From: ahk@chinet.com
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>On 21-May-14 09:07, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>On 20-May-14 22:29, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>>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.
>I have previously stated I'd prefer to auction runway slots, and
>presumably that would result in higher prices during peak hours rather
>than the flat fees currently charged.
>Gate fees are a bit different since, at least as things are currently
>organized, airlines can't easily share a gate; but I would still like to
>see gates auctioned as well.
If the gate is arranged so more than one carrier may share, they share.
It's probably a matter of the two carriers having different locked
cabinets available for paperwork. The computerized systems may be the same.
>>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.
>I disagree; it's a material expense, and while a single passenger is not
>an issue, thousands of passengers certainly are, and you can divide
>their total cost by their total number to get a per-passenger fee.
It depends on where in the terminal the passengers are, again, something
passengers have no control over, and when the arrival and departure are
scheduled. That's directly related to gate fees, only indirect on
passengers. High costs are during periods of emergency reroutes due to
weather as the airport hasn't planned to accomodate passengers stuck at
the airport due to last minute cancellations or arriving passengers whose
connecting flights were cancelled. Just build recovery of these costs into
gate charges, because there's nothing logical about averaging any of them
upon passengers.
There's just no user fee to charge.
>>At O'Hare, which has the world's longest walks to gates,
>Really? I recall ORY being far worse, and plenty of others that are
>roughly as bad as ORD, probably some of them being slightly worse.
Fine. Never thought I'd hear anyone say another airport was worse. I've
boarded from the very last gate of Concourse B. I might as well have
walked the rest of my way to my destination.
>>>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.
>At the hub end, sure, but they're still carrying a tiny number of
>passengers compared to, say, a B747 or A380 that pays the same gate
>rental fee.
Why? We sometimes set up departure longues for multiple flights, and
there are lounges that serve multiple gates. Commuter flights don't
require lots of counter space and maybe have just one clerk staffing.
Planes unload and load fast and those gates will turn over quickly after
the commuter flight has been served.
>Just last weekend I flew to/from a small regional airport (COU) that has
>four flights per day (two to DFW, two to ORD) on a single gate; that
>works fine when the planes only hold ~20 passengers and are usually half
>empty, but try to land even a B737 there and you'd violate fire code
>trying to stuff that many people in the terminal building. There
>certainly isn't enough seating, baggage handling capacity, restroom
>capacity, etc. to deal with that many people. A per-passenger fee
>solves that by giving the airport revenue to expand the terminal.
Why the hell would I want that terminal expanded? Sounds like it has
the type of service it requires. I've been to plenty of airports that
built themselves jetways and hoped to attract the largest planes and
international flights. That doesn't mean anybody wants to serve them
in that manner.
>> 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.
>All correct, but not what I was talking about.
You said 10 passengers a day, which is a large G.A. aircraft, smaller
than a commuter flight.
>>I won't ask how you think you'd board a Lear jet from a jetway.
>Regional jets aren't much bigger than modern corporate jets, but the
>former can board from a jetway just fine. It's a little trickier for
>models with built-in stairs than it is for ones without, but it's done
>every day.
Yeah. I don't think jetways are a requirement.
>>>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.
>And the airlines pass on that charge to the passengers, as I said.
No. It's a flat charge. It has nothing to do with the airline. If certain
expenses were charged to gate fees and not this fee, airlines would
apportion it differently. Not every charge is averaged or charged as
a percentage of the gross.
And to the extent that it's monies collected for future expansion, that
a particular subsidy (not that George will acknowledge it) as the people
being charged just won't benefit in any way.
>FYI, demand-based tolls exist.
Good. I've never heard of tolls sufficient to recover the extra expense
of additional lanes to serve peak or to recover all the damage done by
trucks.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
