Well, in a brilliant display of forward thinking and planning, Northwest has announced that concourse C at the new DTW will be razed and rebuilt, bringing it to 41 gates resembling concourse A, and in addition concourse B will be expanded, and 2 A gates converted to international gates. [BR][BR]This all just about 6 MONTHS after opening the new terminal. Guess who's going to foot the bill for this display of idiocy?[BR][BR][A href=http://vh80000.vh8.infi.net/money/business/airpo14_20020914.htm]http://vh80000.vh8.infi.net/money/business/airpo14_20020914.htm[/A]
Ooops... concourse C at DTW being razed
- Thread starter lownslow
- Start date
[P]It was built of cement block because NW knew it would just be a temporary solution.[/P]
[P]It is being paid for by PFCs, landing fees, etc.[/P]
[P]It is being paid for by PFCs, landing fees, etc.[/P]
Funny sideline- As I passed thru DTW last weekend, in one of the pilot rooms there is a press release posted:Concourse B/C area being rebuilt for $100M. Right next to it someone tacked on the press release NWA starts big employee idea program to save company $100M...
So THAT's how it's getting paid for...
So THAT's how it's getting paid for...
That was a slick move...and don't forget our new 20% for medical/dental! There in starts the pay cuts across the board!
- Thread Starter
- #5
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/26/2002 5:35:18 PM DTWRedTail wrote:
It was built of cement block because NW knew it would just be a temporary solution.[/P]
It is being paid for by PFCs, landing fees, etc.[/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]
A temporary solution is ok - but one which lasts but a few months and comes at such a ridiculous cost is horrifically poor planning. To make things worse, turning around and making other airlines and their pax pay for this mistake through the PFCs and landing fees is outrageous. Now they have to pay more for NW's mistake, while getting nothing in return. How about NW cover the cost of building a significantly larger terminal for the OALs now, rather than replacing Smith with a new terminal with 0 additional capacity?
----------------
On 10/26/2002 5:35:18 PM DTWRedTail wrote:
It was built of cement block because NW knew it would just be a temporary solution.[/P]
It is being paid for by PFCs, landing fees, etc.[/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]
A temporary solution is ok - but one which lasts but a few months and comes at such a ridiculous cost is horrifically poor planning. To make things worse, turning around and making other airlines and their pax pay for this mistake through the PFCs and landing fees is outrageous. Now they have to pay more for NW's mistake, while getting nothing in return. How about NW cover the cost of building a significantly larger terminal for the OALs now, rather than replacing Smith with a new terminal with 0 additional capacity?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/31/2002 12:37:08 AM lownslow wrote:
To make things worse, turning around and making other airlines and their pax pay for this mistake through the PFCs and landing fees is outrageous.----------------
[/blockquote]
I'll bet NWA pays more in PFCs and landing fees than all of the other airlines that use DTW combined. Don't forget about Michigan politics either. To think that NWA planned, caused, and buffooned this all by themselves is ludicrous.
----------------
On 10/31/2002 12:37:08 AM lownslow wrote:
To make things worse, turning around and making other airlines and their pax pay for this mistake through the PFCs and landing fees is outrageous.----------------
[/blockquote]
I'll bet NWA pays more in PFCs and landing fees than all of the other airlines that use DTW combined. Don't forget about Michigan politics either. To think that NWA planned, caused, and buffooned this all by themselves is ludicrous.
- Thread Starter
- #7
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/31/2002 11:51:38 AM ExAF wrote:
I'll bet NWA pays more in PFCs and landing fees than all of the other airlines that use DTW combined. ----------------
[/blockquote]
I'd be willing to bet you're right - that they do pay more than the others combined. That does not excuse this, though. The fact is that the fees collected from OALs are going to pay for something that benefits NW only, and to repair something that was NW's mistake. The OALs are getting nothing in exchange. You don't see them getting a nicer terminal or more space in the replacement terminal which won't open for several more years. How would you like it if your neighbor went out and bought a brand new BMW and you, while stuck with your 10 year old rusting heap, got a bill expecting you to pay for part of their new car? That's just what's happening here. NW is getting something new - and other airlines are paying for it. So what if NW pays 80% of all the fees at the airport - that still means the OALs are covering 20% of NW's mistake.
----------------
On 10/31/2002 11:51:38 AM ExAF wrote:
I'll bet NWA pays more in PFCs and landing fees than all of the other airlines that use DTW combined. ----------------
[/blockquote]
I'd be willing to bet you're right - that they do pay more than the others combined. That does not excuse this, though. The fact is that the fees collected from OALs are going to pay for something that benefits NW only, and to repair something that was NW's mistake. The OALs are getting nothing in exchange. You don't see them getting a nicer terminal or more space in the replacement terminal which won't open for several more years. How would you like it if your neighbor went out and bought a brand new BMW and you, while stuck with your 10 year old rusting heap, got a bill expecting you to pay for part of their new car? That's just what's happening here. NW is getting something new - and other airlines are paying for it. So what if NW pays 80% of all the fees at the airport - that still means the OALs are covering 20% of NW's mistake.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/31/2002 12:04:44 PM lownslow wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/31/2002 11:51:38 AM ExAF wrote:
I'll bet NWA pays more in PFCs and landing fees than all of the other airlines that use DTW combined. ----------------
[/blockquote]
I'd be willing to bet you're right - that they do pay more than the others combined. That does not excuse this, though. The fact is that the fees collected from OALs are going to pay for something that benefits NW only, and to repair something that was NW's mistake. The OALs are getting nothing in exchange. You don't see them getting a nicer terminal or more space in the replacement terminal which won't open for several more years. How would you like it if your neighbor went out and bought a brand new BMW and you, while stuck with your 10 year old rusting heap, got a bill expecting you to pay for part of their new car? That's just what's happening here. NW is getting something new - and other airlines are paying for it. So what if NW pays 80% of all the fees at the airport - that still means the OALs are covering 20% of NW's mistake.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I noticed you didn't quote the part about MI politics or that NWA didn't do this all by themselves. I submit there is a lot more at play here than just NWA doing a poor job of planning. As far as OAL's not getting anything for their fees, they are paying the same fees they paid before NWA moved out of the old terminal and they are still getting what they have always paid for. They are paying for continued use of the facillities they have always used while they wait for the improvements that they will eventually get. No different than what goes on at any other carrier's hub. As for the neighbor's BMW analogy, if that could happen, I would think I must be living in the wrong place and move. As far as the percentages go...remember, If NWA is paying 80% of the fees, then you still need to take the rent, maintenance, and utilities for the old terminal out of the remaining 20% before you start saying the OALs are paying for 20% of the as you put it NWA mistake. So in reality, I guess the OAL's contribution would be considerably smaller than 20%. Don't forget, NWA can't do anything without the local government/commission approval. You can't tell the players without a program.
----------------
On 10/31/2002 12:04:44 PM lownslow wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/31/2002 11:51:38 AM ExAF wrote:
I'll bet NWA pays more in PFCs and landing fees than all of the other airlines that use DTW combined. ----------------
[/blockquote]
I'd be willing to bet you're right - that they do pay more than the others combined. That does not excuse this, though. The fact is that the fees collected from OALs are going to pay for something that benefits NW only, and to repair something that was NW's mistake. The OALs are getting nothing in exchange. You don't see them getting a nicer terminal or more space in the replacement terminal which won't open for several more years. How would you like it if your neighbor went out and bought a brand new BMW and you, while stuck with your 10 year old rusting heap, got a bill expecting you to pay for part of their new car? That's just what's happening here. NW is getting something new - and other airlines are paying for it. So what if NW pays 80% of all the fees at the airport - that still means the OALs are covering 20% of NW's mistake.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I noticed you didn't quote the part about MI politics or that NWA didn't do this all by themselves. I submit there is a lot more at play here than just NWA doing a poor job of planning. As far as OAL's not getting anything for their fees, they are paying the same fees they paid before NWA moved out of the old terminal and they are still getting what they have always paid for. They are paying for continued use of the facillities they have always used while they wait for the improvements that they will eventually get. No different than what goes on at any other carrier's hub. As for the neighbor's BMW analogy, if that could happen, I would think I must be living in the wrong place and move. As far as the percentages go...remember, If NWA is paying 80% of the fees, then you still need to take the rent, maintenance, and utilities for the old terminal out of the remaining 20% before you start saying the OALs are paying for 20% of the as you put it NWA mistake. So in reality, I guess the OAL's contribution would be considerably smaller than 20%. Don't forget, NWA can't do anything without the local government/commission approval. You can't tell the players without a program.
