Congressman Mica says no to Fed-funded A380 airport improvements
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Anywhere and Everywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Chapel Hill,NC, USA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Reach
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?
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."
Last edited by taildrag; 2nd Jul 2006 at 04:26.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Anywhere and Everywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
And you're worried about a few airports? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
What's wrong with surfing?
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"
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"
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Almaty
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Anywhere and Everywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Chapel Hill,NC, USA
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What its really all about
.
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!"
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!"
Last edited by taildrag; 2nd Jul 2006 at 05:26.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Age: 61
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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
411A said...To AirBoos, I say.....phooey, pay up or shut up, and this goes for the airlines that plan to operate the pig.
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.
Last edited by TOGA Descent; 3rd Jul 2006 at 02:50.
