Congressman Mica says no to Fed-funded A380 airport improvements

[vapilot2004]

The troubled Airbus A380 programme was dealt a potential blow on Friday when an influential US congressmen said federal funds should not be used to upgrade US airports to accommodate the world's largest passenger aircraft.

John Mica (FL-Republican), chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, claimed it could cost as much as much as $1bn to refit up to 18 airports to handle the 550-seat A380, which is due to enter service next year despite ongoing production delays.

The congressman said any use of federal funds from the Airport Improvement Programme to allow A380 operations would be "patently unfair" in the wake of the controversy over European state subsidies for the aircraft's development.

However, aviation experts said such estimates were inflated, while A380-related improvements were also needed to handle new Boeing aircraft.

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami and New York's JFK are expected to be the first four US airports to handle A380s. The size of the aircraft will require the municipally-owned airports build stronger runways and air bridges, as well as enlarge some terminal facilities.

Mr Mica commissioned a report on the costs from the Government Accountability Office, with the $1bn he cited relating to the 18 airports which may eventually handle the A380.

"The costs have traditionally been overestimated," said Dick Marchi, senior advisor for policy and regulatory affairs at ACI North America, a trade group. He said the GAO had assumed all of the airports would choose a more expensive path to modernise their runways, while most had so far not gone down this route.

Mr Mica said he planned to introduce legislation that would bar federal funds from being used in A380-related projects, noting that no US passenger airlines have ordered the aircraft.

"Until a US airline chooses to acquire and operate the passenger version of the A380, foreign airlines that operate A380 passenger service to and from the US should pay for any needed infrastructure improvements at the airports they serve," he said in a statement.

However, Mr Marchi said the runway-strengthening work would also be required for Boeing's new 747-800 model, which holds less passengers than the A380 but has a similar wingspan.

The federal airport programme gives around $3.6bn a year in grants, though much of this goes to smaller airports, and larger gateways have tended to use the bond markets for large-scale investments. Mr Marchi said federal funds accounted for around 15 per cent of capital spending at the large US hubs.

While airport operators cast doubt on the practicality of Mr Mica's plan, any efforts to thwart the A380 would impact US companies, despite the absence of any orders for the passenger model.

FedEx and UPS have ordered the cargo version, and Los Angeles-based ILFC, a leasing group, has 10 orders. Moreover a large number of US companies are key suppliers of components for the A380.

However, any delay to fitting out airports for the A380 comes at a sensitive time for Airbus. The programme has already run into production problemswhich will delay the first deliveries and could see Airbus – co-owned by Eads and BAE Systems – facing millions of dollars in compensation payments to customers. ILFC has threatened to cancel ordersif the production delays persist.

Mr Mica's intervention also comes amid the long-running spat between the US and European governments over launch-aid to commercial aircraft projects. The dispute is currently before the World Trade Organisation, and threatens to expand into an order for new tankers for the US Air Force on which Airbus and Boeing have rival offerings.


Rep. Mica may be unaware one of the A380s programme goals - it is called progress. This is dumber than that under-educated (mis-educated?) bunch protesting Concorde coming into JFK a few decades ago. :ugh:

Perhaps Mr. Mica would prefer all of the current A380 customers to stop serving his state's airports (Florida) altogether. :E

[aviate1138]

Rep. Mica may be unaware one of the A380s programme goals - it is called progress. This is dumber than that under-educated (mis-educated?) bunch protesting Concorde coming into JFK a few decades ago. :ugh:
Perhaps Mr. Mica would prefer all of the current A380 customers to stop serving his state's airports (Florida) altogether. :E
How much did the rest of the world spend years ago to enable 747's to operate away from the USA? In present day monetary terms? Mica is a
form of insulation isn't it? How appropriate. :(
Aviate 1138

[green granite]

It's the usuall "if it's not grown here it can't be any good/don't support it" syndrome

[Roadtrip]

I see Mr. Mica's point. Just because someone builds an airplane (including Boeing) doesn't mean that the US taxpayers should have to foot the bill for specialized improvements to accomodate it.

As far as the introduction of the 747 went, world airport authorities were falling over themselves trying to entice the traffic that the 747 brought.

Personally I don't give a hoot if a A380 ever touches down on a US runway. Same goes for the 747-800. If FEDEX wants to land a 380 in Memphis, they can pay for the airport improvements for it.

That should be one factor that airplane manufacturers should consider when designing new aircraft . . . i.e. what airports can handle it without gross special expenditures. Just because the French build a new airplane doesn't mean I'm obligated to put my tax money into making a place for it to land.

[Flap15Geardown]

We don't own any so we aren't going to pay for the upgrade, but if we buy some we will.

Sounds like US carriers being subsidised by their Government to me and they have the cheek to have a go at airbus over launch aid that will be repaid. How many US airports will repay the money to upgrade if it gets dished out - at a guess NONE. Trouble with most of these people is their do as we say not as we do attitude. noticed that we the French as well:ooh:

[Tex]

Too late for MEM. MEM's 18R / 36L preparation for the 380 was completed in 2004. I'm not certain how much was funded by Fred, City of MEM, or US Government.

[Hand Solo]

Was Mica the guy who suggested the A380 should be fitted with missile defence systems as it was a big as a village?

[vapilot2004]

Richard Aboulafia's column mentions Mica here:

Dear Fellow Crypto-Anti-Xenophobes July 2005 (http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=197)

And, yes, HS, US Representative Mica had his silly mitts all over this one:
House Bill - Missile Defence Legislation (http://www.house.gov/transportation/press/press2005/release76.html)

:= := :=

It's the sort of thing that makes me so very proud to live in this land. :suspect: :{ :sad:

[Alty]

I think it makes sense for the carriers introducing the A380 to foot a significant portion of the costs to accommodate it - especially since we are talking about foreign carriers for the most part. In some cases, such as FedEx at Memphis, the freighters so they don't have to deal with terminal modifications. But the primary federal funding would probably involve runway/taxiway inprovements, bridges, etc. I thought the carriers typically did pay, one way or another, for significant terminal improvements.

A comparison to the 747 in the early 70's seems sort of inappropriate because they were only about a dozen years into the jet age, which was driving growth and needed upgrades anyway, and the DC-10 and Tristar also were widebodies added at the same time. The projected combined numbers of these widebodies at the time far exceeds the number of A380's that will ultimately be built - 200 is probably a stretch, unless Airbus wants to give them away for $150 million like the first 100 were.

For anyone from Europe to scream "protectionism" or "subsidies" is sort of amusing. The EC has blocked mergers of US companies simply because of inflated egos and obvious protectionist policies. Airbus will only have to pay back some of the subsidies if the program makes a profit. For the A380, that looks like a longshot. The A350/A390 probably has a much better chance to turn a profit - but the subsidies will be much larger, and the Europeans will have to start thinking about accepting longer work weeks. But that is fine - the world needs more than one viable transport manufacturer - and the challenges facing Airbus in a graying continent with ridiculous labor laws are enormous.

But I should add that this Mica clown's other proposals are ludicrous and will never see the light of day. The "tell the country of origin" is really not worth the concern - most people with enough money to fly are smart enough to know that Boeing is U.S. and Airbus is Europe - and all they care about is the price of the ticket anyway.

[Two's in]

Mica is a Republican from Florida - you can just about get hotter, but you can't get any dumber.

Signed, a Floridian

[junior_man]

Runway improvements at LGA were paid for by Lockheed and Douglas so that DC 10s and L 1011s could land there.

[Dan Air 87]

Maybe if a few of the US carriers had the A380 on order then the attitude would be different. Typical sort of comment that you would expect though I am afraid to say. Must be endemic in poltics to have a brass neck and half a brain!

[robo283]

Presumably if someone offered him a freebie trip he would refuse to take it if it involved flying on an Airbus!

That's it; I'm going to object to any planning application to expand Leeds-Bradford on the grounds that Jet2 bases Boeings there!:ugh:

[Roadtrip]

Maybe if a few of the US carriers had the A380 on order then the attitude would be different. Typical sort of comment that you would expect though I am afraid to say. Must be endemic in poltics to have a brass neck and half a brain!

It's interesting that they don't. The A380 may be a good cattle-car for flying the hadj, but I think the US carriers don't see the application for it in their business models. Bigger is not always better, or more profitable. For US carrier applications, the 787 promises to be a real winner. US carriers are in so much trouble right now, they can't afford any more stupid mis-steps.

Personally, I think the A380 will be an innovative technical success, but a economic failure for Airbus.

[411A]

The other side of the coin is KLAX.
There, the city of LosAngeles indicated that it was not prepared to foot the cost of terminal improvements to accomodate the A380, but at the same time mentioned (and have) enlarged the west end hard stands to specification.
AirBoos promptly said...we want the terminal, not a hard stand.

To AirBoos, I say.....phooey, pay up or shut up, and this goes for the airlines that plan to operate the pig.
Lockheed and Douglas (as already mentioned) paid up for the L10 and DC10 needed improvements at KLGA, so AirBoos should do the same.:p

[Check 6]

Mr. Mica is spot on. As a Florida taxpayer I won't pay for a pig Scarebus to land here. Go Boeing.
Right on 411A. :ok:

[Reach]

Why is the Government running airports anyway? Even former communist countries like Hungary have sold them to private companies. Whether or not to upgrade for the A380 should be a purely commercial decision.

[junior_man]

If Airbus wants to change this, all they have to do is send a few lobbyists out to make donations and buy some lunches. USA the political system is more of an auction now than a democracy.
In fact, maybe we could simplify things and just have the decisions made through e-Bay?

Reality is, there are very few markets that this airplane will be used in in the USA. Airports are reluctant to spend the money accomodate it. Usually there are other more pressing needs.
How many airports in Europe that will not see the 380 are making the needed improvements? In fact how many airports in Europe are even adding runway capacity for any airplanes?

It is not a Boeing vs Airbus thing. Boeing would probably rather idiots like Mica kept their mouths shut, as inspires equally stupid responses. They may go burn down a McDonalds in France if this gets into the press over there.

Airbus chose to design an airplane that wouldn't fit in many existing airports. That choice has had caused some problems for sales. Not only does your destination need to be able to accomodate it, but you need alternates for the thing as well.

[AUTOGLIDE]

Mr. Mica is spot on. As a Florida taxpayer I won't pay for a pig Scarebus to land here. Go Boeing.
Right on 411A. :ok:


That's an interesting comment from someone from a state that advertises constantly (and I mean constantly, and very boringly) on UK/European TV to attract tourists. In line with the wishes of many US posters on this site (or rather the more reactionary, less intelligent ones), our tourists have been staying away from the US hence the blanket advertising. Fine, don't build the airport enhancements, whether that be state owned, or private enterprise but then don't complain when the deals offered to other destinations that an take the A380 and offer value due to it's economy of scale take away even more of the visitors to the US. It's a big wide world out there with many many places to go. If the US wants to be behind the rest of the world so be it. The argument basically reads as " The US carriers don't want the A380, and anyway are all bankrupt nd can't afford it anyway, so we won't adapt our airports as that will help out the dirty foreigners". As for the bitterness against Airbus, they built the A380,get over it, capitalism and free trade are a two way street and there's little point sulking about it when everything doesn't go your way.

[jondc9]

the only way any money should be spent to upgrade an airport to handle the A380 is if the airlines operating said airplane pay for it in fees over the course of time.

upgrades for concorde to fly into usairports seem to be wasted now that concorde is a museum piece (this is a real shame too! at least concorde could do something special )


At least with A-380 delays, there will be more time to sort this all out.


And bigger is not always better!

jon


PS: HI JUNIOR MAN!

[junior_man]

Actually the govt is loaning them the money to build it, not exactly free enterprise and capitalism.

I don't think anybody said foreigners were dirty. (not even the caveman in Dallas) and personally I wonder why people go to visit Florida.

As far as the big bus, less usefulness in the US as we have far more airports to fly to and from which means less use for one big huge airplane except as a freighter. And guess what, that is the orders they have for it here. If we only had one runway between three 12th century villages that couldn't be knocked down, then things might be different.
As far as improving the airports, as the few customers that are buying it don't seem to plan to go to many places here, why build something for a demand that doesn't exist. Are you planning to widen all the village roads in the UK so Chevy can sell Suburbans over there?

[arewenearlythereyet?]

upgrades for concorde to fly into usairports seem to be wasted now that concorde is a museum piece (this is a real shame too! at least concorde could do something special )

And what "upgrades" did they need to be able to handle Concorde? If you're going to keep making "informed" [sic] statements at least have the intelligence to think them through. Just like John Mica, there appear to be a few others on here who are equally adept at embarrassing the less rednecked insularist cousins. Not that we don't have the same kind of xenophobic dipsticks on this side of the pond.

So some US airports won't upgrade their facilities to handle the A380. Big deal. If enough airlines buy them then the airports will make the upgrades and the pax will pay for them one way or another. Anyway, all 'apple pie for brains' Mica is demanding is that no federal funds are used for the upgrades.

It seems there are some luddites on here that have missed that point and are in free rant mode. :rolleyes: What's the big deal? Did someone steal your candy?

[BEagle]

The logic of altering entire airport infrastructures just to meet the commercial aspirations of a few does rather escape me.

OK - so the A380 is big. But for massively expensive airport reconstruction to be required to accommodate it does seem rather presumptuous by Airbus. Although if the size of the average lard-arsed American keeps increasing, pretty soon even bankrupt-in-all-but-name American airlines (small a!) will need the A380 to haul their porky 'Passengers of size' :yuk: punters across the pond - the old 747 will be just too slimline for many of them. And the Plastic Plane in-your-dreams-liner will be wayyy too small.

But, more seriously, if demand for the A380 picks up as many expect, those airports unable to accept it will be out in the cold. A bit of a gamble to cut themselves out like that.... But if the money is spent and the A380 doesn't become a success, well - at least there will be more airport space for the rest.

On another tack - I was at FRA last week and the queues of folk waiting hours to get through the absurd US security procedures were a poor incentive for anyone ever intending to visit the place.

[ShockWave]

I don't know about the US but most international airports around the world operate as commercial ventures, i.e. they try to make money. They provide services for passengers and airlines and make them pay for it by renting space to retailers, restaurants, car parking charges, landing and aircraft parking charges etc. etc. The bigger the aircraft the more they charge the airline and the extra passengers they carry will also spend more money in their terminals. The A380 is a new aircraft and will be around for a long time, so any infrastructure expenditure should be well and truly covered by normal fees and charges in time. Any airport improvements will also benefit other operations at that airport so there shouldn't be any argument really.

However the above assumes that passengers do use the airport and that airlines pay the bills so that the airport operators have the funds or credit to provide the service. Perhaps this is why some are complaining. They simply don't have the cash or credit to do the work.

[captjns]

Why spend money on improvements before the airplane rolls off the assembly line? There are threats being made by carriers and leasing companies to cancel orders do to late deliveries, weight and design problems.

Airports haven't changed in almost 20 years. Airbus has had the opportunity to design their super white elephant around current airport designs. It is utter arrogance on the behalf of Airbus to assume that airports should be redesigned to accomodate their A-380.

Hey Airbus... heres a thought... instead of giving customers large rebates for purchasing your planes, foot the bill for airport redesigns to accomodate your flying metal cumulus cloud.

[Check 6]

That's an interesting comment from someone from a state that advertises constantly (and I mean constantly, and very boringly) on UK/European TV to attract tourists. In line with the wishes of many US posters on this site (or rather the more reactionary, less intelligent ones), our tourists have been staying away from the US hence the blanket advertising. Fine, don't build the airport enhancements, whether that be state owned, or private enterprise but then don't complain when the deals offered to other destinations that an take the A380 and offer value due to it's economy of scale take away even more of the visitors to the US. It's a big wide world out there with many many places to go. If the US wants to be behind the rest of the world so be it. The argument basically reads as " The US carriers don't want the A380, and anyway are all bankrupt nd can't afford it anyway, so we won't adapt our airports as that will help out the dirty foreigners". As for the bitterness against Airbus, they built the A380,get over it, capitalism and free trade are a two way street and there's little point sulking about it when everything doesn't go your way.

Yes, Florida does advertise in Europe, and the tourists are coming over in droves, thank you very much. But how could that happen you ask? No 380 yet? They are coming over in 777's and other fine Boeing products.

:ok:

[MarkD]

As has been pointed out - many of the A380 improvements would have been made for the 747-800. Of course we were also told the Sonic Cruiser would make aircraft above 773 obsolete and there was no need for a 747 stretch...

[Reach]

We already have enough traffic here in America. If the A380 doesn't come here, that's one less plane.


I doubt anyone in the airline or tourist industry would agree with you there Jon.

[jondc9]

so if one less plane doesn't come to america that is not one less plane?

interesting equation prof!

[Reach]

I agree with the math Jon, I just don't think that the airline and tourist industries see less planes as a good thing.

[ExSimGuy]

KLAX. - - - at the same time mentioned (and have) enlarged the west end hard stands to specification.
Do they have enough busses (NOT Toulouse ones ;) ) to ferry 500+ pax from terminal to stands?

Not only does your destination need to be able to accomodate it, but you need alternates for the thing as well.

But, if you have to go to an alternate, then you could probably tolerate ocasionally having a delay while the busses shuttle back and forth. (as long as the runways etc. are up to the weight of the 380)


As a passenger, I'm looking forward to experiencing my first flight in the 380. Wondering if some of the extra cabin-floor-space will be utilised to give me a tad more leg/elbow-room in Y-class. :uhoh:


Though, if it happens on my "regular" route, I guess it willl mean one 380 per day instead of two 332s - not sure if I'd appreciate my preferred flight time being dumped.


Have to wait and see how it all works out - anyone remember when the first "2-storey" aircraft was launched? Boing said that their plan was to extend that top deck all the way back eventually? I guess ScareBus have done it first :D

[411A]

>>Do they have enough busses (NOT Toulouse ones ) to ferry 500+ pax from terminal to stands?<<

Not only enough non Toulouse busses, ExSimGuy, but the customs and immigration facilties have been greatly enlarged as well.
Now, all the folks get to smile while on candid camera...:E

AirBoos is daft if they don't intend to finance airport improvements to accomodate their (what seems to becoming) white elephant.

Hey, if the French are involved, what else can you expect...?:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[GotTheTshirt]

One thing many of these contributers have is short memories.:sad:

I remember very well the first B747's ( but then I am probably older than some of you guys ! ).
We looked at them with my airline and rejected them because many of our destinations could not handle them:}

Many people ( Probably the fathers of some of the people on here:8 ) made the same comments.

I know its French but you will just have to learn to live with it;)

[Roadtrip]

One thing many of these contributers have is short memories.:sad:
I remember very well the first B747's ( but then I am probably older than some of you guys ! ).
We looked at them with my airline and rejected them because many of our destinations could not handle them:}
Many people ( Probably the fathers of some of the people on here:8 ) made the same comments.
I know its French but you will just have to learn to live with it;)

And, if and when, the A380 becomes a commercial success and airports want the revenue that it would bring, then airport mods can begin . . . . but not "upfront." When the 380 proves itself a commercial success and it makes economic sense to do so, mods will be made . . . . but not "just because Airbus built it." My guess is that it's going to be another economic flop. World airlines are not going to stop coming to US destinations because the 380 won't fit. They'll just put another airplane on the route.

Leave the few A380s that will be sold/operated to Europe and Asia, and the hadj.

[junior_man]

And if it is a success, then the airports will make the improvements or the airlines will pay for improvements to use it there.
If it turns into a big flop, or an aircraft that is only used on a few markets with severe slot constraints, then most will not.

Is Airbus an aircraft manufacturer? Or a religion?

Why does everybody get so excited about things like this? Nobody is being insulted if there is something better or worse between Boeing and Airbus. I have flown both and both had their faults and great features.

Remember too, the 747 became a success in far different market conditions (cheaper fuel and regulated air travel) and had far fewer competitors. The success of the 747 against the 777 in the long haul pasenger market now days isn't that good either. Airlines prefer to offer more frequency if possible and they are concerned about the fuel bill.

[Danny]

Unless you want this thread relegated to the spotters forum then please try and have the debate using what could be termed mature argument and less of the willy waving that some of you only seem able to produce. It's pathetic reading some of the debate when it is quite obvious to anyone with an IQ with more than two digits that your knowledge of the industry and basic economics is so flawed or non-existent and the kindergarten level of argument used boils down to which side of the pond the A380 is assembled on.

Yes, many of us know how delightful it will be when LAX immigration has to handle two A380's simultaneously. They can hardly handle two B744's at the same time right now, even if they have put enough infrastructure to handle the A380. Also, those Americans who are not too embarrassed by Congressman Mica's proposals should remember that there is an awful lot of US manufactured and designed content in the A380.

A reminder that the congressman's proposal is only against federal funds being used. No one is saying that private funding can't be used but you'd think it was by some of the poorly thought out arguments by some of the more red-necked posters on this thread. :rolleyes:

[LowObservable]

Does anyone know why Congresscritter Mica has this Airbus fixation? (And in case anyone thinks it's grounded in reality, please check the US content in any Airbus, the non-US content in the 787, and the importance of competition in aircraft to the airline business.) He's much too old to have been frightened by one when he was a child.

[Rocky Rhodes]

I think that Congressman Mica is fixating more on the mid term elections coming up later in the year, and sees the Eurobus as a handy fat juicy target to stir the Xenophobes up into a lather. At the end of the day the big destinations will get with the program.....maybe I'm just old eneogh to be cynical,,,:ok:

[LowObservable]

If the A380 brings in more passengers to shop, eat and drink, and if the landing-fee payments don't bounce, I somehow think that the airports will find the money to accommodate the aircraft.

[West Coast]

I'd like to see who funded improvements at Euro airports, especially those who don't have a huge stake in the success of the 380.

[junior_man]

Rocky Rhoades pretty much hit the nail on the head. Plenty of Morons to get worked up about something pointless for votes.
Any airport that needs and wants to make the improvements will get the money anyways. Mica is just pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Same reasons behind the US trade embargo on Cuba.

[Curious Pax]

I'd like to see who funded improvements at Euro airports, especially those who don't have a huge stake in the success of the 380.

Manchester's improvements to accomodate it have been funded through the normal commercial channels, in the same way as terminal extensions etc.

There seems to be a view here that airports are upgrading for the 380 just for the sake of it - surely the reality is that they are doing it because of the commercial benefit. If your upgrade means that an airline using you upgrade the aircraft size to a 380, then you will benefit financially from the extra passengers. As with anyother ilne of business you will get the funding from whoever is prepared to give it, and if that is public funding then so what? As long is it done in an accountable way (ie not in secret) then the public will be able to vote on the public officials' efforts in the usual way.

It's a fact of life that in a democracy politicians say things that they think will make their constituents re-elect them, whether that is the US, UK or even Iran! Doesn't always mean that they will do what they say once the ballot boxes are closed.

[Reach]

I'd like to see who funded improvements at Euro airports, especially those who don't have a huge stake in the success of the 380.

Most large airports over there are privately owned. The improvements are funded by stockholders.

[West Coast]

I like that, no expectation then (at least I hope) that the govt. will fund all improvements.

Though I guess that could raise the argument of Airbus and funding, but thats a seperate argument. One that I'm not sure of the answer before anyone attacks.

[Flap 5]

Yes, Florida does advertise in Europe, and the tourists are coming over in droves, thank you very much. But how could that happen you ask? No 380 yet? They are coming over in 777's and other fine Boeing products.
:ok:

I visited the good old US of A earlier this year courtesy of US Airways. Actually they operate Airbus A330's on that route.

A US airline operating Airbuses? Many of them do and lots of them as well.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Yes, Florida does advertise in Europe, and the tourists are coming over in droves, thank you very much.

For what it's worth, US Department of Commerce numbers indicate European arrivals into the US as a whole were down 9% in first quarter 2006 versus 2005 equivalent period. This follows increases of 6.5% in all 2005 and 12.1% in all 2004.

[crazypilot]

How does the A380's current wheel loading compare with 744s and 773ERs ?

I thought it was meant to be pretty similar, right?? Wouldn't this therefore mean that this Congressman is talking even more bo!!ocks?

[Alty]

I don't think it is a wheel loading issue - which can be easily controlled in design - as much as it is the MTOGW of the airplane when it comes to runway and taxiway bridges.

Someone commented about the Concorde and the "protectionist" Americans not allowing overland flights because of sonic booms. The protectionist theory doesn't hold water. NASA and U.S. airframers have looked at supersonic transport studies several times over the last 30 years, and a baseline assumption was that the airplane would fly over populated land masses at high subsonic speeds unless some way was found to significantly mitigate the perceived effects of sonic booms. The Concorde failed on its own merits. Yes it was a great technological achievement and a source of pride for Europe - but it could never make money with 100 seats whether it could fly unrestricted over the U.S. or not. Could that thing even do LHR-LAX anyway without refueling? Or was the assumption that the U.S. carriers would embrace it? Even if, it would have flopped once deregulation hit.

I agree with the comment about that nutjob Mica - that Boeing probably would rather have him keep his mouth shut. The A380 airport upgrades with federal money are one thing (i.e. not totally unreasonable) - but the rest of his agenda is plain lunacy, and as an American I find it quite embarrassing.

[Ignition Override]

As for some federal funding, although I don't know or have the exact numbers, a serious fraction of each airline ticket sold by a US airline consists of federal taxes.

I have no idea about the taxes and fees paid by "freightdog" airlines such as Fedex, which ordered the A-380. The US airlines are being choked by HUGE, exorbitant federal taxes and fees. Fedex's main base in Memphis has at least one runway which already accomodates their TN A.N.G. C-5 Galaxy and sometimes Kallita 747s (jingle bells...).

The politicians here constantly change their stories just before elections (even Hillary Clinton, who voted to go to war in Iraq [uh oh :oh: -the secret is out!], was recently booed by many of her more radical supporters at a rally), but the GOP and Democratic parties often resemble each other. They differ a bit on platforms, but many fail to realize that many US voters are somewhat in the middle. Although history by now, let's not try to forget many possible forebears of Congressman Mica's feisty mentality (right or wrong-at least now): the more courageous, thousands of rednecks who never returned to their temporary beds in England (1942-44), Arnhem or frozen Bastogne foxholes etc. Various books claim that very many were volunteers. About two years ago I rode a rented bicycle/fiets from the main railway station in Maastricht to the resting places of thousands of soldiers a few miles away at Margraten (NL), just by coincidence, and also visited Omaha Beach (we just came back June 1), etc.:ouch: :zzz:
As a comparison, quiet murmors of protectionist tactics among 'Euro' or British/Irish politicians began (or don't exist) when the Euro currency was born, and the agricultural trade talks (even the unlettered colonials can sometimes find illegally exported copies of "the Economist" magazine in airport giftshops etc)?

It might be just a small bit of political irony here, that German intelligence agents were 'allegedly' on the scene when the invasion started, in Baghdad, Irak, and coordinated with certain US forces. This created some embarassment for certain Politiker zu Hause (at home), among the 'greener' elements of the coalition. The [former?] Aussenminister/Foreign Minister Joschke Fischer 'allegedly' helped to severely beat up a German policeman when he was a mischievous younger lad in a street demonstration, and seriously burn another officer by throwing a Molotov cocktail. Some US politicians sound crazier, (or are) because most on Pprune can read their original words in a language which they understand.

Many politicians, at least in the US, appear to survive by typical lies, forgotten promises, pledges and 'heartfelt sympathies'-or gross distortions, similar characteristics to ( a Chief Financial Officer's) hours of forgetfulness and omissions about basic airline financial situations and outright lies in US bankruptcy court in Manhattan, as practiced by a few upper executives in the US airline industry, in order to justify what is, to the long-term committed airline staff, a sometimes grotesquely obscene and highly over-bloated (the 'mother' of all understatements) contract for a 'golden parachute'. Its certainly not Their fault if the Board of Directors hires the incompetent business-world equivalent of retards (to closely paraphrase a newspaper editorial at a crewbase info wall), who somehow have no people skills, for a highly labor-intensive business. The point?
Certain politicians, airline CFOs...I see no motivation among them for accuracy and the truth.

Will the Paris International Airshow in August be a fertile opportunity for unanticipated modesty and humility?
Especially for Noel, Dominique and maybe for Jacque. Rumours of sharply increased (taxpayer-funded?) subsidies prevail, for a mysterious, suspected government bail-out. Isn't that it, or was it the debates among the highly unusual dual Franco-German management structure, which motivated an insider to quietly 'leak' the minutes from the EADS meeting to the "Wall Street Journal"? But then again, maybe not. As in one of the commercials (on the Internet) for "Unpimp Your Auto"..."oh, snap!" as quoted by Mr. Peter Stormare.
To paraphrase from one of those commercials, maybe sales of some (non fbw) aircraft will "look like they could fly". And sky-high prices for A-320/319 replacement parts might come down? I have sympathy for the very gouged taxpayers in much of western Europe and Britain, and doubt that British taxes will allow any small citizen rebate after this mess receives just one massive cash infusion. At least British and French taxes are not also paying to clean up and support eastern Germany.

[411A]

Oh, there are taxes alright for the freight folks as well.
An airway bill surcharge is levied on all airfreight shipments, and general aviation pays as well, thru a federal fuel tax.
Everyone pays...but certainly not on the scale as in Europe/UK.

The US airlines are lobbying really hard for a cost-based chargeable to the user ATC system, and of course they would like to see general/corporate aviation pay a whole lot more, even tho the airlines use the majority of ATC services.
Over one million responses have been received about this from the private/corporate aviation sector...so don't look for many changes soon, if at all.

[Treetopflyer]

I can't believe how the unwitted proposal of an unimaginative US politician can light up such a debate... Some posts are getting borderline xenophobic... :ugh:

Aren't we airmen before we are American/French/German/whatever????

I really could care less which side of the Atlantic the A380 is built on... It's a technological marvel, as the B747 and Concorde were in their time... As such I just hope the project materialises and sees the least amount of obstacles on its way...

[Dushan]

On another tack - I was at FRA last week and the queues of folk waiting hours to get through the absurd US security procedures were a poor incentive for anyone ever intending to visit the place.

But the lines keep getting longer and longer... Must be because people don't want to go there:)

[GotTheTshirt]

Dushan,
No the reason they get longer is because every time some one in the TSA reads another novel they add to the security procedures.!
Like removing shoes, belts, computers, metal reinforced bras, watches, tiepins etc !!

Arriving from Europe to Atlanta you even have to go through this AGAIN just to ride the transit bus to collect your baggage !

Mind you they still ask you that all important and fiendishly probing question
" Do you have anything in your baggage that could be used as a weapon":ugh:

Freud eat your heart out:}

[Fliegenmong]

Some of you mob are real Banjo players aren't you??!! :E

[arcniz]

Get real! The majority of respondents to this thread do not bother to read the LARGE print, much less any detail, before gushing forth about one or another uninformed personal agenda.

Congressman Mica is described here by one foul-tongued nitwit as "that nutjob", and by another as making an "unwitted proposal of an unimaginative US politician".

What none of you seem to appreciate is the concept that Mr. Mica is the acting "Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee" (see page 1, item 1). As manager of the last way-station prior to the Congressional authorisation vote, he is actually the person at the top of the decision tree - for the whole of the US - for spending items like this. This means that the entire process of allocating U.S. Federal funds for aviation goes through his office and oversight - as part of the national budgeting process. His staff, and his staff's staff, and his staff's staff's staff, literally thousands of people working the details, are better informed about the cause and effect of individual funding proposals, and the interacting effect of alternate proposals and competing interests, than any other group on the planet.

So the many who presume to translate this news item into some sort of transatlantic hate crime are very little informed and very greatly confused.

It's rather more like the case where a teenager comes up to dad, wanting to borrow 10,000 euros to buy an auto for his girlfriend. Dad looks up from behind his pile of bills long enough to say - "that doesn't seem a prudent expenditure."

[Harrier46]

A prediction .....The A380 will enter service, it will initially fly routes to and from Asia and Europe, then cargo routes around the world (including the USA) and then (eventually) passenger flights to the USA itself. If some US airport improvements are not funded the aircraft will fly to the ones which are, and eventually all the major airports will be forced to improve their facilities. It is called progress. Whether it makes money or not is another matter, but it will happen!
So what if this Mica guy is "Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee". We all know how secure such a position is in US politics. Chairman one day, after dinner speeches the next. Ultimately if the President said jump he would ask how high? Just another poodle.
So the real decisions will be made at the top after the various governments involved (EU and US) have battled it out as usual over "protectionism", "subsidies", "open skies" and all the other favourite subjects.
Oh, and the latest variant of the 36-year old Boeing 747 will benefit nicely from the infrastructure improvements around the world introduced for the 380. So plenty of pickings for all concerned.

[LowObservable]

<<His staff, and his staff's staff, and his staff's staff's staff, literally thousands of people working the details, are better informed about the cause and effect of individual funding proposals, and the interacting effect of alternate proposals and competing interests, than any other group on the planet. >>

I love satire.

[taildrag]

By that logic, we should all still be flying off grass aerodromes.

[West Coast]

If market forces dictated it, then so be it. Love to see a soft field takeoff in a heavy. Rather not see my tax dollars pay for improvements for the A380 or any new Boeing.

[taildrag]

West Coast, perhaps the hot sun is getting to be too much out there!

If "market forces" were made to pay for everything, your ticket costs would be astronomical, and airline travel would be decimated. Think of the resulting economic fallout worldwide.

In financing most modes of mass transportation, e.g., rails, highways, and seaports,not to mention airports, governments play a large role because they see a strong transportation system as vital to national interests.

Indeed,in today's global economy, transportation is becoming more important daily. Look at the projected growth of the Chinese civil air fleet. Who do you think is building their airports, the concession shop owners?

Don't worry so much about what your taxes finance today.

Why? Some see the biggest threat to the developed economies will be not terrorism, but oil nationalism. If that reaches a tipping point,and significant amounts of oil to the US are cut off, your tax dollars will be entirely insufficient for anything, and your "market forces" will likely leave you living in a tent on San Francisco Bay, wondering what happened.

If you're so still so worried about use of your tax dollars, you might complain in another forum about the Hurricane Katrina and Iraq War tax boondoggles, extractive industry tax breaks, etc. etc. etc.

[West Coast]

Waaaay off the mark. Your thought process is very much a socialist one, one I don't entertain. The market will provide eventually what the public asks for. It will be done at a price that the public is willing and able to pay. If one company can't, then another that can will replace it. Darwin's law for capitalism.

The government does have place in infrastructure growth. It however is not there to spend billions nationwide for improvements to airports that favor a small segment. That should be done by the private sector. If X airport thinks it can turn a profit by having the 380/or notional larger Boeing aircraft then it should make improvements. It takes spending money to make money. Some airports have said that they won't make the improvements for the 380, they may regret that as the airlines may take thier business elsewhere.

[Reach]

Waaaay off the mark. Your thought process is very much a socialist one, one I don't entertain. The market will provide eventually what the public asks for. It will be done at a price that the public is willing and able to pay. If one company can't, then another that can will replace it. Darwin's law for capitalism.

The government does have place in infrastructure growth. It however is not there to spend billions nationwide for improvements to airports that favor a small segment. That should be done by the private sector. If X airport thinks it can turn a profit by having the 380/or notional larger Boeing aircraft then it should make improvements. It takes spending money to make money. Some airports have said that they won't make the improvements for the 380, they may regret that as the airlines may take thier business elsewhere.

I agree. Why is the Government running airports anyway? - if Europe can sell it's airports to the private sector, why can't the US?

[taildrag]

I agree. Why is the Government running airports anyway? - if Europe can sell it's airports to the private sector, why can't the US?

Waaaay off the mark? Thinking socialist thoughts?

In the USA, where apparently you guys are both from, airports generally are not owned privately, but by governmental or quasi-governmental authorities, e.g. airport authorities.

If "Airport X" as you mention, decided to modify to accommodate progress in aircraft design, where do you think they'd raise the funds? Either by bond issues,or by (perish the thought!) ....taxes! Even the alternative, user fees, is another form of (shudder!) taxes! Such undertakings on the scale necessary here would probably be beyond the means of a private operator.

Do you think the reason ATL, for instance, announced it isn't going to modify for the A-380 is because of the expense, or perhaps is it that Delta Airlines, the major tenant there, spent big bucks lobbying against it, fearing competition just as they've geared up for more long-haul flying?

Are you both Deltoids?

And why such typically American paranoia about "socialism" (your term for "government")? Were your mothers frightened by Karl Marx while you were out surfing?

The government has given countless tax breaks and incentives to the airlines, which are still complaining they're one of the most heavily taxed industries (which they are). Would your airline go broke all the faster without them?

George Bush's "market" philosophy has bankrupted our country(starting from record surpluses), squandered your precious taxes on the largest pork barrel spending in US history,raised the national debt to a staggering record amount, made gifts of ridiculous tax breaks seemingly to any industry who paid his campaign bills,and entered an endless illegal war that's costing $1 billion a month,among other things.

And you're worried about a few airports? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I'd rather have the 380s than "all of the above."

[Reach]

In the USA, where apparently you guys are both from, airports generally are not owned privately, but by governmental or quasi-governmental authorities, e.g. airport authorities.

That's my point. Why doesn't the Government sell them?

is it that Delta Airlines, the major tenant there, spent big bucks lobbying against it, fearing competition just as they've geared up for more long-haul flying?

Maybe they'd be better off thinking how they could connect the A380 loads of pax with their onward (US) destinations.


And you're worried about a few airports? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!


That's what this thread is about. If you want to talk about Iraq or the deficit there are plenty of other threads for that.

[Roadtrip]

The marketplace will decide if it's in an airport's self interest to modify for the A380. My guess is that the 380s going to be a light-seller and any airport that spends huge amounts of money to modify itself, is going to be sorry.

Maybe the Europeans shouldn't modify their airports for the B787. Opps, I forgot, that airplane doesn't need airport mods.

If the 380 turns into a hot seller then I guess the American marketplace will take a hit for a short period of time as mod are done. Right now, there's a lot more risk in doing expensive mods now, vice waiting for a while.

Sort of the same reason the Europeans want open skies. They want access into the large US marketplace.

When the Europeans gripe and complain about not American's not mod'ing airport to suit their very specialized and low rate selling airplane, that tells me that they have a lot more to gain than we do with the 380.

[West Coast]

If local governments want to put out bond issues out to be voted on to raise capital, then I have no problem. I even voted yes on a few last time. A user fee is also OK. If it becomes excessive, the market will right that wrong as well. Heaven forbid that revenue raised by the airport should be used to fund airport improvements rather than being placed in the general fund of the larger municipalities.
When SWA sees an opportunity to make money by supplementing an existing route and or new one, they have to acquire aircraft to do it. Unless I'm off my mark, Boeing is still charging them for the plane. No different from an airport. If a few bucks can be made off a 380 turn, then pay for it. You can also take a gamble that it won't. If your wrong, the market will let you know.
A better place to look is on the ground side of the airport, many airlines have dropped millions, if not hundreds of millions for infrastructure growth (mainly new terminals) that they perceive a need for. I wish the airside did the same.

"And why such typically American paranoia about "socialism""

I have no paranoia of it, I simply recognize a better way exists, capitalism.

If the feds drop coin for airport improvements, then they should be paying for the terminals as well. 380 pilots are going to need some sims as well. They better pay for those as well. What about the heavy Mx facilities that will need to be modified/built to accommodate the 380? More federal dollars there. Where does it end? It doesn't.

Road trip said it well:

"If the 380 turns into a hot seller then I guess the American marketplace will take a hit for a short period of time as mod are done"

[Roadster280]

As a Brit living in ATL, and therefore paying my taxes to Uncle Sam, I think it outrageous that the government pay for any upgrades. Let the people who benefit from it pay. In other words, the airports and airlines who wish to operate the new plane. If they choose to pass these charges on to the passenger, then that's fine. If the tickets become too expensive, people will stop flying thoses routes, and the new plane will become uneconomic. No problem. Private issue for the manufacturer and operators. If the US pays federally for upgrades required in order to keep the ticket prices down, then that's definitely going to end in tears.

Despite the fact that I fly a lot, and therefore would probably benefit from the introduction of newer, larger, more efficient aircraft, I sure as hell don't want my tax paying for it. Let the ticket price reflect the cost.

[Harrier46]

Nationalised airports, unable to run their own affairs, and putting out begging bowls to the (highly protectionist) government sounds more like socialism to me than what we have in the UK. Come on USA, dip your toes in the water! Try some capitalism!

[West Coast]

Harrier
You're unfortunately correct. The airports here should be subject to market forces rather than having the deep pockets of the government to aid it along. We call that AMTRAK here in the US. I honestly don't know the status of AMTRAK nowadays, but in the past it was a huge money pit benefiting few.
Where we differ is the snapshot you take and the larger issue I see. They can ask for handouts all they want, and I'm sure there are times when its justified. In the case of making 380 mods it isn't. What you see as some final act of seeking gov charity/bailout (and I don't know if its true) I see as a new chapter in which a company who can make it happen replaces the one that can't.

[Reach]

Trouble is West Coast that as long as the airports are run by politicians, the decision on funding improvements won't be made on a business case but on whether congressmen need to shore up their support ahead of the elections and who is putting the most money into their campaign funds. :*

[taildrag]

.
That's what this thread is about. If you want to talk about Iraq or the deficit there are plenty of other threads for that.[/QUOTE]

West Coast and Reach,

The thread is about the American government stating it won't pay taxes to develop airports,and the attendant politics and propaganda. Mica's estimate for modifying all 18 airports was $1 billion--the cost of one week of the Iraq war. Which way of spending our tax money do you think would do better for the good ol' USA?

Take another instance. Midway Airport was the world's busiest for decades. When the "jumbos" came into service, because close-in Midway was ringed by development, there was no room to lengthen runways. Thus the building of O'Hare, which in turn became one of the world's busiest.

Do you doubt huge amounts of tax money supplemented other funding for construction and continuing development of O'Hare? Think it's a good thing for Chicago to have those tens of thousands of tax-paying airport employees, ancillary businesses, and everything else for the tax dollars spent? I do! The world's major airports are usually among the largest employers and income generators in their areas.

On Long Island, the Town of Islip was one of the lucky suitors to win highly sought after service by Southwest. A local newspaper just discovered a "scandalous" situation wherein Southwest is apparently paying no rent. Despite that, is the area better off for having tremendously increased convenient, low-cost air travel options, greatly reducing surface transportation trips over Long Island's pitifully congested highways? Of course!

I guess you feel we'd all be better off if the government sold everything.
Looks like it's well on the way, with privatizing the Flight Service Stations, pressing the rest of the civil service at all points, and generally pushing the shrinking US middle class further down the ladder each day.
.
"Market forces" seem to have engendered a "race to the bottom," which has already turned the airline piloting profession from a white collar job into a blue collar job in the eyes of many. Happy with that?

The old saw,"What's a pilot worth? Whatever he can negotiate" seems to have fallen by the way side as "market forces" allow obscenely paid managers to simply dump employee contracts, wages, benefits, and pensions workers had thought were fairly negotiated in good faith. What happened to the sanctity of contracts? "Market forces!"

There's nothing wrong with tax dollars going to the transportation infrastructure. Most modes of mass transportation, particularly rail and airlines, are not profitable, but are seen as necessary assets for any strong society and economy.

Modifying airports wouldn't just support Airbus against Boeing. If the super jumbo works, it will benefit all the areas to which it flies. As another post said, it's called "progress."

I'm retiring from this thread, having taken too much space, but reserving the right to comment if more "socialist" insults are thrown my way.

Ta, and,"Tickets, please!"

[West Coast]

Sorry, but the scope of your argument far exceeds what is needed to discuss whether federal aid should pay for 380 mods.

[TOGA Descent]

Mr. Mica is spot on. As a Florida taxpayer I won't pay for a pig Scarebus to land here. Go Boeing.
Right on 411A. :ok

411A said...To AirBoos, I say.....phooey, pay up or shut up, and this goes for the airlines that plan to operate the pig.



To err is human, but complete stupidity requires the enlistment of an American. Here's a basic economics tutorial for Bubba (That mean, ya’ll will learn bout money).

The major taxes collected in Florida include sales and use tax, intangible tax, corporate income taxes, property tax, and of course, federal tax. There is no personal income tax in Florida.

We’ll learn about these is reverse order, beginning with Federal Taxes.

Most civilized countries would prefer to spend Federal Tax money on things like Tourism, Education, Health, and other programs that would provide for the betterment of the country.

The USA feels it’s better to use Federal Tax Money to blow up other countries, at a cost of 1.4 BILLION dollars each DAY. Then, ironically, they take benefits away from the people (Military Personnel) who actually blow up those countries.

Next point, Property Tax. A high majority of the property in Florida is NOT owned by Floridians.

Next, Sales Tax and Corporate Income Tax. This is where your state budget gets most of its money. How much of it is paid by tourists?

Florida’s tourism revenue for 2005 was over 48 billion dollars. Florida’s Sales and Use Tax is 6%, and, Florida’s Corporate Income Tax is 5.5%.

Without having to remove my socks and unzip my pants to do the calculation, that means that your tax budget gets over 5.2 BILLION dollars from tourism revenue each year.

Next, many major components for the “…pig scarebus…” are manufactured in the USA. So, your Corporate Income Tax gets another boost of several BILLION dollars.

And, Airbus has a facility in Miami where they PAY Corporate Income Tax to the State of Florida. "...I'm a Florida Taxpayer..." What a joke!

Since you - personally -don’t want your own pissy few tax dollars to be wasted on the “…pig scarebus…” , but are quite happy to allow 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS EACH DAY towards blowing up another country, maybe we’ll tell the tourists that:

There is a better Disney World in Hong Kong,
There are better beaches on Thailand, Bali and Vietnam,
There is less crime almost everywhere,
And every other country in the world is easier to enter!

Then, we’ll tell the aircraft manufacturer that they will get a better price and have less manufacturing headaches by having those major components built in Canada, Japan, China or just about any place on the map OTHER than the USA.


Contrary to what your leaders have been telling you, the United Socialist States of America, is NOT the best place on earth!*

Just my 2 cents worth. Calculate the tax and I’ll be happy to pay it




*Slightly off topic. Appologies to the Moderator.

[Fliegenmong]

TOGA - perfectly articulated :D
End of thread I would say :ok:

[2FarNorth]

Damn, that was fun!

So much fun I need a cigarette!