trips, in addition to business trips. I should pay a user fee for the portion of the airports that I use (after all, they were put there for my convenience), but I should not pay for the marginal or excess costs of projects that I do not use. Extra airport infrastructure to accommodate services for which most passengers receive no benefit have got to be paid for by those who incur (or caused to incur) those costs.

The airlines which require extra servces, like more space, new hangers, and new termnals have to pay for them.

A390 · Post by **A390** » 28 Apr 2007, 22:15

Such a pitty we didn't charge PanAm back in the seventies for the cost of upgrading our european airports for the "excessive" B747

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 29 Apr 2007, 02:00

Agree - All B747 users (Pan Am, Northwest, KLM, Air France, British Airways, American, etc. should have been assessed user fees to upgrade the airports. Otherwise, it would have been a case of the general populace paying for services that benefit travelers.

I agree that those who require extra services should pay for them; that's why a First Class seat costs more than a Coach seat!

CX · Post by CX » 29 Apr 2007, 11:56

I think those fees that the A380 requires are included in landing fees, and it is very logical and it is reality that landing fee for A380 is higher than any other commerical plane..

A380 only goes to big hubs, I won't believe hubs like HKG will impose huge landing fees on the A380 to prevent it coming.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 29 Apr 2007, 15:59

CX wrote:I think those fees that the A380 requires are included in landing fees, and it is very logical and it is reality that landing fee for A380 is higher than any other commerical plane..

A380 only goes to big hubs, I won't believe hubs like HKG will impose huge landing fees on the A380 to prevent it coming.

The marginal costs of providing improvements and upgrades of an airport should be charged to and paid for by the plane's requirements. For example, if the largest plane an airport can currently accommodate is an A-330 or B777, any investment to handle a larger plane should be paid for by that plane (or airline or manufacturer). It is not eqitable to charge all passengers the same fees for upgrades to handle incrementally greater demands.

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) has spent approximately $900,000,000 to accommodate the A380. These costs need to be recouped, somehow. To tax the non-travelihg public, or charge user fees for people who fly in A320's or B737s to pay for this investment would be inequitable. Whoever requires this investment is the one who should pay.

The airports that are making the considerable investments for the A380 need to levy a user fee on each flight in order to recover the fees in a reasonable (say 5-6 years) timeframe.

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 29 Apr 2007, 17:06

I don't know, the worst thing that airports can do is pass the cost on to the traveling public. There are so many hidden costs to tickets these days that it increases the price of tickets by 25% sometimes.

The local communities should pick up the costs. If they want an A380 or even mainline jet service (as opposed to regional jets) they should pay for it themselves.

Not pass it on to the airlines.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 29 Apr 2007, 20:11

cageyjames wrote:I don't know, the worst thing that airports can do is pass the cost on to the traveling public. There are so many hidden costs to tickets these days that it increases the price of tickets by 25% sometimes.

The local communities should pick up the costs. If they want an A380 or even mainline jet service (as opposed to regional jets) they should pay for it themselves.

Not pass it on to the airlines.

I fear that I've stepped into a deepening pit of quicksand; the more I say what I believe, the deeper I sink!

But, here goes.

Communities presently charge user-fees in the form of landing fees, fuel surcharges, parking fees, etc. to cover the costs incurred for airports. This is nothing new. Any airport must recoup the costs it incurrs to provide a service; we are just talking how the charges are imposed.

Suppose a car manufacturer designed a superb new car that could stop in one half the distance conventional cars can stop in wet weather (improved safety). It uses a magnetic brake that reacts with a steel strip embedded in the roadway (this principal is well understood - it's not science fiction). Say the magnetic braking assembly adds about $25,000 (18,310 Euro) to the car's price and the local governments have to spend about $1,000,000 per kilometer (732,400 Euro) retro-fitting the roadways with the steel strips. Since the car is out the the budget of all but a very few, only a limited number of the cars will be sold. Who should pay for the government investement in road improvements. Is it fair that the average motorist should pay the same amount or even a portion of what he receives no benefit from? Perhaps, we should make the common motorist pay the entire cost since there will be only a few hundred of the new technology cars. OR, maybe we should say to the manufacturer and the motorists that drive these cars, you pay for the entire incremental costs since you are the ones that benefit.

Hey, I got an idea. Let's charge only poor people (who don't travel anyway) a surcharge to pay for airport improvements. Their lives are already on the edge and we can just put them a little deeper. That way, the airlines and those who do travel will not be bothered with those pesky landing fees and other user charges.

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 30 Apr 2007, 07:07

Poor people? Where did that come from?

I would guess "poor people" would benefit from cheaper air travel, but hey thats just me. The rich can afford that extra $10 without batting an eye, but not the lower class working folks who end up on Greyhound. These "service charges" are just a way to segregate the public. The rich can fly and the poor take the bus.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 30 Apr 2007, 14:23

The poor pay a disproportionate share of their income for essentials; travel is not really an "essential" purchase for them, food and shellter are their primary concerns. I just used this as a tongue-in-cheek example.

But seriously, governments must prioritize their spending plans for tax revenues among competing interests. These interests include transportaton infrastucture (including airports, highways, bridges, mass transit, etc), social services, health services for all, schools and education, parks and recreation, libraries and, police and fire services to name a few.

There is a finite amount of tax revennue available and governments must apportion it among competing interests. Airports are on the list, but to spend $900,000,000 on specialized improvements to accommodate a limited number flights a week into one airport, violates all principals of conscience.

User fees apportion the costs of any improvements to those responsible for them.

I seem to be sinking deeper into the quicksand!

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 30 Apr 2007, 15:10

OK, we disagree.

I don't see why they should force this upon airlines when the economy as a whole is benefited by airports. They put millions into the economy (helping all I might add) and we have to shoulder the cost many times.

Fiero · Post by **Fiero** » 30 Apr 2007, 15:39

Just a question. Are there any other country's besides the USA that are trying to find an excuse to make the operation of an A380 on the international aiports go more difficult?

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 30 Apr 2007, 15:55

What a shortsighted opinion! Do you really think renovating & improving runways and taxiways, enlarging check-in & security area's,... will only benefit the A380? Some of the spending is only for the A380, but most will be needed anyhow to renovate and expand infrastructure for a booming future...

It is very shortsighted to charge only the A380 operators for all those improvements, especially since they already pay the highest fees.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 30 Apr 2007, 16:39

Fiero wrote:Just a question. Are there any other country's besides the USA that are trying to find an excuse to make the operation of an A380 on the international aiports go more difficult?

This is not about the A380 per se. The costs of all improvements or other government spending should be borne by the ones that benefit from them.

That said, it's a local option as to how to pay for the costs. If a local government wants to use its tax revenues to fund any expenses that the local voters agree to, then its their business under a democracy. I'm just saying as an economist that user fees are appropriate.

OR, we can just raise taxes to pay for costs that benefit a limited few, recognizing that increased taxes remove discretionary income from the tax payers which results in lower demand for goods and services.

Certainly, airports are beneficial to a community and the local authority has to maintain them to accommmodate the demand. However, with tighter budgets and people wanting lower taxes, something has to give. If a airport needs additional expensive land (in already congested areas) or has to curtail other flights to ensure separation of aircraft, the costs have to be borne by someone. So, what is the equitable way to pay - you decide.

In a democracy, the people decide how to tax themselves and spend the revenue (through their elected representatives).