Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA To PAE "You Must Negotiate In Good Faith"  
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5814 posts, RR: 28
Posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6374 times:

The manager of the FAA's Seattle office has sent a letter to Snohomish County saying they risk federal funding unless they negotiate with Allegiant to start flights on PAE-LAS.

In the letter the FAA's manager says, "Failure to negotiate in good faith may subject the County to an enforcement action".

Additionally according to the Herald newspaper the letter says the county must
“make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport,” wrote Carol Key, manager of the FAA’s Seattle Airports District Office.

The county “is obligated to make areas available for lease on reasonable terms and negotiate in good faith,” she said.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080606/NEWS01/735913145&news01ad=1

Supposedly there is $50 million in needed taxiway and runway repairs needed in the next 5 years. That also puts pressure on Boeing if federal funding for the repair work is placed in jeopardy.

The Seattle Times includes quotes from county officials in its coverage. A few interesting comments they have made:

"Sullivan said Thursday that if the county is forced to negotiate with Allegiant, it will require a "world-class terminal"

Sullivan believes there is precedent for a county airport to refuse commercial service.

In 2005, Southwest Airlines proposed to leave more expensive Sea-Tac Airport and build its own passenger terminal at Boeing Field in Seattle. King County executive Ron Sims ultimately rejected the proposal after protests from neighbors, the Port of Seattle and other airlines using Sea-Tac.

Said Sullivan, "If King County can say no, why can't we say no?"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...news/2004460923_painefield06m.html

[Edited 2008-06-06 17:32:39]


"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1720 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6349 times:

For one, the two fields are so close to one another that its fun to watch them at the same time. fortunately the flight paths do not intersect near the ground. I don't know how ATC merges them as they leave the region. A second point is that if SW (of whom I am a fan) were to have gotten permission to move, everyone else would have too - and as I remember Alaska said they would have to move too. Thus putting at risk the money invested in the new runway.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6288 times:

So why aren't other airports held to this standard? VNY, TEB, etc.? Sounds fishy. Are two political type personalities having a pissing match here?


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5814 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6219 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
So why aren't other airports held to this standard? VNY, TEB, etc.?

Has someone notified VNY that they want to negotiate a start of service? I've never heard of anyone other than small regionals wanting to operate there.

Allegiant formally notified PAE that they want to negotiate and the county is saying we won't even talk to them.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6128 times:



Quoting FrmrCAPCADET (Reply 1):
For one, the two fields are so close to one another that its fun to watch them at the same time.

SEA & BFI, yes. But SEA and PAE, no. SEA is about 45 minutes to an hour NORTH of SEA and that alone is enough airspace for separation.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 3):
Allegiant formally notified PAE that they want to negotiate and the county is saying we won't even talk to them.

I think it is because they are afraid of what the Port of Seattle has to say about it and the legal action the Port of Seattle would do. The Port does not want competition, period.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineSFO777200LR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6101 times:

What does the FAA know about "Negotiate in good faith?" What joke considering after 643 days ATCers still don't have a contract.

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6086 times:



Quoting SFO777200LR (Reply 5):
What does the FAA know about "Negotiate in good faith?" What joke considering after 643 days ATCers still don't have a contract.

Noting else be need be said!!!!!!!

Nicely done SFO777200LR!  Smile



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5925 times:



Quoting SFO777200LR (Reply 5):
What joke considering after 643 days ATCers still don't have a contract.

 checkmark  Good point....a very good point! Couldn't have said it any better. Just what makes the F.A.A. the ones to tell an airport what to do as far as commercial service goes? Isn't that the D.O.T's responsibility???



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5814 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5768 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 4):
I think it is because they are afraid of what the Port of Seattle has to say about it and the legal action the Port of Seattle would do. The Port does not want competition, period.

I think it is because some of the local politicians are afraid they would be voted out of office by NIMBYs.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 7):
Just what makes the F.A.A. the ones to tell an airport what to do as far as commercial service goes? Isn't that the D.O.T's responsibility???

If they received grants from the FAA that include clauses requiring them to allow all types of service then the FAA can speak. Not following grant conditions in many cases can lead to having to pay the money back. I've seen it happen in other federal and state programs.

So the question is who gave them grant money the FAA or the DOT, not why is the FAA involved.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5814 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5739 times:

Here is some more info from another article. Note the reference to Centennial Airport. Of course the FAA manager doesn't reference Boeing Field but does have an example of an airport that lost grant funds.

Airport operators who take federal funds are prohibited from discriminating against any type of aviation use, including commercial service. While an airport operator is not obligated to pay for improvements to accommodate an airline, they must provide space if it's available, Key said Friday.

"They have to provide the space for them to initiate service," she said. "That doesn't mean you have to build them a terminal."

In this case, getting the airport ready for passenger flights could take as little as moving a modular building in to serve as a terminal. Allegiant Air has yet to respond to the county's original refusal letter.

Key said the only case she knows of in which an airport refused passenger air service was Centennial Airport in the Denver suburbs, one not unlike Paine Field. In the 1990s, Arapahoe County, the airport's operator, voted twice to ban commercial service. As a result, the airport had its funding pulled.

"They are now back in compliance," Key said. "They changed their minds. They needed their runway reconstructed."

http://heraldnet.com/article/20080607/NEWS01/449771513



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5814 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5707 times:

Ikramerica, my news search gave me this. Looks like Santa Monica has gotten a similiar letter but focused on their ban on private jets.

City Prepares to Respond to FAA

June 5 -- The City this week plans to appeal a determination by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that a law banning large private jets from Santa Monica Airport violates the City’s federal obligations, making it ineligible for grants.

http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_s...ity_Prepares_to_Respond_to_FAA.htm



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5488 times:



Quoting FATFlyer (Thread starter):
Sullivan said Thursday that if the county is forced to negotiate with Allegiant, it will require a "world-class terminal

How in the heck can he say this with a straight face? 2-5 MD-80 flights a WEEK requires a "world class terminal"? Even if Allegiant made them a key city like Las Vegas, we are looking at a small operation compared to what Southwest wanted at BFI.

Even if other airlines are attracted by the move, they would be required to pay for any needed facilities themselves. It is only space and permission that must be provided.

BTW Southwest probably could have forced their way into Boeing Field if they wanted to. The law seems to be on their side. They just wanted to avoid a long and costly legal fight, and the bad will it would have created. Airports and cities do not have the authority to deny service for economic or political reasons.


User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5814 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5268 times:



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 11):
How in the heck can he say this with a straight face? 2-5 MD-80 flights a WEEK requires a "world class terminal"? Even if Allegiant made them a key city like Las Vegas, we are looking at a small operation compared to what Southwest wanted at BFI.

I think that is why the letter from the FAA manager said the airport
“is obligated to make areas available for lease on reasonable terms
it would be easy to block service if they could make it economically infeasible.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1720 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5250 times:



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 11):
BTW Southwest probably could have forced their way into Boeing Field if they wanted to. The law seems to be on their side. They just wanted to avoid a long and costly legal fight, and the bad will it would have created. Airports and cities do not have the authority to deny service for economic or political reasons.

As I mentioned earlier, had SW moved Alaska would have also requested a move, and who knows who else. This would have jeaprodised the new runway being built at SeaTac, which is already federally subsidized. In addition the road situation could not cope with the heavy traffic, without major upgrading, and there is no one to pay for that. Also SW largely wanted to move just to save money as SeaTac is expensive, given all the infrastructure they have and are adding. (I am not defending the Port Authority, just noting this, nor knocking SW for wanting to same money). Paine does have long standing local rules and an agreement with local governments against its expanding as a commercial field. Breaking that will be very expensive to whatever politician does not fight it tooth and nail. It certainly is a fair question for the federal government to say that subsidies are not consistent with the local rules. This will be fun to watch how it plays out. A lot of people are interested in this being the second major commercial field - and even more, "over my dead body". Fun



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4844 times:



Quoting FrmrCAPCADET (Reply 13):
As I mentioned earlier, had SW moved Alaska would have also requested a move, and who knows who else. T

I think that is a bluff. If Alaska had the capital to move to BFI, and could lower their costs significantly by being there, they would have already been there.

It is kind of like American's past threats to flood LUV with flights - even though the few flights they have put there flew half empty and at low yields. Alaska would move a few low-yield flights to BFI if there were no legal/political issues, but the Sea-Tac is simply better for the size of operation they have. It allows all sorts of things, like International connections, that are not possible from BFI. They also don't have the capital that Soutwest has, and so would not be able to build what Southwest could build at BFI. Note that the extra money Southwest would spend on BFI was earned in the free market. It is not political OPM (Other People's Money).

What would probably happen is that the Port Authority would have to lower their fees. They would have to operate more efficiently. They would not build unneeded things or gold-plate projects that are needed. They would need to manage new construction carefully to avoid major cost overruns. Since this would be a major change to their current method of operations, they fight all competition tooth and nail. But they would not have to match BFI costs, they would only need to reduce their own costs enough to bring them in line with the costs of other hub airports such as ORD and DFW. Currently, Sea-Tac is one of the most (if not THE) most expensive large airport to use in the country.

I can see two main reasons Southwest was declined at BFI. One was NIMBYs. The other was the influence of the Port Authority. Reason and sense had little to do with it. Ground traffic was a legitimate but manageable issue. It is worked out all the time with megamalls and such. There is no reason that it can't be worked out at BFI. Southwest considered the extra ground traffic flow in its studies as well, and was willing to contribute. If one considers the whole metro area, more BFI operations might actually ease ground traffic. Take out all of Southwest's passengers from Sea-Tac and you easy congestion there - especially since a greater proportion of WN's passengers are O&D.

ALL IN ALL, I don't think local authorities should have the authority to deny airlines access to airports. If they don't negotiate in good faith a deal should be forced on them through the FAA or the courts. In the era of stage-3 noise compliance and shortages of runway capacity it just doesn't make sense to put narrow interests in control of the system. We don't insist that people drive on empty roads that were built for political reasons, and we don't forbid them from driving through communities that would rather have less traffic. If we did our highway system would be strangled to death. The same could happen to our airport infrastructure if we are not careful.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4829 times:

BTW......Communities that want to take other people's money but keep other people out should be told to take a hike. We are not talking about privately owned fields, or even government fields run entirely with local funds. We are talking about airports that are willing to accept federal money but not the responsibility that comes with it. If a localilty wants to control the use of an airport, it should pay all its costs.

User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5912 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 14):
Currently, Sea-Tac is one of the most (if not THE) most expensive large airport to use in the country.

If SEA is one of the most (if not the most) expensive major airport, then why is there such a flurry of airlines serving or wanting to serve SEA?


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4775 times:



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 16):
If SEA is one of the most (if not the most) expensive major airport, then why is there such a flurry of airlines serving or wanting to serve SEA?

Because there's a market. It's a nice gateway for international flights without nearly the headaches of working from LAX or SFO, plus there's a substantial local market of large global businesses who need to fly their people around.

Tom.


User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5814 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4726 times:



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 14):
I can see two main reasons Southwest was declined at BFI.



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 14):
ALL IN ALL, I don't think local authorities should have the authority to deny airlines access to airports.

BFI said no BUT Southwest decided not to push it. That doesn't mean BFI had authority to deny it, just that they were going to be an obstacle.

As this and what is also happening Santa Monica show, local authorities cannot prevent access, particularly if they have taken Federal or State funds that specifically state you must allow access.

But it doesn't mean that it doesn't turn into a nasty and expensive legal battle to make it happen. That happens all the time with change, be it an airport or new housing or retail stores.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineFlybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4706 times:



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 14):
ALL IN ALL, I don't think local authorities should have the authority to deny airlines access to airports. If they don't negotiate in good faith a deal should be forced on them through the FAA or the courts. In the era of stage-3 noise compliance and shortages of runway capacity it just doesn't make sense to put narrow interests in control of the system. We don't insist that people drive on empty roads that were built for political reasons, and we don't forbid them from driving through communities that would rather have less traffic. If we did our highway system would be strangled to death. The same could happen to our airport infrastructure if we are not careful.



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 15):
BTW......Communities that want to take other people's money but keep other people out should be told to take a hike. We are not talking about privately owned fields, or even government fields run entirely with local funds. We are talking about airports that are willing to accept federal money but not the responsibility that comes with it. If a localilty wants to control the use of an airport, it should pay all its costs.

Boeing already uses the airport as well as GA. How much of the airport is subsidized by the federal government anyway? I'm wondering if Allegiant and perhaps others entering PAE will increase local taxation to be accommodated? You need to build a terminal building, set up security, build and enhance local infrastructure to support commerical air travel at PAE. Furthermore, I think if Allegiant enters PAE, Southwest would be inclined to move their operations to that field as well... in light of SEA's high cost facility fees. This will most certainly NOT amount to a handful of flights per week... but can open PAE to have a relationship with SEA that is similar to that of LGA and JFK. I've thought long and hard at this and I prefer NOT to live near busy airports if given a choice mainly because communities around commercial airports in metropolitan areas typically become more industrialized with cargo facilities, and become noisy and crime ridden.

All I'm really saying is that there is more than one side to the story than airline fans here are letting on. Turning PAE from basically a GA airport to a full fledged commerical airport will affect the lives and pocketbooks of people in surrounding communities. Getting airline service to PAE is, in my opinion, NOT as simplistic as people here tend to think.



"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5814 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4628 times:



Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 19):
How much of the airport is subsidized by the federal government anyway?

The airport has received $52 million of Federal money in the past for improvements.

PAE also wants another $50 million for runway/taxiway repairs in the next 5 years.

Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 19):
All I'm really saying is that there is more than one side to the story than airline fans here are letting on. Turning PAE from basically a GA airport to a full fledged commerical airport will affect the lives and pocketbooks of people in surrounding communities. Getting airline service to PAE is, in my opinion, NOT as simplistic as people here tend to think.

It may not seem simplistic, BUT PAE did accept Federal money with conditions attached. In other words they promised to follow certain rules to get the money.

And they want federal money (which will have strings attached) for future infrastructure work to runways and taxiways.

So the choice is simple, if they don't want commercial service then they need to come up with the money to make taxiway and runway repairs from another source like local taxes or other funding sources.

If they can't come up with the money then they risk losing the Boeing operation since they need the field conditions to handle their aircraft.

There is also the matter of past money which was accepted under the conditions of allowing any public air use. I'm sure if the local community had to pay it back it would be put to good use by other airports.  Wink

Whatever the community around PAE prefers for the airport, they have financial choices to make. It hits their pocketbook no matter what they choose. They can't have it all their way. Not an easy choice but rules are rules.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4596 times:

Would it be legal for PAE to say "Come on in... but you need to build your own parking lot, terminal, etc?" Or how about "Come on in... we'll build the parking lot, terminal, etc. with a lease that mandates you repay us for ALL capital improvements in the event you leave before they have been paid off." Cities do that to ball teams all the time when they want new stadiums... so would this be possible here?

User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5814 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4553 times:



Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 21):
Would it be legal for PAE to say "Come on in... but you need to build your own parking lot, terminal, etc?" Or how about "Come on in... we'll build the parking lot, terminal, etc. with a lease that mandates you repay us for ALL capital improvements in the event you leave before they have been paid off." Cities do that to ball teams all the time when they want new stadiums... so would this be possible here?

My understanding is that it has to be reasonable costs.

I understand that PAE currently has a 1,000 sq ft former FBO building available. Add some portable building space to that like Western used at BLI or the semi-permanent tent Skybus used at PGD and you have a terminal complex. Politicians saying it has to be "world class" are out of line.

I would imagine a lease would also have to be written in such a way that if another carrier came in then costs for Allegiant would need to be adjusted.

Could it be written for complete cost recovery if Allegiant left, I doubt it. But I'm not an airport operations guy.

The improvements would be staying even IF Allegiant found that the market didn't work out. The airport could lease those improvements to others. Heck they could lease any buildings out as just office space to a company.

So I doubt it would be considered reasonable to have Allegiant on the hook for ALL improvements unless Allegiant can take the improvements IF they left.

The ballpark example is not an exact comparison. Usually cities give up things to teams like naming rights, concession income, etc. Wait, Allegiant can make money from the naming rights? I can see the ads now "Fly Allegiant Air from Microsoft Field at Snohomish."  Wink



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4508 times:

PAE is a lot closer to downtown Seattle than SeaTac and probably some biz leaders are looking for that advantage. Before SeaTac, it was the commercial airport for the Seattle area. If I am correct, there is a former pax terminal on the east side of PAE that could be used with mods for current use. PAE is already the primary bizjet airport for the region, it is used by some freight airlines with 747's, DC-8's, and the like so it could handle regular pax service. It sounds like to me someone is trying avoid the high fees required for SEA ops. To me it would be wrong to make the operators of PAE have to take commercial pax ops.
A poster early mentioned TEB (Teterboro) as not having commercial service and asking why. TEB would have to put in much better runways to handle the weight of a 737-BBJ. Money for the necessary mods was rejected due to NIMBY's, the limited runway lengths, the need for a site near NYC for biz jets (as with PAE), the severe lack of run off area at the north end of the main runway (especially after an a/c trying to take off ended up running off the end of the runway, crossing a 6 lane highway and into a warehouse in Feb. 2005 severely injuring a man in a car hit by the a/c crossing the highway)


User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5814 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4487 times:



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 23):
PAE is a lot closer to downtown Seattle than SeaTac and probably some biz leaders are looking for that advantage.

Isn't PAE about 25 to 30 miles from downtown while SEA is only about 14 to 15 miles??

Are you confusing Paine Field in Everett with BFI?



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
25 Wedgetail737 : Yeah...PAE is up in Everett, about 30 to 45 minutes north of Downtown Seattle. BFI is just south of downtown. However, I wouldn't say that BFI is a L
26 FrmrCAPCADET : The no commercial airlines at Paine have been in existence for years, and the federal money has come, knowing about that. So you can't say 'rules are
27 RwSEA : I don't see this situation even remotely similar to the BFI situation. PAE is about 40 miles north of SEA, serving a totally different market. PAE wou
28 FATFlyer : Federal money has come in because no airline ever challenged the no commercial airlines at PAE rule. So you had conflicting rules that were never tes
29 FrmrCAPCADET : Fatflier - thanks for posting the information on the citizen panel. That is new stuff to me. I had not read it in either of the Seattle papers. Intere
30 AirframeAS : The problem is if PAE is forced to allow commercial service into that airport, the Port of Seattle is going to have a field day with the F.A.A. (laws
31 ScottB : Absolutely. The way Southwest had structured their proposal was also clearly meant to avoid some of the roadblocks airport operators & NIMBYs try to
32 AirframeAS : You have it backwards. It was WN the whole way. AS was just adding to the nitpicking which was nothing. It was WN who did most of the damage. And uhh
33 ScottB : Nope, I meant AS. Alaska said that if WN moved to BFI, they'd have to move some of their service to be "competitive" and that King County would have
34 Cloudy : Old 747's. DC-8's. Biz-Jets. How the heck can anybody claim additional noise as an issue when some of the loudest civilian planes left in the western
35 FATFlyer : The Seattle and Everett papers have only briefly touched on the panel so far. I heard about the report from the articles. Of course only an airline n
36 AirframeAS : I disagree with you. It was a scare tactic to persuade the Port of Seattle to lower the fees, thats all it was. And with that, WN got. So they 'used'
37 FrmrCAPCADET : Port of Seattle is widely believed in the area to be unresponsive to the local area, and to be spending too much money, especially at the airport. The
38 ContnlEliteCMH : By what moral principle do you judge it to be low? I can't think of one. I think it's pretty smart. Negotiating with one vendor to find a market-base
39 AirframeAS : They were using BFI as a scare tactic to get SEA to lower the fees when they never intended to move to BFI in the first place. Smart move on BFI's pa
40 FATFlyer : I believe you but I can also see if they actually went beyond threats that they would open themselves up for similiar charges. IIRC the Port of Seatt
41 AirframeAS : Right, but the Port serves the entire Puget Sound. That is off the point, a whole different ballgame. The Port of Seattle doesn't care about BLI. BLI
42 Hamlet69 : That may be, but from all indications, G4 is doing superbly up at BLI. And the more successful this airline becomes there, the more it will draw incr
43 Floridaflyboy : That still doesn't explain how it's "low" Just because it's designed to serve the whole puget sound area doesn't mean it's convenient or preferential
44 AirframeAS : Put yourself in BFI's shoes. There you go. I never said that. Talk to the Port of Seattle, not me. I'm just stating the facts.
45 FATFlyer : No taxation without representation, right. They may SERVE the entire sound, but that does not give them authority OVER the region. They can threaten
46 Floridaflyboy : It's business. It's done all the time. Business A has an arrangement with Vendor A. Business A feels their arrangement with Vendor A is too expensive
47 AirframeAS : Like I said, look at it from the Port of Seattle's view.
48 Floridaflyboy : Neither I nor anyone else has to do that. The Port of Seattle's view is 100% irrelevant to something happening in Snohomish county at an airport enti
49 AirframeAS : I can name several other airports that need secondary (relief) airports as well. Do you see the F.A.A. hounding them too? No. I see the Port of Seatt
50 Floridaflyboy : There are several big questions that needs to be asked in regards to that. First, are they receiving the same federal money that PAE is? If so, are t
51 AirframeAS : If WN did not want to help pay for any of the expansion, they should have voted no, simply put.
52 Revelation : I'm not sure it matters: once you accept a dollar of federal money, you have to obey all the federal rules. So if PAE wants to keep having things lik
53 Floridaflyboy : NOBODY said WN didn't want to pay for ANY of it. Their opposition was to the unnecessary aspects of the project that were driving the cost of operati
54 XT6Wagon : Alaska didn't want to move, and they did thier best to sink WN's move. Thier whole "We want to have service there" routine was to put pressure for th
55 AirframeAS : Then explain to me why they voted 'yes' for the expansion when they should have voted 'no'. Voting yes and fleeing. Ah, a great business tactic. Its
56 PlanesNTrains : But what if the carrier wanted to operate multiple's of flights, requiring a newer, larger terminal, etc.? How would that be handled? Would Allegiant
57 FATFlyer : Good questions. As I said before I'm not an airport operations guy. Maybe soneone who is can pipe in.
58 ScottB : I really couldn't have said it any better myself. WN doesn't make idle threats. Roughly 10 years or so ago, WN's presence at ELP was considerably lar
59 AirframeAS : It's pretty obvious. Think about it. Yet you say.... There ya go! WN was throwing the Port of Seattle in front of the bus in round one after the fact
60 PlanesNTrains : So let me get this straight. You don't even know what the terms of WN' lease with SEA were? They could have decided to move to a new airport, just li
61 AirframeAS : None of us do. Now if WN wanted to leave after the lease term, more power to them, I don't really care. My beef was, I was under the impression that
62 FATFlyer : The City of Everett City Council is scheduled to vote tonight on a resolution calling on Paine Field and Snohomish County to Looks like the regional p
63 AirframeAS : Keep us informed, FATFlyer!
64 FATFlyer : I'll try, but I'm going out of the country next week, taking an overseas vacation. You would know more than I, is this latest news showing a little c
65 AirframeAS : I would know more, but the problem is..... Im living in DEN now... LOL! What makes you think, out of curiosity, that this is influenced by Boeing? I
66 FATFlyer : Oh just a little wondering since Boeing has such a large operation in the City of Everett. I don't know the local politics about where contributions
67 FrmrCAPCADET : As I said earlier, this will be a political decision. And I am not knocking anybody in saying that. Politics is how large groups of people make decisi
68 FATFlyer : Just a followup from last night's City Council meeting in Everett.
69 MOBflyer : Why? They might, but the sky might fall too. Allegaint at SEA? Do you know anything about their business model? And to me a lot of things are wrong.
70 AirframeAS : Sooo that is that. PAE will follow the F.A.A.'s request. Good luck to them.
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...
"AF Must Invest In AZ Rescue To Get Stake" posted Tue Oct 24 2006 17:43:46 by Mindscape
FAA To Start "Airspace Flow Program" posted Wed May 23 2007 21:30:07 by PC12Fan
To Those Of You Who Live In South Asia! posted Mon Jun 10 2002 18:04:25 by Oz222
To Those Of You With Pictures In The Database. posted Thu Dec 14 2000 15:32:58 by Thom@s
FAA License To JAR License. What Must I Do? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 00:55:24 by Thepilot730
$2 Mil. To "exercise" Train For MIA In Japan posted Wed Apr 26 2006 17:40:05 by Eksath
Ding! You Are Now Free To Fly To Dallas!" posted Tue May 3 2005 03:51:45 by ChrisNH
FAA To Use 70's System In New Tower At FWA posted Sat Mar 19 2005 23:29:34 by KarlB737
Boeing.."You'll See It Flying Phoenix To Shanghai" posted Sun Jan 30 2005 02:00:08 by Jacobin777
Your 2004 "Must Try To Fly" Airliner(s) List posted Mon Jan 5 2004 16:52:02 by DIA