Congressman Mica says no to Fed-funded A380 airport improvements
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congressman Mica says no to Fed-funded A380 airport improvements
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.
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.
Perhaps Mr. Mica would prefer all of the current A380 customers to stop serving his state's airports (Florida) altogether.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vapilot2004
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.
Perhaps Mr. Mica would prefer all of the current A380 customers to stop serving his state's airports (Florida) altogether.
Perhaps Mr. Mica would prefer all of the current A380 customers to stop serving his state's airports (Florida) altogether.
form of insulation isn't it? How appropriate.
Aviate 1138
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Mica (is not always good)
Richard Aboulafia's column mentions Mica here:
Dear Fellow Crypto-Anti-Xenophobes July 2005
And, yes, HS, US Representative Mica had his silly mitts all over this one:
House Bill - Missile Defence Legislation
It's the sort of thing that makes me so very proud to live in this land.
Dear Fellow Crypto-Anti-Xenophobes July 2005
And, yes, HS, US Representative Mica had his silly mitts all over this one:
House Bill - Missile Defence Legislation
It's the sort of thing that makes me so very proud to live in this land.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Alty; 24th Jun 2006 at 13:09.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
That's it; I'm going to object to any planning application to expand Leeds-Bradford on the grounds that Jet2 bases Boeings there!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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!
Personally, I think the A380 will be an innovative technical success, but a economic failure for Airbus.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Anywhere and Everywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 181
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.
Right on 411A.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!