link/source: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... rport-atms


"The flying public this week will receive a disturbing message from Washington: You’re about to become an ATM for the nation’s airports."
"In anticipation of the FAA reauthorization markup, an amendment is being proposed to remove the cap on the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC), a $4.50 tax every flyer pays on every flight."

call or e-mail your senators/congress people and let them know you feel on this subject.

The individuals who are using the infrastructure will have to pay for it. What a concept!

It would be fascinating to see what airports strategies would be given their array of choices. This could hypothetically open up opportunities for secondary airports even more

On principle, I am OK with this. it is the lack of limits that has me slightly concerned. Some airports do cost more than others, I just don't want to be paying for gold plated baggage carousels.

jnev3289 wrote:

It would be fascinating to see what airports strategies would be given their array of choices. This could hypothetically open up opportunities for secondary airports even more

The problem is some of those secondary airports are controlled by the same body that controls the primary airports.

Take NYC for example. The PANJNY controls EWR, JFK, LGA, SWF, and TEB. Sure there is ISP and I guess BDL, but for the most part they control every viable airport near the city.

Polot wrote:

jnev3289 wrote:

It would be fascinating to see what airports strategies would be given their array of choices. This could hypothetically open up opportunities for secondary airports even more

The problem is some of those secondary airports are controlled by the same body that controls the primary airports.

Take NYC for example. The PANJNY controls EWR, JFK, LGA, SWF, and TEB. Sure there is ISP and I guess BDL, but for the most part they control every viable airport near the city.

Very good point.

We can't complain about the woeful condition of most US airports and then complain when there is a new mechanism to fund their improvement.

As long as the airports get to keep the funds, then it is fine. They should charge what it costs to operate the facility including ongoing maintenance; additionally, they should try to use the funds to help raise capital expenditures for future develop, or at least pay for the loans required for such capital investments.

AirbusMDCFAN wrote:

link/source: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... rport-atms


"The flying public this week will receive a disturbing message from Washington: You’re about to become an ATM for the nation’s airports."
"In anticipation of the FAA reauthorization markup, an amendment is being proposed to remove the cap on the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC), a $4.50 tax every flyer pays on every flight."

call or e-mail your senators/congress people and let them know you feel on this subject.

Here's all one needs to know about that opinion piece. It was written by this guy:

Calio is president and CEO of Airlines for America, the trade association for the nation’s principle airlines.

A for A is never going to argue for higher airport fees or passenger taxes.

Lots of things get proposed as amendments. Many never even get a committee hearing, let alone a committee vote, a full congressional vote, reconciliation between House and Senate, and passed into law.

If airports need improvements they should negotiate them into their leases. They can, in their lease, implement a per passenger fee. Why is the PFC even necessary?

It just gives airports cover to claim they are keeping costs low because they don't have to include PFCs in CPE numbers that get published

I actually think this will have the net effect of driving PFC's lower not higher. A lot of airports are fine with charging $4.50 because they know every other airport is doing it so it is not really a competitive issue. Some major airports are going to get the bright idea to cut their PFCs to $3 so that their connections will show up higher on the GDS screens (CLT already does this) and then it will be a race to the bottom PFC wise. IMHO

usflyer msp wrote:

I actually think this will have the net effect of driving PFC's lower not higher. A lot of airports are fine with charging $4.50 because they know every other airport is doing it so it is not really a competitive issue. Some major airports are going to get the bright idea to cut their PFCs to $3 so that their connections will show up higher on the GDS screens (CLT already does this) and then it will be a race to the bottom PFC wise. IMHO

There are only 3 significant airports that I could find that are charging less than $4.50 max PFC -- CLT ($3.00), SDF ($3.00), and MEM ($0.00). If airports saw this as a competitive advantage, there's no reason they couldn't be undercutting other airports right now. I'm missing your logic on why they would need to wait for it to go up to cut it down $3.00. While I'm sure there are some airports that will only increase their's for necessary improvements, there will be others who increase them simply because they can and use them for questionable or unneeded projects. The problem is that while there are airports that are well run and fiscally responsible, there are a number of others that have problems with corruption, fraud, waste, and political cronyism (my local airport of DTW has a long, sad history of this). Airports need to designate PFC funds for specific projects (they are not to be used for ongoing operations), but my understanding is that the FAA approval process for PFC projects is largely a rubber stamp process.

michman wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

I actually think this will have the net effect of driving PFC's lower not higher. A lot of airports are fine with charging $4.50 because they know every other airport is doing it so it is not really a competitive issue. Some major airports are going to get the bright idea to cut their PFCs to $3 so that their connections will show up higher on the GDS screens (CLT already does this) and then it will be a race to the bottom PFC wise. IMHO

There are only 3 significant airports that I could find that are charging less than $4.50 max PFC -- CLT ($3.00), SDF ($3.00), and MEM ($0.00). If airports saw this as a competitive advantage, there's no reason they couldn't be undercutting other airports right now. I'm missing your logic on why they would need to wait for it to go up to cut it down $3.00. While I'm sure there are some airports that will only increase their's for necessary improvements, there will be others who increase them simply because they can and use them for questionable or unneeded projects. The problem is that while there are airports that are well run and fiscally responsible, there are a number of others that have problems with corruption, fraud, waste, and political cronyism (my local airport of DTW has a long, sad history of this). Airports need to designate PFC funds for specific projects (they are not to be used for ongoing operations), but my understanding is that the FAA approval process for PFC projects is largely a rubber stamp process.

I'm not really articulating it well but it is more like airports do not really think about what the PFC is currently; they just follow each other in lockstep to whatever the max is. If the cap was eliminated airports would be forced to examine their PFC charges in light of each airports goals, budgetary needs and competitive challenges and there is a good chance many of them might lower it. This would put pressure on competing airports to lower theirs as well.

Yes allow the PFC's to not be capped, but have regulations that the monies can only be used for airport and related areas and limits on what private partnerships like with terminals can get. I doubt no airport will lower them, indeed due to backups in capital improvements, increasing security and facility demands, most airport operating agencies and local politicians will most likely see higher PFC's to be a piggy bank to be used to take care of friends in the construction business, the police or for other off-site uses.

Stressedout wrote:

The individuals who are using the infrastructure will have to pay for it. What a concept!

Yes the airlines use the infrastructure to conduct their business so hence the burden of payment should be on the airlines.

ltbewr wrote:

Yes allow the PFC's to not be capped, but have regulations that the monies can only be used for airport and related areas and limits on what private partnerships like with terminals can get. I doubt no airport will lower them, indeed due to backups in capital improvements, increasing security and facility demands, most airport operating agencies and local politicians will most likely see higher PFC's to be a piggy bank to be used to take care of friends in the construction business, the police or for other off-site uses.

Why is it the traveling public has to encore these costs. They are part of the cost of doing business as an airline.

michman wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

I actually think this will have the net effect of driving PFC's lower not higher. A lot of airports are fine with charging $4.50 because they know every other airport is doing it so it is not really a competitive issue. Some major airports are going to get the bright idea to cut their PFCs to $3 so that their connections will show up higher on the GDS screens (CLT already does this) and then it will be a race to the bottom PFC wise. IMHO

There are only 3 significant airports that I could find that are charging less than $4.50 max PFC -- CLT ($3.00), SDF ($3.00), and MEM ($0.00). If airports saw this as a competitive advantage, there's no reason they couldn't be undercutting other airports right now. I'm missing your logic on why they would need to wait for it to go up to cut it down $3.00. While I'm sure there are some airports that will only increase their's for necessary improvements, there will be others who increase them simply because they can and use them for questionable or unneeded projects. The problem is that while there are airports that are well run and fiscally responsible, there are a number of others that have problems with corruption, fraud, waste, and political cronyism (my local airport of DTW has a long, sad history of this). Airports need to designate PFC funds for specific projects (they are not to be used for ongoing operations), but my understanding is that the FAA approval process for PFC projects is largely a rubber stamp process.

Thank you for saying this as I have said many times the WCAA is very ineffective and does not do a proper job running our airport to which I've been chastised over and over again for stating the same thing.

Polot wrote:

The problem is some of those secondary airports are controlled by the same body that controls the primary airports.

Take NYC for example. The PANJNY controls EWR, JFK, LGA, SWF, and TEB. Sure there is ISP and I guess BDL, but for the most part they control every viable airport near the city.

Well specifically with that point there is HPN, a lovely little airport with quite a few destinations that everyone seems to forget about, however you do make a good point.

Rampant "Libertarianism" at its worst. This is a harebrained idea that might pass, but will be repealed eventually. Keep in mind the same people who want to repeal this limit feel that airlines should be able to obfuscate the price of an air ticket by listing only the airfare. The purpose of these two policies combined is to prevent consumers from making apples-to-apples comparisons unless they spend hours for what should be a simple task. Follow the money--see who's lobbying for what.

Stressedout wrote:

The individuals who are using the infrastructure will have to pay for it. What a concept!

Yay toll roads for everyone!

It would let the market-place determine what is the right amount and more importantly, let users pay for the privilege of flying.

2 things about PFCs:
1. The funds can only be used on eligible projects. No pie-in-the-sky white elephants that serve no aviation purpose.
2. The airlines musts approve the use of the PFC funds

Yes the airlines use the infrastructure to conduct their business so hence the burden of payment should be on the airlines.


Do you think airlines are funding the upkeep of airports? If so, you are sadly mistaken. The may fund bits and pieces at large hub airports but what they fund is quite small. Small hub and small commercial service airports have a very difficult time funding necessary capital improvement projects. DOT funding is not adequate. Unfortunately the general public is mostly ignorant on subject and thus small hub airports continue to struggle.

Stressedout wrote:

Small hub and small commercial service airports have a very difficult time funding necessary capital improvement projects. DOT funding is not adequate. Unfortunately the general public is mostly ignorant on subject and thus small hub airports continue to struggle.

Here is a thought, why not include the cost of upkeep and capital improvements in the rates and charges for airport users? What a mind blowing concept!

PFCs are a valuless enigma. Airports have the ability to charge airlines these exact same amounts of money in their leases.

michman wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

I actually think this will have the net effect of driving PFC's lower not higher. A lot of airports are fine with charging $4.50 because they know every other airport is doing it so it is not really a competitive issue. Some major airports are going to get the bright idea to cut their PFCs to $3 so that their connections will show up higher on the GDS screens (CLT already does this) and then it will be a race to the bottom PFC wise. IMHO

There are only 3 significant airports that I could find that are charging less than $4.50 max PFC -- CLT ($3.00), SDF ($3.00), and MEM ($0.00). If airports saw this as a competitive advantage, there's no reason they couldn't be undercutting other airports right now. I'm missing your logic on why they would need to wait for it to go up to cut it down $3.00. While I'm sure there are some airports that will only increase their's for necessary improvements, there will be others who increase them simply because they can and use them for questionable or unneeded projects. The problem is that while there are airports that are well run and fiscally responsible, there are a number of others that have problems with corruption, fraud, waste, and political cronyism (my local airport of DTW has a long, sad history of this). Airports need to designate PFC funds for specific projects (they are not to be used for ongoing operations), but my understanding is that the FAA approval process for PFC projects is largely a rubber stamp process.

And MEM has started the process of a major reno of B concourse in what amounts to a new build.

Interestingly enough, local Rep Cohen got the seat min attached to the house FAA reauthorization bill.

YVRing wrote:

Stressedout wrote:

The individuals who are using the infrastructure will have to pay for it. What a concept!

Yay toll roads for everyone!

With modern tech making having to man toll booths a thing of the past, why not. This country needs a few new roads. I would gladly fork out money to zip down the west side of Arkansas or across the north part at 75 or 80 mph.

N867DA wrote:

Rampant "Libertarianism" at its worst. This is a harebrained idea that might pass, but will be repealed eventually. Keep in mind the same people who want to repeal this limit feel that airlines should be able to obfuscate the price of an air ticket by listing only the airfare. The purpose of these two policies combined is to prevent consumers from making apples-to-apples comparisons unless they spend hours for what should be a simple task. Follow the money--see who's lobbying for what.

Count me as one of those. Why should airlines have to quote you w/ tacx included when we do not make other businesses do that?

Also the public should know their low fare has 2-40% in taxes and non airline fees.

klm617 wrote:

Why is it the traveling public has to encore these costs. They are part of the cost of doing business as an airline.

Why won't the airlines just pass that cost through to the customers? Who do you think pays "the cost of doing business"?

Stressedout wrote:

The individuals who are using the infrastructure will have to pay for it. What a concept!

Tax on bullets?

UpNAWAy wrote:

Also the public should know their low fare has 2-40% in taxes and non airline fees.

Whenever I buy a ticket, it always breaks down how much is fare and how much are other taxes and fees (though the airlines don't always indicate which of those are airline-imposed fees, and which ones are separate taxes). But when I'm searching for flights, I want to know how much I'm paying. If you want to tell me how that is broken down, fine, but what matters most is how much comes out of my pocket.

I'd actually prefer all prices be listed that way, as it is in much of the rest of the world. Makes doing calculations so much easier.

stlgph wrote:

I'd be *shocked* if O'Hare and Midway didn't jump up to $7.00 or more given the situation in the state of Illinois.

Crook county at it's finest.

Stressedout wrote:

The individuals who are using the infrastructure will have to pay for it. What a concept!

Watching the maintenance and situation of many of the airports in the US, yeah, paying even more for nothing is absolutely a revolutionary concept!

Watching the maintenance and situation of many of the airports in the US, yeah, paying even more for nothing is absolutely a revolutionary concept![/quote]

I doubt you have the insight into the industry to know the challenges small commercial service and GA airports truly face.

I am intimately involved in small commercial service and GA airports both in regards to their funding and maintenance. The ones that I work with are resourceful and use their PFC funds quite well. Unfortunately airports are often overlooked by local entities and thus languish a bit. PFC's have FAA rules about how they are used anyway.

Bricktop wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Why is it the traveling public has to encore these costs. They are part of the cost of doing business as an airline.

Why won't the airlines just pass that cost through to the customers? Who do you think pays "the cost of doing business"?

Exactly. The cost of doing business.....that is comical. Of course airlines will pass it on to consumers.