"Because, of course, the 319 has more passenger density. But this is hardly a subsidy. It's a case where UA has chosen to run the business in a way that uses resources less efficiently. UA could choose to have the same passenger density on the 744s as F9 has in the A319s"
Not really the case. Even at max density, the 747-400's weight to pax number ratio will still be higher. But lets consider the second point. you think UAL "chose" to utilize it's resources less efficiently. so the government has a place punishing UAL for the way UAL uses UAL'S RESOURCES, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS. In Fact, UAL is utilizing the PUBLICS resources SIGNIFICANTLY more efficiently than FRNT, yet must pay CONSIDERABLY more. It's like only opening up the carpool lane to a single occupant midsize sedan, while banning 8 pax SUV's.
"Depends on who you ask."
Oh please, make that case. In doing so, please point out the economic bananza enjoyed by cities with only LCC traffic.
"Believe me, they have historically subsidized the hub airports as well, in the form of higher ticket costs."
I think the facts would prove otherwise. Assuming ticket prices were "high" (verses the time to either go to a differant city to connect or the cost in time an expense to drive to another city), all the money spent on tickets generally showed up right back in the community in the form of increased spending by airline employees. It certainly never resulted in enormous profits for the local carrier.
"But that means that the FAA is subsidizing UA every time UA charges less than F9 for a ticket. Outrage!"
Anytime a UAL jet leaves the gate paying less in fees than a FRNT jet heading to the same destination, ABSOLUTELY!! Flat fee's for all. And you can even caveat that by having higher fees in some high density markets, which would ENCOURAGE companies to 'upsize' equipment to relieve some of the congestion.
I'll take it one step farther. In the case of DIA, they may want to encourage intrastate air travel, so fee abatements or reductions for travel from say, COS-DEN should be a consideration. Additionally, DEN should not collect landing fee's from through pax (prorated landing fee's). This would ENCOURAGE hub service in DEN which would result in more destinations, more frequencies, and more spillover economic benefit to the city and State. I'd even suggest "trapment zones", ie reduced landing fees for traffic from bordering states (SLC, ABQ, ICT) cement DEN as the regions megahub. However, in all cases, the federal government should get the normal cut.
"They don't use the same level of landside services."
Two differant issues. To the Feds, they are the same. to the local's, true the airport does provide additional services for the bigger jet. are you saying a 747 requires 5 times the services than an A319? Doubtful. I'd even accept a "compromise solution", instead of $3.75 X Max landing weight, how about $300 + $50 X max landing weight? (numbers to make a point, not exact numbers to be revenue neutral ect.)
"Those two sentences are not synonymous. A flight from LAX to LAS uses fewer ATC resources than a flight from LAX to JFK. Yet you would have them both pay the same?"
Fine, instead of a flat fee, then a flat fee plus a milage premium, with additional fee's for high density routes.
Ahh, yes...those fly-by-night offshore shops that WN uses. Huge subsidy there. Funny how there seems to be more legacy airline use of these offshore shops. Yet another subsidy for the legacies. Outrage!
Actually, WN has had issues with domestic shops that have had inadequate oversight. Maybe if we had more scrutiny of outsourced MX, a lot of it would move back inhouse.
"No, actually the fee structures were devised to be applied progressively, like other taxes in this country. They happened to result in more dollars paid per ticket by legacy carriers, but that wasn't the goal."
What they actually result in is those who can least afford it have to pay the most. the rules weren't given to moses on stone tablets. they can (and should) be changed.
The behavior the FAA is encouraging (if you can call it that; these ticket taxes aren't what is pushing people to the LCCs) is lower fares. What pushes for less gridlock is the segment fee, which was designed in such a fashion as to benefit the legacy carriers. Oh, did you forget about that?
It's not the FAA's business. the FAA should be encouraging SAFETY. If they want lower fares, they can go drill for oil in Alaska. The FAA has turned it's back on what should be it's primary mission in the past, with disasterous results. As to the segment fee, wrong, the majors wanted the fee to apply to ALL segments. SWA lobbied successfully to limit it to two segments.
Not really the case. Even at max density, the 747-400's weight to pax number ratio will still be higher. But lets consider the second point. you think UAL "chose" to utilize it's resources less efficiently. so the government has a place punishing UAL for the way UAL uses UAL'S RESOURCES, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS. In Fact, UAL is utilizing the PUBLICS resources SIGNIFICANTLY more efficiently than FRNT, yet must pay CONSIDERABLY more. It's like only opening up the carpool lane to a single occupant midsize sedan, while banning 8 pax SUV's.
"Depends on who you ask."
Oh please, make that case. In doing so, please point out the economic bananza enjoyed by cities with only LCC traffic.
"Believe me, they have historically subsidized the hub airports as well, in the form of higher ticket costs."
I think the facts would prove otherwise. Assuming ticket prices were "high" (verses the time to either go to a differant city to connect or the cost in time an expense to drive to another city), all the money spent on tickets generally showed up right back in the community in the form of increased spending by airline employees. It certainly never resulted in enormous profits for the local carrier.
"But that means that the FAA is subsidizing UA every time UA charges less than F9 for a ticket. Outrage!"
Anytime a UAL jet leaves the gate paying less in fees than a FRNT jet heading to the same destination, ABSOLUTELY!! Flat fee's for all. And you can even caveat that by having higher fees in some high density markets, which would ENCOURAGE companies to 'upsize' equipment to relieve some of the congestion.
I'll take it one step farther. In the case of DIA, they may want to encourage intrastate air travel, so fee abatements or reductions for travel from say, COS-DEN should be a consideration. Additionally, DEN should not collect landing fee's from through pax (prorated landing fee's). This would ENCOURAGE hub service in DEN which would result in more destinations, more frequencies, and more spillover economic benefit to the city and State. I'd even suggest "trapment zones", ie reduced landing fees for traffic from bordering states (SLC, ABQ, ICT) cement DEN as the regions megahub. However, in all cases, the federal government should get the normal cut.
"They don't use the same level of landside services."
Two differant issues. To the Feds, they are the same. to the local's, true the airport does provide additional services for the bigger jet. are you saying a 747 requires 5 times the services than an A319? Doubtful. I'd even accept a "compromise solution", instead of $3.75 X Max landing weight, how about $300 + $50 X max landing weight? (numbers to make a point, not exact numbers to be revenue neutral ect.)
"Those two sentences are not synonymous. A flight from LAX to LAS uses fewer ATC resources than a flight from LAX to JFK. Yet you would have them both pay the same?"
Fine, instead of a flat fee, then a flat fee plus a milage premium, with additional fee's for high density routes.
Ahh, yes...those fly-by-night offshore shops that WN uses. Huge subsidy there. Funny how there seems to be more legacy airline use of these offshore shops. Yet another subsidy for the legacies. Outrage!
Actually, WN has had issues with domestic shops that have had inadequate oversight. Maybe if we had more scrutiny of outsourced MX, a lot of it would move back inhouse.
"No, actually the fee structures were devised to be applied progressively, like other taxes in this country. They happened to result in more dollars paid per ticket by legacy carriers, but that wasn't the goal."
What they actually result in is those who can least afford it have to pay the most. the rules weren't given to moses on stone tablets. they can (and should) be changed.
The behavior the FAA is encouraging (if you can call it that; these ticket taxes aren't what is pushing people to the LCCs) is lower fares. What pushes for less gridlock is the segment fee, which was designed in such a fashion as to benefit the legacy carriers. Oh, did you forget about that?
It's not the FAA's business. the FAA should be encouraging SAFETY. If they want lower fares, they can go drill for oil in Alaska. The FAA has turned it's back on what should be it's primary mission in the past, with disasterous results. As to the segment fee, wrong, the majors wanted the fee to apply to ALL segments. SWA lobbied successfully to limit it to two segments.
Twice as many people fly from Dallas to Houston as from Dallas to Denver. More people fly from Dallas to San Antonio than to Denver.
