American Airlines CEO says biz jets should pay more ATC costs

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
iWin
Home Airfield
C81
American Airlines CEO Gerard Arpey said business aviation -- like the private jets used to carry executives -- should pick up more of the costs for the air traffic control system.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-amr25.html
Click to expand...

He proudly states that his is the only airline that didn't file for bankruptcy so I guess that means he knows his bidness.
 
This quote says a lot:

"He said he realized that a few of those people were probably at the luncheon, and he recommended they fly American."

Translation: we want you to fly on the airlines, and we want to make the economics such that you HAVE to.
 
i thought southwest was the only one who hadnt filed?
 
oh wait, theyre the only ones who posted profit after 9/11.
 
tonycondon said:
i thought southwest was the only one who hadnt filed?
Click to expand...
He actually called himself a "traditional" airline and was the only one of those that had not filed for bankruptcy. I have no idea what a traditional airline is except one that is bloated, poorly run, and offers lousy service. If that is his definition then I agree with him.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
He actually called himself a "traditional" airline and was the only one of those that had not filed for bankruptcy. I have no idea what a traditional airline is except one that is bloated, poorly run, and offers lousy service. If that is his definition then I agree with him.
Click to expand...
Be careful about what you say about AA scott, after all, they know why you fly.
 
I think a fair fee for all AC using ATC services would be $5-$7 per revenue generating seat.
 
I don't understand the airlines position on this. They want the Business and GA comunity to pay for more of the system that airlines actually require. But, the cost of that system is paid for through seat and ticket taxes that they pass through to the passengers anyway. So, do they think if ticket prices are lower there will be more passengers? I don't see the airlines pocketing any money. The airlines won't keep ticket prices the same an pocket the tax. They will, most likely, drop the ticket price and start another damaging price war.

Even if they get a user fee system and if they get it rigged so that GA picks up a big slice, I don't think they will be any better off. They will mearly use any cost savings to beat the hell out of each other. I believe that ATC cost are minimal compared to fuel, equipment and salaries that the airlines pay. I don't understand why the airlines think taking control of the ATC systems will help them?

Whenever I see these privitazation schemes it's always about how some private company is going to try and steal a government run agency so they profiteer and rape the public (ala Enron.) I can understand this administration trying to sell off the government to the highest bidder; that's been W's MO from day one, but I don't know why the airlines want to do it. They have so little to gain.
 
Last edited:
gmwalk said:
I don't understand the airlines position on this. They want the Business and GA comunity to pay for more of the system that airlines actually require. But, the cost of that system is paid for through seat and ticket taxes that they pass through to the passengers anyway. So, do they think if ticket prices are lower there will be more passengers? I don't see the airlines pocketing any money. The airlines won't keep ticket prices the same an pocket the tax. They will, most likely, drop the ticket price and start another damaging price war.

Even if they get a user fee system and if they get it rigged so that GA picks up a big slice, I don't think they will be any better off. They will mearly use any cost savings to beat the hell out of each other. I believe that ATC cost are minimal compared to fuel, equipment and salaries that the airlines pay. I don't understand why the airlines think taking control of the ATC systems will help them?

Whenever I see these privitazation schemes it's always about how some private company is going to try and steal a government run agency so they profiteer and rape the public (ala Enron.) I can understand this administration trying to sell off the government to the highest bidder; that's been W's MO from day one, but I don't know why the airlines want to do it. They have so little to gain.
Click to expand...

What they will do is the same thing they've done before when a ticket tax was lifted: They'll keep the price of the ticket the same and pocket the difference.
 
gmwalk said:
I don't understand the airlines position on this. They want the Business and GA comunity to pay for more of the system that airlines actually require. But, the cost of that system is paid for through seat and ticket taxes that they pass through to the passengers anyway. So, do they think if ticket prices are lower there will be more passengers? I don't see the airlines pocketing any money. The airlines won't keep ticket prices the same an pocket the tax. They will, most likely, drop the ticket price and start another damaging price war.

Even if they get a user fee system and if they get it rigged so that GA picks up a big slice, I don't think they will be any better off. They will mearly use any cost savings to beat the hell out of each other. I believe that ATC cost are minimal compared to fuel, equipment and salaries that the airlines pay. I don't understand why the airlines think taking control of the ATC systems will help them?

Whenever I see these privitazation schemes it's always about how some private company is going to try and steal a government run agency so they profiteer and rape the public (ala Enron.) I can understand this administration trying to sell off the government to the highest bidder; that's been W's MO from day one, but I don't know why the airlines want to do it. They have so little to gain.
Click to expand...
Ya gotta undertsand how Washington works. The real reason is almost always what they aren't saying. The airlines don't want the competition from bizjets, the new air taxi services coming online, and private aircraft. They know that the very profitable business travelers are itching to find alternatives to dealing with the fine, fine folks in the TSA, much less the reliable airline employees in the friendly skies.

The airlines know what's on the horizon - more bizjets that cost less, NASA's AGATE easy-to-fly personal aircraft that can land on short runways near where you want to be. The end of hub and spoke.

The airlines need to make the alternative ways to fly less financially attractive so the bean counters at the company will refuse to pay for them. The fees are going to have to be really high to have any impact on a $4 million CEO flying one of his two $4 million jets. So look for the answer to be the bizjet has to pay the same total fees as what the total is for the passengers taxes on a 747. After all, both jets take up one slot, right?

Remember the general public thinks that all flying requires a ticket. They aren't going to get up in arms about this issue, especially if the airlines claim it will cost them less. AOPA has a huge job ahead.
 
Last edited:
If they actually wanted to reduce GA traffic they might try offering honest 1st class seating, schedules and service the top execs expect from an airline. Or would that be too simple.

Seems one reason for the increase in biz jet travel is that the traditional airlines don't provide service like they used to.
 
mikea said:
...The airlines need to make the alternative ways to fly less financially attractive so the bean counters at the company will refuse to pay for them. The fees are going to have to be really high to have any impact on a $4 million CEO flying one of his two $4 million jets. So look for the answer to be the bizjet has to pay the same total fees as what the total is for the passengers taxes on a 747. After all, both jets take up one slot, right?

Remember the general public thinks that all flying requires a ticket. They aren't going to get up in arms about this issue, especially if the airlines claim it will cost them less. AOPA has a huge job ahead.
Click to expand...

I just thought of something. The heavies require extra spacing, so we should insist they pay for the all of the slots they take up, maybe 5-10 X the fees of a conventional jet! :rolleyes:
 
The only part of the airlines argument that is valid is that for congested terminal areas (basically the Class B's), each airplane takes up roughly similar resources in terms of landing slots, approach slots, and controller staffing requirements. It's mostly an approach congestion problem.

For all the smaller airports that can be utilized by GA, there isn't a whole lot of congestion. Nor is there a lot of congestion in the flight levels that are likely to be used by bizjets and GA turboprops.

Perhaps a fee based on the size (spacing required) of the airport when operating to/from a primary class B airport might make sense. With a discount when you take a visual approach and maintain your own separation.
 
I don't know about others..I suspect I'm not the only person.

If I had to pay for flight following... I wouldn't use it.

If I had to pay for a FSS briefing... I wouldn't get it.

If I had to pay to talk to flight watch...I wouldn't talk to them.

I avoid every fee I possibly can..ramp fees, airport fees, etc. Flying is expensive as it is right now. I can't afford to be paying more money yet.
 
The airlines just need to go work on their own internal personal problems and quit beating on everyone else just because they're incompetent and the others have their act together and are sick of the nonsense.

The maximized profitability margin at all costs seeking executives just want to get from A to B and don't really care how they get there. The airlines have annoyed/inconvinenced the executives to the point that they will go out and buy multi million dollar private jets that eat huge holes in the all important above and beyond everything else in existence bottom line. If you irritate a greedy money monger to the point they leave and voluntarily fork out huge piles of money to avoid you when they'd rather pocket the money for themselves, you've done something seriously wrong and it's certainly not their fault they're doing it. If the airlines can't get their act together, they need to function just like any other business in this country and roll up their jetways once and for all.

Paying taxes every year bites bad enough. I don't particularly care to feed airline executives fat bank accounts especially when I have absolutely no use for their pressurized tube death traps in the first place. I will personally projectile vomit on the first airline CEO that tells me to my face that I have to pay for their poorly run business racket just because I want to go putter around the pattern a few times or cross the country on my own. If they try to financially torture me into riding in their contraptions, I have a perfectly good pair of hiking boots and I'll walk before handing them a penny.
 
Last edited:
jangell said:
I don't know about others..I suspect I'm not the only person.

If I had to pay for flight following... I wouldn't use it.

If I had to pay for a FSS briefing... I wouldn't get it.

If I had to pay to talk to flight watch...I wouldn't talk to them.

I avoid every fee I possibly can..ramp fees, airport fees, etc. Flying is expensive as it is right now. I can't afford to be paying more money yet.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, you pay for all of that now, because some of the cost of the airplane you rent (or the gas you put in it) gets sent in to the government in the form of a tax on fuel. That goes into a trust fund that the FAA is allowed to spend on aviation related matters. Airline's don't pay this tax - instead, they collect and pass on a tax on tickets.

Of course, the hidden "gotcha" in the idea of new user fees is that the gov't ain't gonna give up the fuel tax revenue - they'll just shift it to the general fund and spend it on other BS not related to aviation. So you'll end up paying the gov't more and not getting anything extra.

So:

Don't think you don't pay for your use of the Aviation System - you do.
Tell your congresscritters that you don't want to hear about any user fees for ATC and other aviation services - the current method of taxes on fuel works just fine.
 
If the airlines get what they want, an aircraft will be charged for "time in the system" plus number of landings. Yet ATC will be controlled by the airlines. So, when it comes to giving priority, priority will go to airline flights, meaning that GA will be vectored around (e.g. more time in the system).

Thus, under this plan, the airlines can make GA longer, less convenient, and much more expensive.
 
I hate airlines as it is. I can't avoid them in my line of work and I am fed up with their lousy service, lack of room, you name it. While I was off on this last trip (Germany and Israel) the boss came up with the idea of taking the classes I developed and teach and set them up for on-line sessions where the students go through them at their own pace. I LOVE that idea and we will work on it this summer. If it eliminates only 1 trip it will be worth it. Now if I could just figure out how to go to all the places I need to go without setting foot in a commercial airport... I know! It's time for someone to invent the Star Trek transporter! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top