… and scratching one’s head over airline add-on fees. On Monday, USA Today’s lead front page story touted “FAA low priorities get $3.5 billion in grantsâ€. It was another in a series of installments of late by the newspaper to challenge how FAA disseminates grants for airport infrastructure.
If there is a commonality among these recent articles it is that the newspaper appears to swallow the party line of the Air Transport Association, whether it’s on where FAA directs Airport Improvement Program monies to the group’s opposition to an increase in the passenger facility charge (PFC) cap, now at $4.50.
In Monday’s article, USA Today charges that FAA has directed some $3.5 billion since 1998 to “low priority†airports which “do little to improve the most pressing needs in the nation’s aviation system.†In the article Kate Lang, the FAA’s top airport official, defends the spending, noting “they’re all good projects.†Former DOT Inspector General Ken Mead is quoted as saying that FAA should revise its rating system and that the process should be transparent. He may be right, and reevaluating processes in place at any government agency is never a bad idea.
Yet, USA Today needs to send one of its experienced aviation writers out to a number of business aviation airports around the nation and see what benefits they bring to local communities and commerce. Commercial air carrier airports aren’t the only cogs in the U.S. air transportation system. It could be helpful to USA Today readers if the newspaper shared some of the benefits of non-airline airports.
On the subject of fees, the latest stats from the DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics show that U.S. carriers in the third quarter charged passengers at least $2 billion in fees to transport baggage, change reservations, or carry pets, up 36 percent over the prior year. Now, these revenues are certainly helping the airlines in their effort to turn a profit, which is a good thing. And of course, in the case of baggage fees, these are new sources of revenue that have emerged only in recent years.
The rub lies in the fact that whenever airports propose increasing the PFC cap, it is ATA which raises the biggest fuss. ATA president James May continually campaigns against the PFC increase, charging that a raise in the fee will turn customers away, further frustrating the airlines’ ability to be profitable.
Twice this week I paid United Airlines $20 to handle my bag. Didn’t think twice about it … I recognize it’s the cost of doing business in the new airline world. With a PFC of $7.50, my ticket at most would have had another $6 tacked onto the fare. Let’s see -- $6 versus $20 … whose fees are discouraging the passengers?
Time for ATA to get on board with the PFC increase; after all, it is the airlines which are the greatest beneficiaries of the airport improvements that they provide. And it’s time for USA Today to get a handle on the bigger picture of aviation infrastructure funding.
Thanks for reading. jfi