Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

The Seedy Side Of Swa @islip

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

lowecur

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Posts
2,317
Welp it seems B6 lapdog Sen Charles Schumer has requested the US Attorney General look into unsavory business dealings involving SWA at Islip Airport. The purported funding of the terminal was just a smoke screen where SWA is getting their money back and more from Federal airport assistance programs and taxpayer money. Herb has declined to comment, and Pete is serving 90 days in jail for stealing campaign funds.

:pimp:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liair0626,0,695741.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Terminal expansion's public price tag

SANDRA PEDDIE AND EDEN LAIKIN
Newsday Staff Writers

June 24, 2006, 11:57 PM EDT

Disgraced Islip Supervisor Pete McGowan billed the Southwest Airlines expansion at Long Island MacArthur Airport as a deal that wouldn't cost taxpayers a penny. But a Newsday investigation has found that millions of public dollars are nonetheless being spent on the project, and because of the way Islip Town structured the deal with the airline, local taxpayers won't get the benefit of millions in rent and concession fees.

Federal, state and Islip town records show that at least $65 million in public money, the bulk of it federal grants, is being spent to defray costs of the expansion and related construction at the airport. On top of that, the airline pays no rent and keeps all net concession fees from its new terminal -- at least $100 million in rent, and an undisclosed amount in concession fees over the next 25 years.

While the 174,000-square-foot terminal was built on town-owned land with some public funds, the Southwest expansion deal with Islip was forged with little input from town residents. Because Southwest paid for the construction, no public bidding was required.

Records show there also was no extended environmental review, even though the project involved clearing 80 acres of land.

In addition, Newsday's investigation has found, campaign records show that contractors who worked on the project contributed at least $87,375 to former Supervisor Pete McGowan and Islip Republicans since 2000. McGowan is currently serving a 90-day jail sentence for stealing campaign money and taking campaign kickbacks unrelated to the airport deal.

"This just proves that the public needs to be aware of how money is spent," said Yvonne Patterson-Quirk, president of the Islip Town NAACP, who filed a taxpayer lawsuit -- later dismissed primarily because a judge ruled that it exceeded the statute of limitations -- over construction at the airport. "Because even though he claimed no taxpayer money went into it, public money did."

Town defends deal

Acting Town Supervisor Eric Hofmeister defended the agreement, saying Islip residents benefited. "I think the town is getting a tremendous asset as a result of the deal," he said. "We're getting a company such as Southwest, obviously a large airline, that has a vested interest in MacArthur."

The airport expansion is under investigation by Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota, whose detectives last week also found serious fire hazards in the Southwest terminal. Town officials have said they are cooperating with the investigation.

Southwest has expanded its operations at other airports around the country, but those projects were mostly publicly funded.

Such airport building projects typically take five to 10 years, said Daniel Petree, dean of the College of Business at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla. At Islip, Southwest will have completed construction in about three years.

"I certainly understand why the airline would want to do it. They have to respond to market demand, and they don't feel like they can wait five or 10 years," he said.

However, he added, "Because you expedite the process, you don't get the full public hearing, and things can get overlooked or get missed or, frankly, not addressed."

Unanimous support

With McGowan leading the way, town board members voted unanimously for the deal in August 2000. Councilwoman Pamela Greene, who is running for supervisor, conceded they knew few details.


Pav-Co, a Holbrook-based asphalt company that has contributed generously to Islip Republicans, got the contract to expand the parking lot at a cost of $3.5 million, Werner said. Records show that Pav-Co, which is facing federal fraud charges filed last year for bid-rigging on local contracts, has done at least $20 million in work at the airport since 1998. Pav-Co attorneys have denied the charges.

Pav-Co also did the work on the new apron, where planes pull up to the terminal to pick up and discharge passengers. As has been reported by Newsday, large and potentially dangerous cracks started appearing in the apron last November, and town and company officials are conducting tests to determine the cause.

With great fanfare, Southwest celebrated its debut at MacArthur on St. Patrick's Day, 1999. A little more than a year later, town records show, company and town officials quietly agreed on key points of the deal to expand the terminal.

According to a June 18, 2000, letter from Southwest property manager Peter Houghton to then-Town Attorney Messina, Southwest agreed to design, finance and construct the new gates. In exchange, it would not have to pay sales taxes for materials, would retain all net concessions from the new concourse and receive the town's assistance in getting federal funding for parts of the project. No announcement was made until three months later, in August, when the town board approved the agreement.

"It was the perfect situation where two different parties with different, but complementary needs met," said Ronald Ricks, a Southwest senior vice president. "We needed real estate to operate here and Islip needed air service."

He added, "It's a creative, precedent-setting model."

Political gains

With Southwest's expansion plans taking shape, contributions began to flow into the campaign coffers of McGowan and Islip Town Republicans. Southwest and its company co-founder, Herb Kelleher, began to contribute $1,500 a year, beginning in 2000, records show. Pav-Co and its related companies gave $19,200 from 2000 to 2005. Aviation Constructors, the general contractor for the first phase of the expansion, gave $11,000, the records show.

By comparison, Pav-Co gave $2,900 to McGowan's campaign from 1996 to 1998, and Aviation Constructors gave a total of $1,600 in 1997 and 1998.

Kelleher, who has retired as Southwest's chief executive, declined to be interviewed.

Having Southwest finance the construction was touted as a major coup for the town. A review of records shows that millions of public money would, nonetheless, be funneled into the project.

Although Southwest paid for the construction, it is expected to receive at least $21.6 million in federal funds, generated from a ticket surcharge, for construction-related costs. Another $13 million in federal funds was spent to expand the ticket and baggage areas, and $12.4 million for terminal roadway improvements to accommodate increased traffic.

As for local costs, records show, Islip Town spent more than $1.8 million on legal and engineering fees and at least $969,485 to publicize the new gates.

A rent-free deal

The benefits to Southwest didn't stop there. Southwest pays no rent on the terminal for 25 years, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Currently, the airport charges $24.73 a square foot, with annual increases, to other airlines. At the 2006 rate, that means savings of more than $4 million a year for Southwest, or more than $100 million over the life of the lease.

Southwest officials declined to say how much income the company earns from concessions. By comparison, at Manchester-Boston Airport, where Southwest leases 20,582 square feet -- or about one-eighth of the space the airline has at MacArthur -- the airport earns more than $4.2 million in rent and $1.3 million annually from concessions, according to Assistant Airport Director J. Brian O'Neill.

One other element of the Southwest deal made it unusual -- it was written as a concession agreement.

Because Southwest was already operating at the airport, the expansion was not treated as new business, which would normally have to bid for the work.

To oversee the construction and expedite the permit process for Southwest, Islip hired a Hauppauge-based engineering firm, Cashin Associates, town officials said. Executives at Cashin did not return repeated calls for comments.

In 2003, Democrat Ginny Fields ran against McGowan for supervisor. In campaign speeches, she called the expansion a "secretive back-room deal." McGowan won, after touting his role in the airport expansion.

The project became a part of McGowan's legacy as supervisor, his supporters said. So it was only fitting that when the new terminal was opened in 2004, it acquired a new name: The Peter J. McGowan Concourse.

McGowan held up the opening for a week, Werner said, to make sure they installed $6,500 worth of lighting around his name.

After his conviction in March, his name was removed.
 
Plane smart! Baby!
 
"The airport expansion is under investigation by Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota, whose detectives last week also found serious fire hazards in the Southwest terminal."

Any truth to the rumor it was a clan of typical SWA passengers burning their 20-year old ripped t-shirts in compliance with NY's Anti-Clampett General Hygiene ordanance?
 
SWA/FO said:
Plane smart! Baby!
Yeah, that's why Herb refuses to comment.;)

Let's see:
  • $65M reimbursement from Feds & Taxpayers
  • $100M reimbursement over 25 yrs - no rent
  • Concessions from Car Rental & Restaurants & other tenants in terminal that probably amounts to millions more per year.
The big question is if the airport had to issue bonds to build the terminal, what would it have cost the airport to pay the bondholders over that period. If it's close to the above, then SWA skates. If not, then you are looking at a SWA payback and hundreds of millions in Federal fines.

I understand who ever built the terminal did a shoddy job, and just who will pay to do the repairs will also come into the equation.

:pimp:
 
Democrats should have dug a little deeper before making a political issue of it. Herb is a Democrat.

Just like the liberal left.....ready...fire.aim.

Puhleaze.

If there is anything dirty going on, it had better be presented without the words Democrat, Republican, or Schumer anywhere in it. Otherwise, yawn, whatelse ya got?
 
1BigRodeo said:
If there is anything dirty going on, it had better be presented without the words Democrat, Republican, or Schumer anywhere in it. Otherwise, yawn, whatelse ya got?
OK, I'll call Charles and the AG and make sure.:laugh:

Questions will undoubtedly come up about the lack of feasibility studies, construction permits, kickbacks, campaign contributions, hiring of GC, engineering firm, and other issues that SWA had an integral part of overseeing. This coupled with serious code violations that were overlooked, and the construction defects will be difficult for SWA to deflect.

It's a very messy issue, but if anyone knows how to sidestep dodo, it's Herb.

:pimp:


 
Not that anyone cares for the overbearing, loudmouth, Jesse Jackson wannabe Schumer, but it will be interesting to see if this goes any further than a simple newspaper investigation.
 
Ever notice that Schumer gets more face time than Jim Carey did during the Truman Show?

When does Schumer have time get anything done?
 
lowecur said:
It's a very messy issue,

:pimp:



It's not nearly as messy as you purport. This story is a yawner at best. The press, in their infinite wisdom ( hardee-har-har), hasn't done their homework once again.

Like Rodeo said: Ready.....Fire....Aim!
 
Lets see:

Hundreds of millions in fines? YGTBSM!! Get at least a little realistic.

Millions a year in concession fees. Damn, if thats true, I'll open up a car rental shop in the airport.

Schumer. Nuff said.

Typical passenger paying dimes on the dollar now to travel. Priceless.

You would think from the article and your tone that SWA had just built LAX on taxpayer money.

80 acres cleared? The terminal probably sits on a total of 5. Must be that new liberal math again.

Go Herb!!!
 
lowecur said:
OK, I'll call Charles and the AG and make sure.:laugh:

Questions will undoubtedly come up about the lack of feasibility studies, construction permits, kickbacks, campaign contributions, hiring of GC, engineering firm, and other issues that SWA had an integral part of overseeing. This coupled with serious code violations that were overlooked, and the construction defects will be difficult for SWA to deflect.

It's a very messy issue, but if anyone knows how to sidestep dodo, it's Herb.

:pimp:

I know you'll use anyexcuse to bash SWA, but the article doesn't go nearly as far as you do. From reading the article it sounds like SWA agreed to pay for the construction in order to get free rent and the concession money (the article doesn't mention rental cars as a concession - I think they just mean food).
That may end up being a great deal for us, but doesn't sound nefarious. Actually sounds pretty fair: we pay for it, we get the profit from it (for a while).

Furthermore you want to pin SWA oversight on "the lack of feasibility studies, construction permits, kickbacks, campaign contributions, hiring of GC, engineering firm"? Comon, give it a rest already. There is absolutly no indication that SWA did anything wrong, but you are so hungry for bad news about us you are trying to spin this ino watergate.

Go sell crazy somewhere else lowiqer, we're all full here.
 
Will someone please tell me how this is any different that when public money is spent building these huge sports stadiums? Except that I can afford a couple of plane tickets...two season tickets to an NFL team...now that's a different story.
 
kelbill said:
Lets see:

Hundreds of millions in fines? YGTBSM!! Get at least a little realistic. So what do you think collecting an extra $65M from the feds is worth in fines? Check some of the fines handed out by the feds to hospital chains for their billing practices to Medicare.

Millions a year in concession fees. dang, if thats true, I'll open up a car rental shop in the airport. Little Syracuse Airport collects $5.7M per year from Concessions. Just check your car rental bill next time you rent at an airport. The fees are quite high.

Schumer. Nuff said.

Typical passenger paying dimes on the dollar now to travel. Priceless.

You would think from the article and your tone that SWA had just built LAX on taxpayer money.

80 acres cleared? The terminal probably sits on a total of 5. Must be that new liberal math again.

Go Herb!!!
Time for a swig of that whiskey.

:pimp:
 
SWA GUY said:
Ever notice that Schumer gets more face time than Jim Carey did during the Truman Show?

When does Schumer have time get anything done?
They do say that the most dangerous place in D.C. is between Schumer and a camera.......!
 
ivauir said:
Furthermore you want to pin SWA oversight on "the lack of feasibility studies, construction permits, kickbacks, campaign contributions, hiring of GC, engineering firm"? Comon, give it a rest already. There is absolutly no indication that SWA did anything wrong, but you are so hungry for bad news about us you are trying to spin this ino watergate. That's why they have Federal Investigations. If the AG sees no reason to go any futher then it will go away. If the investigation is opened, then all facts will come out. If SWA did everything above board, they have nothing to worry about. Time will tell.;)

Go sell crazy somewhere else lowiqer, we're all full here.
I had to cut a few paragraphs from the article to post. The article lays out the facts as they found them. It's up to SWA to defend themselves if an investigation is opened.

http://www.newsday.com/ny-liair0625,0,2706823.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

:pimp:
 
Here's exactly what the WN deal was at ISP:

WN wanted a new terminal, so we paid for it. We agreed to a 25 year lease on the new terminal, during which time we would allow food concessions to rent space in our terminal from us. Naturally we would profit from those rental properties.

After the 25 year lease ends, WN has two options. The first is to lease it from the airport and continue to use the gates. Or, to not renew the lease and not use the gates.

The airport decided to do some modifications to the airport grounds at the same time, unrelated to WN's building of the new terminal. For those modifications, public funds were used. "Public funds" means bonds, not taxpayer money. And therein lies the confusion(apparently if you are a member of the idiotic press). If you issue bonds, you can do pretty much what you want with the money, since the bond issuance has already been approved. Now, if you side tracked taxpayer money from say the county or some other entity, you'd have some splainin' to do.

It may be true the new terminal has some construction shortcomings, I don't know that as a fact. However, if it does, I'm sure the building inspector will list whatever they are and the terminal will get up to code. Just makes me wonder where the building inspector was when the construction was going on.


This story truly has no legs, musta been a slow day at the Inquirer.
 
lowecur said:
That's why they have Federal Investigations...
:pimp:
By the word "Federal" do you mean Schumer? As in a Schumer Investigation?

Schumer's investigations remind me of that idiot Mike Nifong and his Duke rape case debacle. Hey there's no reason not to destroy some kids lives just because it's an election year, right?
 
lowecur[COLOR=#0000ff said:
If SWA did everything above board, they have nothing to worry about. Time will tell.[/COLOR]
:pimp:

Not to you. You have already determined guilt. You go way beyond anything even hinted at in the article in your haste to condemn SWA. I can't find anything in the article that SWA did that was illegal or immoral. You see a crooked politican connected to a SWA deal and start tallying the fines we'll be paying. It is more wishfull thinking on your part.
 
ivauir said:
Not to you. You have already determined guilt. No I haven't. I give SWA the benefit of the doubt as I stated. I do question SWA getting reimbursed by the FEDs over and above the deal they worked out with ISP. No wonder no other airlines will go in there to compete, it's a stacked deck. But heh, if they are entitled to it......then like I said, God bless them. You go way beyond anything even hinted at in the article in your haste to condemn SWA. I can't find anything in the article that SWA did that was illegal or immoral. You see a crooked politican connected to a SWA deal and start tallying the fines we'll be paying. It is more wishfull thinking on your part.
When you do deals with politicians who are dirty, then you open yourself up to possible investigations and innuendo. It comes with the territory.

:pimp:
 
lowecur said:
When you do deals with politicians who are dirty, then you open yourself up to possible investigations and innuendo. It comes with the territory.

:pimp:

When you deal in innuendo and not fact you will be challenged.
 
A blast from the past!!!! :smash:

Lowecur circa 06-03-2005, 08:26

Luv Lf Trend Continues Down

This has to have the powers to be scratching their collective heads. While it looks like most of the other airlines are trending 3-5 pts higher on LFs for May, SWA is trending lower.

..............For the first five months of 2006.........The year-to-date load factor was 72.3 percent, compared to 67.6 percent for the same period last year.

Quit treating this message board like an episode of Dr. Phil. Your grasp of the aviation world is uncanny.
 
It was clearly a slow day on Long Island..

If any of you dont know..Newsday is a bottom shelf local rag thats maybe one cut above pulp fiction.

Yawn....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
 
canyonblue said:
A blast from the past!!!! :smash:

Lowecur circa 06-03-2005, 08:26

Luv Lf Trend Continues Down

This has to have the powers to be scratching their collective heads. While it looks like most of the other airlines are trending 3-5 pts higher on LFs for May, SWA is trending lower.

..............For the first five months of 2006.........The year-to-date load factor was 72.3 percent, compared to 67.6 percent for the same period last year.

Quit treating this message board like an episode of Dr. Phil. Your grasp of the aviation world is uncanny.

This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

SILENCE!!!!!

:pimp:​
 
It's up to SWA to defend themselves if an investigation is opened.

You got any other color to type in or just jetBlue blue?


Southwest Airlines - represents its self. You act like this is something new. We will overcome all evil and smash anyone who trys to alter the PLAN.
 
If you guys are pissed now wait till we end run grand slam the total elimination of the Wright Ammendment by the end of the year.

Bring it.
Gup ;)
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom