Boycott Nwa

[flywithruss]

I saw this on March 1st on an NWA flight. Faxed it to NBAA and AOPA the next day. Have since been contacted by both and assured they're taking steps to fight this one.

Anderson is factually inaccurate in certain areas. PFCs pay for terminal facility improvements ... my corporate passengers don't use those facilities ... why should they pay for them? I also pay 21.9 cents in FET on each and every gallon of fuel purchased, as do all GA pilots. Anderson also completely leaves out landing fees ... if my King Air lands at MSP, I pay a weight-based landing fee just like Northwest did for the A-319 I rode out there on a couple weeks ago. Let's not forget about ramp fees, parking fees, fuel flowage fees, etc collected by FBOs or airport authorities ... trust me, GA is pulling its weight in the system.

R

 

[canyonblue]

So are these frac operators going to ask to use another Airline for repositioning their crews?

 

[320AV8R]

NWA has been through a few rounds of cost-cutting measures.

During an investigation of landing fees in MSP, it was discovered that the Metropolitan Airports Comission was inappropriately usuing the funds it collected. The MAC controls MSP & 5 or 6 GA airports in the MSP area. The MAC was USING REVENUE FROM LANDING FEES AT MSP TO SUPPORT OPERATIONS AT THE OTHER AIRPORTS. In other words, NWA was indirectly supporting GA at other airports. Anderson's claim is "why should a passenger flying LAX-MSP-ORD support the operations at an outlying facility they never used?" They shouldn't. The GA airports should be self-sufficient.

Should the MAC charge HIGHER landing fees at the GA airports to reduce the fees NWA pays at MSP? Would that be fair? The fair solution is for the users to pay for what they use....A320s, C-152, whatever.

The call to "Boycott NWA" is quite interesting, & seems extreme. Would buying revenue tickets be off-limits, but riding the Jump Seat be OK?

 

[Flying the Line]

First of all this thread topic is Major Airlines, not C-172 pilots.

As a furloughed pilot and current King Air driver I can tell you that I get every service that a Airline gets and pay VERY LITTLE in return.

The 5% tax on 100LL does not go to the aviation trust fund, it is state and local.

On jet fuel we pay a 71/2% tax that is EXCISE tax that does go to the av trust fund. On a recent trip of 3 hours round trip we paid $41 in Aviation taxes. That is a drop in the bucket compared to what the airlines pay. 20.50 in one way taxes for 6 people compared to 3575.00 for an airline flight ($55 per pax X 130 pax / 2 landings).

Believe me that the owner of this King Air likes the scheduling and availibilty of his own airplane and would easily pay a lot more to keep it.

It is time to stop burdening the average passenger with high taxes while letting the ultra rich off the hook with minimum taxes for equal treatment.

Mr. Anderson is not calling for landing fees of 100.00 per C152 landing, but an increase of taxes on corporate aircraft.

It is becoming too cheap to charter these days and those of us who want to return to the airlines ASAP don't want to keep losing out to the fractionals and and private aircraft.

P.S. My job sucks.

 

[CatYaaak]

Mr. Anderson is not calling for landing fees of 100.00 per C152 landing, but an increase of taxes on corporate aircraft.

It is becoming too cheap to charter these days and those of us who want to return to the airlines ASAP don't want to keep losing out to the fractionals and and private aircraft.

P.S. My job sucks.

You think you're gonna tax them back into your airliners so you can soak them like you once tried to do? Think again. I think the airlines will have to look elsewhere to solve their self-inflicted problems. Begin by offering actual service and convenience, or sane pricing for business travelers, then go from there. You'll never change them back into your captive audience by merely holding a tax-gun to their heads.

Use Europe as an example; user fees for ATC, high handling charges and airport fees, and plenty of large corporations/wealthy individuals. They have relatively few corporate flight departments or private jets due to these excessive tax rates, but those exhorbitant taxes on the "other guy" certainly haven't kept the European airlines from bleeding red.

Coming from someone who wants to be recalled to an airline, your statement about chartering becoming "too cheap" is a little ironic don't you think? And a little ridiculous considering that the price of chartering airplanes hasn't come down. On the other hand, if something has become "too cheap", it's airline tickets.

The airlines have chosen to cater to the flip-flop crowd, not those wearing Brooks Brothers who were the foundation of the income. They're all too busy trying to emulate cattle car SWA's business model. Companies sending high-salary employees around the country can't afford to waste their valuable time airline travel promises when there is a much more efficient alternative, and wealthy individuals pay, and will always pay, to avoid the same hassles and substandard service like the plague.

Sorry your job sucks though.

 

[G100driver]

.

It is becoming too cheap to charter these days and those of us who want to return to the airlines ASAP don't want to keep losing out to the fractionals and and private aircraft.

I too am sorry that your job sucks.

If the airlines could figure out how to keep from wasting peoples time (money) perhaps the folks who charter might consider getting back on the majors.

Do not forget that a signifcant group of professionals work in the G/A sector. I, and the firm that I work for, are supporting the majors through our tax dollars (bailout). Evertime an airplane over 6000lbs(?) goes out on charter the customer must pay a FET tax of 7.5%. Consider a $100,000 G-III charter to Europe. That is $7500.00 fee. Not to mention the local taxes, local landing fees, ect. I think that Mr/Mrs charter customer is taxed enough.

No one ever taxed themselves into prosperity.

 

[DCitrus9]

CatYaak said "Use Europe as an example; user fees for ATC, high handling charges and airport fees, and plenty of large corporations/wealthy individuals."

I am tired of people advocating user fees by comparing us to europe. It is like comparing apples to eggs. The user fee is a fine, but DIFFERENT, tax system. There is no income tax, alas a higher take home pay to spend on items you see fit. You will be taxed appropriately on said items.

 

[CatYaaak]

CatYaak said "Use Europe as an example; user fees for ATC, high handling charges and airport fees, and plenty of large corporations/wealthy individuals."

I am tired of people advocating user fees by comparing us to europe. It is like comparing apples to eggs. The user fee is a fine, but DIFFERENT, tax system. There is no income tax, alas a higher take home pay to spend on items you see fit. You will be taxed appropriately on said items.

I'm not advocating their system. Their system (their entire system, not just their ATC/user fee system), IMO, sucks, and has the larger effect of quashing aviation in all sectors, as well as individual wealth.

My point to the other poster was that you can't tax yourself, even if it's being used against your competition, into prosperity.

 

[merikeyegro]

GA pays its share. Fuel fees are about right, ramp and landing fees where needed. Need we remind the airlines that reliever airports exist to RELIEVE THE BIG AIRPORTS OF DELAYS. Also, I'm pretty certain the the fuel-flowage fees go into the trust fund. I'll look it up, but I'm almost sure that one of the aviation acts of the 1970s used this tax to help upgrade the clogged system at the time. I'll go home and look it up when I get the chance. I'm almost sure it was during the Nixon Administration. Took a class on this stuff last year (brain dump, sorry).

GA should not be subsidizing airlines, nor the converse. I'd say we're all overtaxed, but it's a user-funded system, so I can't complain too loudly. Kill GA and you kill your source of employees.

Join AOPA and fight these fools. NWA (parents worked for them for over 30 years) has a well-documented history of bullying just about everyone in MSP for financial gain. It spans multiple decades and many a CEO. They are NOT your friends.

That being said, they're a helluva lot nicer (and more on-time) than Delta (or Continental, surprisingly - in the "nicer" area) and I plan to continue to fly them. Guess it's the best of the worst...Count me out for the boycott...

 

[goaliemn]

During an investigation of landing fees in MSP, it was discovered that the Metropolitan Airports Comission was inappropriately usuing the funds it collected. The MAC controls MSP & 5 or 6 GA airports in the MSP area. The MAC was USING REVENUE FROM LANDING FEES AT MSP TO SUPPORT OPERATIONS AT THE OTHER AIRPORTS. In other words, NWA was indirectly supporting GA at other airports. Anderson's claim is "why should a passenger flying LAX-MSP-ORD support the operations at an outlying facility they never used?" They shouldn't. The GA airports should be self-sufficient.

Part of the reason NWA pays for some of the reliever airports is to increase efficiency at MSP. The reliever airports were built to relieve congestion at MSP. If they weren;t helping support the smaller airports, they would have more GA at MSP.

I do believe that the airports need to be looked at. There are acouple of relievers that seem to be dying a slow death. I think they could trim the funding that some get, or even close down at least one.

 

[pilotman2105]

I'm on vacation now and just flew NWA. Won't fly them again. His arguments in the article are pretty rediculous. Others in the thread have already pointed out how GA users pay. NWA (and all of the other majors) needs to stop pointing the finger and start looking internally for ways to cut costs and increase profit (or decrease their losses).

 

[320AV8R]

Part of the reason NWA pays for some of the reliever airports is to increase efficiency at MSP.

Wrong. NWA "pays" nothing to reliever airports. The landing fees paid to use MSP were DIVERTED to other airports by the MAC. Efficiency is a result of the number of aircraft operations, not something that is purchased.


The reliever airports were built to relieve congestion at MSP. If they weren;t helping support the smaller airports, they would have more GA at MSP.


Correct. However, the decision to build & operate those GA airports rests with the local governments, the FAA etc....not an airline operation at MSP; who has no business subsidizing their operation.

 

[G100driver]

Correct. However, the decision to build & operate those GA airports rests with the local governments, the FAA etc....not an airline operation at MSP; who has no business subsidizing their operation.

Those is glass houses ......

 

[goaliemn]

Wrong. NWA "pays" nothing to reliever airports. The landing fees paid to use MSP were DIVERTED to other airports by the MAC. Efficiency is a result of the number of aircraft operations, not something that is purchased.

By moving the aircraft to another reliever airport, that helps with efficiency. So you do indirectly purchase efficiency.

As a private pilot, I do pay some for the airport with hangar rent, aircraft registration fees, fuel fees. I don't use much ATC as I don't fly instrument, and I also don't fly above 018FL, which requires ATC contact. Airlines always use ATC, and they do generate revenue. Much like how residential phone service costs less than business, and business phone service helps subsidize residential service.

NWA did come out and attack the smaller airports afew months ago saying they were losing revenue because of them. Yes, it may hurt them some, but I'd say 99% of the flying public won't go to STP and get on their private jet and take that instead of flying in a big jet. They may lose afew tickets to them, but I don't think its a substantial number. I know if I'm flying more than afew hundred miles, I usually go commercial as I don't want to spend all day puttering my way across the country.

 

[320AV8R]

By moving the aircraft to another reliever airport, that helps with efficiency. So you do indirectly purchase efficiency.

We don't move GA aircraft to other airports. They move themselves, since the facilities & operating conditions are more GA friendly.