Passenger Trains > OT: Airports want more money

There's always some discussion here at TO regarding government subsidies, for rail, highway, and air travel modes.

Every project listed in this article costs nearly as much as Amtrak's annual subsidy.

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/U-S-airports-We-desperately-need-more-money-13671572.php

Airports always want more money. This is not news.

"The nation's airports are facing a funding crisis as they work on a number of massive expansion and reconstruction projects such as the rebuilding of San Francisco International's Terminal 1, and they want the federal government to lift the current cap on the amount of fees they can raise from passengers."

I have no problem with that. Sounds like a solution to me, and it is one which embraces free market priniples.

The request for tax increases to pay for a consolidated rent-a-car terminal is especially outrageous.  The airport authorities force all the rentasl companies to use their car rental facilities at exhorbitant rents, and then collect a 20% or more fee on every rental from the customer.  By creating the new building with tax dollars the airport gets a huge income stream without having to spend any of their own money.  Cute!  And to top it off, the car rental companies have to move to the new building in order to pick up poassengers at the airport, so the privately-owned facilities they moved from are now vacant and private property owners lose out. 

Norm

Norman Orfall
Helendale, CA
TIOGA PASS, a private railcar

Norm, just more shenanigans for airports to raise funds through hidden (or at least obfuscated) fees.

Another reason travel mode subsidies cannot be accurately compared, because of all these different methods for increasing the income stream outside of direct subsidies.

When I rent cars at Orlando, FL about four times per year, the taxes, fees, and other local costs. are usually about 40% of the total rental cost.  I understand the Denver airport is similar.  Cities and airports have found they can tax such services, and there is little objection, because we users all live far away.  

So does every other mode. Nothing new.

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

I want more money - even though I know it won't bring me happiness...
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/19 15:19 by exhaustED.

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I rent cars at Orlando, FL about four times
> per year, the taxes, fees, and other local costs.
> are usually about 40% of the total rental cost. 
> I understand the Denver airport is similar. 
> Cities and airports have found they can tax such
> services, and there is little objection, because
> we users all live far away.  

the same layering of fees often applies to hotel rooms, for the same reason. Tax folks who don't live here, and can't vote here. 
 

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I rent cars at Orlando, FL about four times
> per year, the taxes, fees, and other local costs.
> are usually about 40% of the total rental cost. 
> I understand the Denver airport is similar. 
> Cities and airports have found they can tax such
> services, and there is little objection, because
> we users all live far away.  

I was recently surprised at the Phoenix Airport (hadn't been there in over 15 years) when my $400'ish rental became a $650'ish rental after all the fees and taxes.

TJY

icancmp193 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
(SNIP)
>
> I was recently surprised at the Phoenix Airport
> (hadn't been there in over 15 years) when my
> $400'ish rental became a $650'ish rental after all
> the fees and taxes.
>
> TJY

Expedia now offers both the listed rental cost, and their estimate of the "all-in" rental cost in my summary,

Uber and Lyft are getting socked with airport access charges, in some places.  (As they should)

There's a reason the Airlines don't own the airports (as Amtrak owns it's stations.)  They're not profitable.  If they were--the airlines would be fighting to own them.

For this reason, there is a Chicago Union Station -- but you will never see a Chicago Union Airport.

 

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a reason the Airlines don't own the
> airports (as Amtrak owns it's stations.)  They're
> not profitable.  If they were--the airlines would
> be fighting to own them.
>
> For this reason, there is a Chicago Union Station
> -- but you will never see a Chicago Union
> Airport.
>
>  

Airports can also be great places to stash politically connected folks who need high paying jobs.

 I have no problem with that. Sounds like a
 solution to me, and it is one which embraces free
 market principles.

Another idea is for the airlines to lower their cut! Sounds like a solution to me, and one which embraces "so-called christian" principles. Then with that cut in our hands we can put it to work on the CAHSR and have that much less airplane smog in the air. :) 

And you guys know the US Government will have no problem with this, Amtrak, always a different story!

If you want a lesson in how airport expansions are foisted on an unsuspecting public, you should read about the Kansas City airport single terminal plan.  Basically lying about not using taxpayers dollars!  https://www.facebook.com/FriendsOfKci/?__tn__=kC-R&eid=ARCYrweUcW7USDWPnBoNTqewgWrjxhcGNnU3y04s40A7qZfIw4xnxj5yfcj9b9nkmukRKE-0AS9I_JvO&hc_ref=ARRomRQtK4vrymmL7ngcoQ5bq28EpCdmk7baAUAf5eRAzfdtzbVefJfv0aXpd7Adr6c&fref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARDp4Obv5sT-TQ5h7MoYn268mA1bY3dKy5DGG406_Nqn6ENkC5MOr7kxAT79bg96lOQFcEpcbofH-hD0oxl5ucPf2SQCKkbhj4X8U9EPrw4uMHqa51jFjTUsiku6NFEeZ8HFu-beX6BR1BCcQBqrYboRUXQtL2Sq8M7D-dGNOe6Dlxn73Xe4DrQVLZ7o7FqGgZwwItesm4lc3AYxZ81yyg8-ckTP_QJMHPaBMzQurFUHj663tdLuuuMq3DJi25hDoUtmtTgOlAU5gkaGe9l0IpsyhN3Ym9ifMJ1KQv6Xs87RrXv0uDuHTbh3oPb7jq-Tq7ZvWjunewiNV4uKn19YmuSRbtXrS2_Rj5B7R-dNPvxh5e1bf2JB

Cahsr is dead a it should be no reason to take a train that takes triple the time for triple the cost.

Posted from Android

goduckies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cahsr is dead a it should be no reason to take a
> train that takes triple the time for triple the
> cost.   

The CAHSR if anything will be faster door to door than more jets, especially if one wishes to alight in the actual town they are heading for rather than a "book end" airport in The City or LA-LA-Land. Wake-up, it's the 21st Century. So accept what the rest of the world has already knows, clean High Speed Trains can conquer time and distance better than more polluting airports! Frankly, I've "MAXed-out" subsidizing airlines!        



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/19 11:20 by RRBaron.

ronald321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a reason the Airlines don't own the
> airports (as Amtrak owns it's stations.)  They're
> not profitable.  If they were--the airlines would
> be fighting to own them.
>
> For this reason, there is a Chicago Union Station
> -- but you will never see a Chicago Union
> Airport.
>
>  

Huh?

Chicago's airports are run by the city of Chicago alone and they are not doing at a loss .It is loaded with city employees, from laborer's, fire, police, administrators.
This is cash cow and patronage heaven.  They get federal money and airline money and customer money.

What I have read is the loss of some parking revenue is starting to hurt. Off airport parking and Uber are taking a toll.

Government doesnt like competition.  There was a push esp from minority groups for a new airport focused for the southern part of the area.  No frill's and it was quashed.
Major airlines didn't want to open up more gates and Chicago did not want to lose control.
Bob

robj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chicago's airports are run by the city of Chicago
> alone and they are not doing at a loss .It is
> loaded with city employees, from laborer's, fire,
> police, administrators.
> This is cash cow and patronage heaven.  They get
> federal money and airline money and customer
> money.

The state of Georgia is coveting Atlanta's airport:

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-senate-approves-state-takeover-atlanta-airport/cdmw3h2DkbEuIXugpNWZ8M/

I am not usually a fan of the City of Atlanta, but I do not think the state has any business pursuing this takeover.