PHL expansion

[Dont call me Shirley]

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20120109_US_Airways_opposes_Philadelphia_International_Airport_expansion_plan.html?cmpid=125219969

US Airways opposes Philadelphia International Airport expansion plan

By Linda Loyd
Inquirer Staff Writer


US Airways' loud 'no' to PHL expansion

US Airways Group Inc. is taking the gloves off and going public with its opposition to a planned multibillion-dollar expansion of Philadelphia International Airport, key to which is a new runway along the Delaware River.

The move by US Airways, backed by other airlines, throws the massive airport project into turmoil after a decade of reviews.....

Looks like a dispute between the carriers and port --- along with ever vexing air space issues. So don't look for the new runway any time soon....

 

[CLTUSCaptive]

What do you bet the city ignores US and expands anyway? Look how well expansion worked out for PIT....... h34r:

 

[BoeingBoy]

It's the same story as always with most of the carriers. They want the advantages with none of the cost. Just like the childhood story - no carrier wants to till the field, plant the grain, help harvest the grain, grind the grain into flour, or bake the bread, but when it's time to eat they all want some bread.

Jim

 

[UPNAWAY]

This sounds a lot more like a City Jobs program than real airport improvements and they city doesn't want to pay for it!

 

[Travelpro72]

What I found very interesting was the response given by UPS. NO THANKS! ! ! They would be forced to move across the field and have to pay higher fees? They said they'd take their 3000+ employee operation and move it. I know of a big airport with nothing going on about 280 miles to the west in PA. I don't usually agree with US on a lot of things but this I do. What good would FIVE new runways do if you can't take off or land due to airspace issues being squeezed between NYC and DC airspace? So the cost of moving a passenger through PHL would be somewhere around $19.00+? So how profitable of a Hub for US would PHL be then? The city better be careful in their choices or they could find themselves with a lot less service. Certainly if a merger did happen between US and AA. US would pack up and head on up to JFK. I think Mayor Nutter is a little smarter than that.

 

[SparrowHawk]

What I found very interesting was the response given by UPS. NO THANKS! ! ! They would be forced to move across the field and have to pay higher fees? They said they'd take their 3000+ employee operation and move it. I know of a big airport with nothing going on about 280 miles to the west in PA. I don't usually agree with US on a lot of things but this I do. What good would FIVE new runways do if you can't take off or land due to airspace issues being squeezed between NYC and DC airspace? So the cost of moving a passenger through PHL would be somewhere around $19.00+? So how profitable of a Hub for US would PHL be then? The city better be careful in their choices or they could find themselves with a lot less service. Certainly if a merger did happen between US and AA. US would pack up and head on up to JFK. I think Mayor Nutter is a little smarter than that.

I don't call them "Canary Air" for nothing.

However when UPS says it will pull it's operation and move someplace else, THEN I take notice. Your observation regarding the lessons of PIT and landing fees had best not be ignored by the City of PHL.

Back to UPS, I'm sure they could easily one of the big fields down near ACY and conduct operation there if they need a home in the PA/NU marketplace. The state and airport authority would likely provide some generous incentives. Also IIRC, ACY is in the same bleeped up air space corridor so nothing new there.

 

[wings396]

I am in agreement that adding another runway will do nothing to improve the delays at PHL. You will still have to taxi back and forth from one end of the airport to the other, and cross one active runway in order to reach another. The entire layout of PHL would need to be re-worked, and a complete new terminal built too. If there were enough open land, they could built an new facility, and level the old one afterwards. I see no real options for PHL other than building a new airport at another location such as they did with DEN and DFW years ago.
As for UPS, they could make the move about 65 miles north to ABE with ease should PHL force them to do so.

 

[PHL]

I am in agreement that adding another runway will do nothing to improve the delays at PHL. You will still have to taxi back and forth from one end of the airport to the other, and cross one active runway in order to reach another. The entire layout of PHL would need to be re-worked, and a complete new terminal built too. If there were enough open land, they could built an new facility, and level the old one afterwards. I see no real options for PHL other than building a new airport at another location such as they did with DEN and DFW years ago.
As for UPS, they could make the move about 65 miles north to ABE with ease should PHL force them to do so.

The benefit of another parallel runway is the ability to do simultaneous landings, which is a huge benefit in irregular ops. DFW, ORD, ATL, MIA, DEN, SFO are a few that come to mind with similar benefits. The long term benefits are there.

UPS is the goliath in this battle moreso than US. It sounds like UPS will hold its ground or pack up and leave, and that will be something that could make the city think twice. I don't see them moving to the new space on the other side of the field given that it's a smaller one. ACY is a good alternative, far more than PIT.

And, US would have stayed at PIT if the numbers added up. It's not, nor ever was, an O&D city. Once the connections dried up and became too expensive, there was no O&D to make up the shortfall. The same may happen to CLT some day because it's in the exact same situation and that's got to give Dougie some heartburn.

The PHL expansion will go forward with or without airline buy in. If US bows out, there will be another carrier ready to step in because there is a market of O&D passengers that the new carrier can poach.

 

[Reed Richards]

The benefit of another parallel runway is the ability to do simultaneous landings, which is a huge benefit in irregular ops. DFW, ORD, ATL, MIA, DEN, SFO are a few that come to mind with similar benefits. The long term benefits are there.

Your statement makes sense from an airport planning view, but not in reality. Look at CLT..how many millions for that beautiful new runway on the West side, built with our tax moneys and using the same logic you present...parallel ops improvements.

CLT runs no better or worse than it did without the runway, and I would argue the newer RNAV departures burn thousands of pounds of extra fuel a day, paid for by the airlines. I really miss those hard turning vectors in the actual direction we want to go...no more! And if you have an early morning departure to CLT from within 200NM of CLT, guess what...mucho delays for "air traffic..read runways closed." It’s all a big joke. The ATC guys don't want to see ANY improvement in efficiency at CLT..it’s a jobs killer for them, even with all the training they are doing.

So I am not buying any of these arguments in PHL for the need to add the new parallel runway. The ramp congestion and airspace restrictions are the real problems. As others have said, given a choice of having to relocate and disrupt their operations, you can be sure UPS will be hundreds of miles from PHL when they actually move. Maybe Atlantic City is an option, but my beloved PIT would be out of the question. PA has a way of pissing off its resident airlines, and UPS would be loathe to give that state another go if kicked to the curb (rather kicked to a very nice little suburb in Essington, at the expense of a lot of homesteads) by PHL.

RR

 

[Reed Richards]

It's the same story as always with most of the carriers. They want the advantages with none of the cost. Just like the childhood story - no carrier wants to till the field, plant the grain, help harvest the grain, grind the grain into flour, or bake the bread, but when it's time to eat they all want some bread.

Jim

Agreed. The airlines need to have some skin in the game at airports (taxpayers) that expand for their benefit. Look at the parade of "suckers" that built new runways or expanded terminal operations for resident airlines.....only to have the same airlines leave town with not so much as a note on the pillow, having had their way! (RDU and BNA for example)

To be fair, GSO added a nice new runway and currently reaps the benefits of doing so for Cargo ops, so not every airport gets screwed.

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

RR,

If the taxpayers were paying the bill, US would be pushing to get the expansion done yesterday. But the bonds will be repaid by the airport tenants and passengers with increased charges and that's what US is against. Like I said, US would love the benefits of the expansion but wants no part of paying for it.

Jim

 

[Reed Richards]

RR,

If the taxpayers were paying the bill, US would be pushing to get the expansion done yesterday. But the bonds will be repaid by the airport tenants and passengers with increased charges and that's what US is against. Like I said, US would love the benefits of the expansion but wants no part of paying for it.

Jim

Agreed, but somewhere in the mix in these deals taxpayer monies usually show up. I can only guess the expansion at the airports I mentioned before was not 100% revenue funded. But I better bow out, I actually don't know.

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

There will be grant money from the FAA, i.e. taxpayer money. But the majority of money will come from selling bonds , which means increasing charges and PFC's to get the extra money to repay the bonds.

Jim

 

[UPNAWAY]

Airlines have skin in the game they pay for almost everything.
Every major airport in America is a huge cash cow for the cities.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Every major airport in America is a huge cash cow for the cities.

That explains why the FAA hauled LAX into court for transferring revenue to the city.....

Jim