Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Our Airports Are Going To Go Bust  
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4112 times:

Security costs are too high

It is totally unfair that while the government subsidises security on the train network, airports have to pay for it themselves. Have a level playing field. Either subsidise both or subsidise no-one.

Of course, the better alternative is to downsize all this unnecessary security waste, which is not got to do anything to stop terrorism and simply makes it unpleasant for the rest of us (and hence bias things in favour of trains where their advocates can point to the ease of the train station over the airport).

It's not aviation's fault that trains are economic and would sink without government help.

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePr1268 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

I know someone who works for CO - she had a similar argument about the U.S.'s role in airport security. She mentioned LY - the most security-conscious airline in the world - being the Israeli flag carrier (and perhaps because Israel is a decent-sized population in a small geographic area), airport and airline security is actually a matter of national security. Yet, even in the U.S.A. where we now have a cabinet-level department of "Homeland Security" and that thingy TSA, then if these are supposed to be components of national security, then how come just the airlines (ultimately the pax) have to pay?  confused   confused   confused 

Discuss...



The only time an aircraft has too much fuel is when it is on fire.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
Either subsidise both or subsidise no-one.

Even though I don't live in the EU nor have I ever visited the EU (Heck, I have never left the U.S.), I have to say I agree with this. Be fair in the competition. Dont punish the airports if they go bankrupt.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineNYC2theworld From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 664 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3710 times:

Here in the US, amtrak (national passenger rail company) has its own police force. Which comes out of Amtrak's budget. (Mind you Amtrak has not ever made money and is subsidized by the government). So in that sense, the users are actually paying for it also, although the percentage of users paying for rail security vs. air security very skewed.


Always wonderers if this "last and final boarding call" is in fact THE last and final boarding call.
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3690 times:

Quite frankly, I don't have a problem in principle with a business having to pay for the necessities of its operation, including security, but there are two problems with the current situation:

Airports are required to have more security than trains, which is without basis.

Trains receive subsidy to cover their costs.

Aviation is told it needs to do more and pay for it itself. Yet again, aviation gets picked on. It's the whipping boy of the Westminster Village.


User currently offlineNema From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2832 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
It is totally unfair that while the government subsidises security on the train network, airports have to pay for it themselves. Have a level playing field. Either subsidise both or subsidise no-one

In one way or another, we the innocent travelling public will in the long run be made to pay for todays problems that have in the main, been created by a bunch of polititians who really neither have a clue or even care much about anything other than their cosy income. I wonder how many polititians who actually either give a damn or even actually show to be doing something positive about todays travel industry are members on a.net and read or even act on our concerns, dare i say it...i,d give a pound for every one!

Air travel has shown a breathtaking advancement since its original conception, most of which has happened in our time. It seems that the only people that keep up with this growth are the people within the industry who really need more help from our leaders than is normally at hand. I also feel positive help for the future is needed, not the negative rubbish such as their verbal support for reducing air travel due to global warming effects or stifling the already bustling airports with inadequate security proceedures. Anyone with half a brain can easily devise a moderate flow of passenger movement with suitably acceptable security measures that makes our travel as safe as it can be and as enjoyable as it should be. Once again, governments can help but they choose not to in the sense that would appease us enthusiasts because it wont win votes, it costs money and of course, at the end of the day, we are expendable.



There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7114 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2561 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
It is totally unfair that while the government subsidises security on the train network, airports have to pay for it themselves. Have a level playing field. Either subsidise both or subsidise no-one.

How much VAT and duties does the aviation sector pay on Fuel?



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineSevenair From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 1728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2559 times:

Yeah, airports make a heck of a lot of money. Why shouldn't they absorb some of the cost?

User currently offlineDjmatthews From United Kingdom, joined Dec 1999, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2559 times:

If the government are to impose restrictions, extra security rules etc, then they need to be stumping up the cash. The government shouldn’t make it mandatory for me to install a burglar alarm in my home without providing me some form of financial incentive.

When the Labour party was a socialist party, I’m sure it would have paid for these extra measures. I say scrap the ID Card project and introduce proper measures at airports. The only problem is if something went wrong, who would take the blame – the Home Office….. Again!?!?

If the government is serious about security, then they will need to cough up all or a huge portion of the cost, if not BAA and the other airport operators will then start cutting costs, there’ll be another incident and we’ll end up with more news articles like the one above.

I actually like the idea of having a national uniformed border control, not only monitoring everyone leaving and arriving at an airport, but also the Eurotunnel and sea ports too.

To minimise costs, the operation should a special unit of the police force, with them being responsible for recruitment and training, however, they would not actually be police or have the same powers. Ultimately the police are there for our safety and protection, so should boarder control.

Many people may argue “I don’t’ fly why should I pay for this measure”, well isn’t that the case for a lot of services in this country?


User currently offlineOtnySASLHR From Spain, joined May 2007, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Quoting Nema (Reply 5):
Anyone with half a brain can easily devise a moderate flow of passenger movement with suitably acceptable security measures that makes our travel as safe as it can be and as enjoyable as it should be.

OK go ahead devise a plan and put it forward - if it works I'm sure the airports will pay you for your time and efforts.



oTny
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26415 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):

It is totally unfair that while the government subsidises security on the train network, airports have to pay for it themselves. Have a level playing field. Either subsidise both or subsidise no-one.

Do you really think airports will go bust? No. The government will never allow that to happen

Quoting NYC2theworld (Reply 3):
Here in the US, amtrak (national passenger rail company) has its own police force. Which comes out of Amtrak's budget.

The Amtrak Police are federally mandated and considered federal police officers

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):

Airports are required to have more security than trains, which is without basis.

It is absolutely not without basis. Airplanes are higher profile targets and stand pretty much no chance of making it safely to earth if they are taken over while in the air. Meanwhile, trains have their drivers separated more from the rest of the vehicle than aircraft do as well as having conductors on board who maintain safety on board. Further, it is much easier for backup security forces to board a train that is running at ground level and can be stopped anywhere on its route than an aircraft that is over 30,000 feet and has to be landed at an airport.

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):

Trains receive subsidy to cover their costs.

And airlines/airports receive subsidies too. Security costs can be levied as fees on passengers. Airports in the US are government owned and collect landing fees from airlines and PFCs from passengers through airlines. Airports in the UK are a government mandated monopoly that is essentially handed to the operators, who are then allowed to do make money in all sorts of ways.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 6):

How much VAT and duties does the aviation sector pay on Fuel?

Actually, in the US, aviation fuel is generally not taxed.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Meanwhile, trains have their drivers separated more from the rest of the vehicle than aircraft do as well as having conductors on board who maintain safety on board.

What do you call hardened cockpit doors and flight attendents?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Security costs can be levied as fees on passengers.

If they are having to raise ticket prices to cover the costs, that isn't a subsidy.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Actually, in the US, aviation fuel is generally not taxed.

Over half my ticket price is tax. Just because they aren't paying tax on one particular aspect doesn't denigrate the swathes of other taxes.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Further, it is much easier for backup security forces to board a train that is running at ground level and can be stopped anywhere on its route than an aircraft that is over 30,000 feet and has to be landed at an airport.

What does that have to do with having to take our shoes off and not being allowed to take bottles of liquid airside. Hijacking is so old school. The threat today is a plain and simple bombing. Both vehicles are targets.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21555 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Actually, in the US, aviation fuel is generally not taxed.

Correction: airline fuel is generally not taxed. GA does pay taxes on its fuel.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2237 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Airports in the UK are a government mandated monopoly that is essentially handed to the operators, who are then allowed to do make money in all sorts of ways.

BAA Ltd own LHR, LGW, STN, ABZ, EDI, SOU, GLA. They do not own LTN, LCY, MAN, BHX, LPL, BFS, PIK, INV, NCL. Hardly a monopoly. And not a government mandated one. The British Airports Authority operated 6 of the 7 is currently owns when it was privitised. If you want to complain about the government not breaking up the institution for privitisation, I'm certainly not going to stop you.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21503 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Quoting Djmatthews (Reply 8):
If the government are to impose restrictions, extra security rules etc, then they need to be stumping up the cash.

On this side of the pond we call this an "unfunded mandate" and it's a hot button issue every time one comes down. By requiring a school to meet a standard, but not providing money reach that standard, you are creating an unfunded mandate. That's the most common argument these days. But we even had one such argument here in California about a mandatory animal "fixing" bill that would have created a costly local burden while the state didn't pay the localities for the cost. The bill ended up being withdrawn.

But the federal government has done the same thing with the airport security. Then again, I'd assume the insurance industry would demand it of their policy holders anyway. If the feds hadn't required reinforced cockpits, the insurers would have required them. But I would prefer that the private sector takes care of it, as the government standard is almost always LOWER than the standard the private industry would adopt (see detergent in car fuel for an example of this inversion).

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Do you really think airports will go bust? No. The government will never allow that to happen

Exactly. The only reason rail is subsidized now is because it went BK already. Once the airports do the same, the government can gain control back, run them badly, etc. One almost wonders if it's not their plan to do this...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

Regarding the increased security costs airports are forced to meet, why can they not increase prices to cover these increased costs? Air passengers cannot avoid using airports, so cannot avoid security costs passed onto them by airports.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Do you really think airports will go bust? No. The government will never allow that to happen

In the UK companies that lose money can and do go bust. That's business. If any airport went bust it would probably be bought by investors and run differently so that it made a profit.


User currently offlineBoysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 937 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

Quoting NYC2theworld (Reply 3):
Here in the US, amtrak (national passenger rail company) has its own police force

In the UK the railways have British Transport Police.

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
Aviation is told it needs to do more and pay for it itself. Yet again, aviation gets picked on. It's the whipping boy of the Westminster Village.

To a certain extent all modes of transport feel like this. For example, as this thread illustrates government pay for security on the railways but are not willing to cover extra costs for aviation. However the government pay for road safety improvements directly from general taxation yet the railways have to fund their own either from ticket revenue or through an operating subsidy. That said, aviation does not have a major burden that rail has to pay;

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 6):
How much VAT and duties does the aviation sector pay on Fuel?

Exactly. It's very easy (infact it's a human trait) to point out when things are against you but then keep strangely quiet and accept it when things stack up in your favour. I guess if we could start again then we wouldn't want to start from here!


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2083 times:

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 16):
Exactly. It's very easy (infact it's a human trait) to point out when things are against you but then keep strangely quiet and accept it when things stack up in your favour. I guess if we could start again then we wouldn't want to start from here!

Domestic flights pay VAT on fuel. And the rest make up for that particular exemption in a multitude of ways. The constant moaning about fuel duty exemption is fallacy o flimited scope. Aviation pays its way.


User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4918 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 13):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 10):
Airports in the UK are a government mandated monopoly that is essentially handed to the operators, who are then allowed to do make money in all sorts of ways.

BAA Ltd own LHR, LGW, STN, ABZ, EDI, SOU, GLA. They do not own LTN, LCY, MAN, BHX, LPL, BFS, PIK, INV, NCL. Hardly a monopoly. And not a government mandated one. The British Airports Authority operated 6 of the 7 is currently owns when it was privitised. If you want to complain about the government not breaking up the institution for privitisation, I'm certainly not going to stop you

Of course the competiton commission are investigating BAA for a potential monopoly with its London and Scottish airports



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Are They Going To Go Ahead With EOS Airlines? posted Fri Jul 22 2005 21:20:04 by Xtra1
Where Are The First 738s For AS Going To Go? posted Tue Jan 4 2005 18:49:19 by BCAInfoSys
Latest Airline To Go Bust Is... Air Bourbon posted Fri Nov 26 2004 16:05:26 by Backfire
Fedex 737's Are Going To Happen Soon. posted Wed Mar 10 2004 02:44:43 by Dc10guy
How Many People Are Going To Lose Their Jobs? posted Sat Mar 15 2003 17:18:17 by Hole_courtney
Next Airline(s) To Go Bust? posted Mon Jul 29 2002 07:48:49 by 9V-SVE
Who Are Going To Oshkosh? posted Sun Jul 14 2002 04:53:38 by Gullfaxi
Transavia Employees Are Going To Work Shorter posted Wed Oct 10 2001 10:12:15 by Air Orange
How Do U Know Wich Plane You Are Going To Take? posted Sat Jul 7 2001 03:57:06 by Crank
Who Are Going To Merger Next? posted Fri Oct 6 2000 13:12:07 by Peq