From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   On 21-May-14 13:31, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   > Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >> 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.   
      
   It may be possible, but it's rarely done in practice because then the   
   airlines have to coordinate staffing, schedules, etc.  They can't even   
   get that consistently right with single-airline gates.   
      
   >> On 21-May-14 09:07, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
      
   Whether the same number of passengers are boarding from gate 1 or gate   
   21 does not make a material difference in the terminal cost.   
      
   OTOH, doubling the number of passengers at _either_ gate does.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   All considered, ORD's terminals aren't that bad; I've seen many that are   
   far, far worse.   
      
   Yes, the walk to some gates is annoyingly long, but that's the case for   
   nearly all hub airports due to the large number of gates required.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   None of that is relevant to the point at hand.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   As usual, you deliberately miss the point.   
      
   If an airline wanted to serve that airport with B737s instead of   
   commuter jets, they would pay the same gate fee because they're still   
   only using one gate--but the terminal would need to be expanded to   
   accommodate all the extra passengers, hence the usage of per-passenger   
   fees to match passenger capacity to passenger utilization.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   The cost of a jetway should be included in the gate fee, since it is the   
   same regardless of the number of passengers that use it.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   Many commuter jets have only 20-30 seats, and it's not uncommon for them   
   to be more than half empty.  That is a big part of the reason airlines   
   lose so much money on short-haul flights--and demand subsidies from the   
   EAS or local govt to operate them.   
      
   >>>> 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.   
      
   They're the ones collecting it on behalf of the airport.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Of course.  But if some costs vary with the number of passengers, then   
   it makes the most sense to charge a per-passenger fee to cover them.   
   Other costs vary with the number of gates or planes, so it makes sense   
   to charge a per-gate or per-plane fee to cover them.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   IMHO, expansion should be paid for with bonds that are in turn paid off   
   by the users of that facility.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   The folks responsible for highways generally don't think like that,   
   which is a large part of our traffic problems.  They just dump all the   
   money into one big pot and then spend it how they think is best, rather   
   than linking revenues and expenses for individual highways, much less   
   segments of highways.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)