lowecur
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Posts
- 2,317
uke: uke: uke: Can somebody clean me up?:laugh: .35 to .55 per 1000 lbs. This would probably bankrupt WN.
My favorite quote: "Ron Ricks, Southwest's senior vice president of law, airports and public affairs, said the airline is OK with an increase of 20 cents in landing fees but not more than that. "If that's going to change, we have to go back and reconsider," Mr. Ricks said. This is the subtle threat to move the headquarters only. There's no way they would give up DAL as a destination.[SIZE=+1]Dallas: Airport hopes to offset deficit with 57% boost in landing charge
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]05:55 AM CST on Tuesday, January 10, 2006
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By KATIE FAIRBANK and TANYA EISERER / The Dallas Morning News [/SIZE]
Landing fees at Love Field would jump 57 percent under a plan presented Monday to a Dallas City Council committee, resulting in the same rate charged by the airport three decades ago.
The increase from 35 cents to 55 cents per 1,000 pounds still places Love Field far below the average landing fees charged by similar airports.
"If we were charging the landing fee that was just average, we'd be making an additional $5 million, and landing fees would be 19 percent of total revenues," said council member Angela Hunt. "Frankly, the 55-cent fee is 20 years out of date."
Dallas Love Field first set a 55-cent landing fee in 1975. Twelve years later, the City Council offered a fee structure to encourage airlines to operate quieter airplanes at the airport.
Fees for older, noisier aircraft remained at 55 cents per 1,000 pounds, while newer, quieter aircraft paid 35 cents. By 2000, the Federal Aviation Administration required that all aircraft be the quieter version. Even so, Love Field kept the 35-cent landing fee.
Council member Ron Natinsky said the fees should have bounced back up years ago when the lower rate was no longer necessary as an incentive. "We missed revenue," he said
Airports try to balance their revenues and expenditures because by federal law, they are supposed to try to break even. They can't make too much of a surplus or they can be sued for overcharging the airlines and tenants. If they make too little, they run the risk of not being able to deal with emergencies.
Love Field historically ran a surplus until recently. But things have changed. A review of the airport's finances last week by The Dallas Morning News showed that the Aviation Department had a $20 million shortfall over two recent fiscal years, resulting in a drop in the airport's bond rating and an inquiry by city auditors.
Dave Cook, the city's chief financial officer, said the staff is "recommending the 55 cents now because, as the picture shows, that rate provides us with slightly better than break-even."
Aviation director Kenneth Gwyn said the fee increase, along with additional flights at the airport because of a change in the Wright amendment allowing flights to Missouri, is projected to add about $476,000 in revenues in fiscal year 2006 and would put the airport's finances back in the black by fiscal year 2007.
However, council members asked why it has taken so long to increase fees and why they're only going up 20 cents, especially because the landing fees would still be as much as $1.48 less than the average rate at comparably sized airports. Meanwhile, parking and concession rates are some of the highest.
"Why don't we put some of this on the backs of the major airlines?" Ms. Hunt asked.
Ron Ricks, Southwest's senior vice president of law, airports and public affairs, said the airline is OK with an increase of 20 cents in landing fees but not more than that. "If that's going to change, we have to go back and reconsider," Mr. Ricks said.
The issue will go before the City Council on Feb. 22 for a decision. If the council approves the new rates, they would go into effect April 1.
Accounting questioned
During the meeting, council members also questioned other accounting at the Aviation Department, in particular fund balances that don't match up and the legality of a $2.3 million loan to the 911 fund without full City Council approval.
The April 2004 transfer was discovered during a May audit of the 911 fund, which was created from emergency services fees to support the 911 phone system.
Mr. Natinsky compared the loan to dipping into a child's college fund and then "telling them, 'Don't worry, I'll give it to you before you go to college.' I just see a concern when we start moving [money] from the left pocket to the right pocket," he said.
Mr. Cook said the transfer was legal but told council members that in the future, similar transfers would be brought before the full City Council for approval. He also assured the council members that the money would be repaid with interest to the aviation fund.
imp:
Last edited:
