Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AirTran Not Happy W/ Potential New Fees @ ATL  
User currently offlineMKE22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1129 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2513 times:

http://www.smartbrief.com/news/gtg/s...39F929-2A77-437B-B244-EDC11A714150

FL. along with DL, is also responding to ATL's new plan of increasing fees, threatening to shift flights elsewhere. Honestly, I think it sounds kind of stupid that they would shift hardly any flights, but I guess you have to do what you have to do to keep fees down..


If Your not pissed, your not trying
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineQuickmover From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

You're right.

Absolutely crazy for either Delta or FL to think they can bluff the airport into believing they would pull out. The second either one pulls out, WN will be there, and neither carrier wants that to happen. The airport is holding an unbeatable hand.

They can charge what they want.


User currently offlineMicstatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2460 times:



Quoting Quickmover (Reply 1):
They can charge what they want.

We will see that this is incorrect. They never said pull-out. They said downscale. Anything is possible these days.



S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3148 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2366 times:



Quoting Quickmover (Reply 1):
You're right.

Absolutely crazy for either Delta or FL to think they can bluff the airport into believing they would pull out. The second either one pulls out, WN will be there, and neither carrier wants that to happen. The airport is holding an unbeatable hand.

They can charge what they want.


Somebody needs to ask ATL if they see what's happened in PIT.

WN is one of the first to bail when an airport raises fees. They won't jump into a market with high fees.



DMI
User currently offlineGRRTVC From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 275 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Don't be too sure ATL or any other airport holds the cards these days. Airport fees are one of the fastest growing costs airlines have aside from fuel. When you cosnider the size of operation that DL has at ATL and the amount of investment they make each year at ATL...its well above eight if not nine figures.

Please note I didn't say it was the highest cost...rather its the fastest growing/escalating.

GRRTVC


User currently offlineAAflyguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 358 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Part of the reason airport costs are rising is either because much of its costs are fixed, and/or due to costs associated with new or expanded Federally mandated programs. Any capital improvements planned at the airport send that CPE (Cost Per Enplanement) number higher. Further, as enplanement levels are decreasing at most airports, it means its overall revenues, which are used to support the bulk of its operational costs, decrease. What does that mean? Fees to the airlines rise to offset it, in most cases. There aren't many places to turn for airports these days to recover the loss of revenue that's being felt from reduced parking lot usage, lower concessions sales, few cars being rented, fewer flights leading to less aircraft landings, less fuel being pumped into aircraft (which the airports gets a Fuel Flowage Free from) and a general reduction of passengers traveling (meaning fewer PFC's also, if that airport has a PFC Program in place). It is a domino effect, and we're seeing it all across the country right now.

It has been said several times on this forum already, but this will be worked out amicably. A big problem I have is that this issue was taken public before the true negotiations have even begun with the Airport and its air carriers. Delta is playing hardball as always, but even moreso because it hasn't had to negotiate a new lease @ ATL in almost 30-years. That said, J7/FL simply came onboard under the existing lease with its prescribed fee structure. Of course, no business is going to want its costs to increase, so I understand the position the two big boys @ ATL have taken on this subject, as each operates more of its capacity there than at any other airport in its respective route network.

Also, all these threats DL & FL are making in the public forum about pulling capacity should not be taken lightly, but also should be seen as largely posturing and forcing the hand of the Airport to back off of some of the improvements it wishes to make in the next several years. Some of those projects are sorely needed, and will be built, but not without more input from the airlines to garner solid support. Already, the Airport has reduced the East Terminal project by $300 Million, though DL wants $400 Million to be cut. They are getting very close, but it may not matter if the bond market remains in the dumps because there will be no funding to build the more than $1 Billion facility. Also, has anyone seen that the airlines want a 6th runway added to the list which is currently not planned? So, clearly they want to grow even more @ ATL over the years, but that growth cannot come without a cost, literally. Where are those planes using a 6 parallel runway system going to park if no new gates are built? ATL is just about maxed out as it is in gate capacity.

There is a reason ATL is as busy as it is, one that goes beyond its low CPE. That would be the fact it has a very large O&D population from which to draw traffic relative to many other hubs in its region (CLT, MEM, CVG, CLE, etc..). There are more than 5,000,000 residents in Metro Atlanta and growing, and it has an incredibly vast business base and meeting/convention industry. ATL's total passenger traffic is just under 90 million annually, with 35% or so being O&D (local). That means over 31 Million passengers are beginning or ending their trips in ATL. That number beats the pants off of most U.S. airports total traffic. DTW, for instance, is somewhere around 36 Million total passengers, and half of that traffic is connecting, though the population of DTW is only slightly smaller than ATL.

Could DL & FL move some flights from ATL? Of course! But, I cannot see it being a significant reduction, because each has built ATL up to its present level for a reason, that being the market can bear it and it is a good and efficient connecting facility. It is now up to the Airport to come to the table with a proposal which is more palatable to the airlines but which still provides the mechanisms required to plan for future growth. What could otherwise happen is that both DL & FL are crying in another couple of years about not having enough gate capacity @ ATL and therefore they are "forced" to move capacity elsewhere. It's always something! And, so often, the Airport is made out to be the bad guy that doesn't know what it's doing and/or is putting its tenants (mainly the airlines) in an unfair or unfavorable position compared to Airport X - Y - Z.

Lastly, there is little talk about how costs at these other airports DL & FL are claiming to be considering for shifting flights may increase in coming years. It is a virtual given that will happen. MEM may be an exception due to its very unique position of having the FedEx in its backyard leasing hundreds of acres and providing hundreds of daily flight operations and, therefore, landing fees. MEM's costs may not change much, but again, its O&D base is infinitely smaller than ATL's was 20-years ago, so it cannot absorb much capacity without it being largely used by connecting passengers. DTW has an exhorbitant amount of capacity in its existing McNamara Terminal facility, but its local economy is among the worst in the country, and that is nothing new, nor is it expected to change anytime soon.

Give it time. ATL will not let its future be jeopardized by not working with its most important tenants. Everything will work itself out over the next few months. They won't agree on all issues, I'm sure, but there's a certain amount of give-and-take which always occurs until you reach a deal which is satisfactory to both sides of the table.

AAflyguy


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

Niehter one is going to pull out, but even if 10 million passengers are shifted over other connecting hubs, that puts a huge dent in ATL's revenue

PFC's + concession revenue at say $10 per passenger means a loss of 10 million connecting pax costs ATL $100,000,000 every year!

Delta can EASILY spread 10 million connecting pax throughout DTW MSP MEM JFK and CVG. and FL can probablyshift 500,000-2 million between BWI IND and MKE.

ATL is not playing an unbeatable hand, a loss of $100,000,000 in total annual revenue to get $20,000,000 ( or something less than 100 mil) more from the airlines is not a win.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineAAflyguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 358 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Clearly, I don't believe ATL is playing an unbeatabe hand, either. However, what seemingly is a foregone conclusion of how easily an airline with such a significant operation can simply shift x-number of passengers over some other airport is what I am saying is not very simple. Any airline will tell you that it would much prefer to put as many local passengers on an aircraft as possible over connecting passengers. A hub operation is an incredibly intricate one. All of the international service DL has built up in ATL cannot survive without maximum exposure to connecting passengers, nor could some of its service to small markets or on thin routes. If it chooses to step down its presence there, it will almost immediately impact the remaining operation negatively. It's not an impossibility to move capacity around, but it comes at the expense of what is existing. Shifting future growth is one thing, but moving existing capacity is quite another.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1960 times:

I doubt they'd instantly switch flights over, but if DL is eying a route either from ATL or JFK to somewhere in Europe, for example, they might start choosing JFK more. I think that's what DL and FL are implying here.


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAAflyguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 358 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1836 times:

Well, that's something any airline should do anyway in evaluating new routes, as to which U.S. Gateway or hub should be used. This makes sense to throw in the face of ATL, though, as a great scare tactic, and to do so very publicly, of course. And, as of now, there's not much more international growing DL or anyone can do from ATL anyway. Conc E is jammed for many parts of the day now, though some of that is domestic flying. Until the East Terminal is built, there will be limited international growth from ATL. DL has thrown so much into its Hartsfield operation on the international side in the last couple of years. I suspect the final version of the new building will be some dumbed down boxy-type design which has very little to show in making a statement as so many other new terminals worldwide (including some in the U.S.) have done. It'll be done in the name of efficiency, in keeping with the rest of the Midfield Terminal. Is there anyone here who knows what specific parts of the East Terminal design DL is unhappy with to the tune of $400 million? Wondering if it is more in trimming some of the actual square footage or more to do with the design or certain features it feels are overdone or totally unnecessary. Wish the City had just gone ahead and built the damn thing while DL was in bankruptcy, because it would have had a much more impressive facility than what is likely to be built now. C'est la vie.

User currently offlineMKE22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1129 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1741 times:



Quoting AAflyguy (Reply 9):
Wish the City had just gone ahead and built the damn thing while DL was in bankruptcy

That was the plan at the time, but things got pushed back as you probably know. Delays, delays, delays..  boggled 



If Your not pissed, your not trying
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16824 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1724 times:



Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8):
I doubt they'd instantly switch flights over, but if DL is eying a route either from ATL or JFK to somewhere in Europe, for example, they might start choosing JFK more.

If there were no slots at JFK and DL had unlimited expansion capabilities there then perhaps they could use that argument with the ATL folks. However the airport director for ATL just so happens to formerly be from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as executive director of Newark International airport. He also worked at JFK and LGA, as did some other officials with ATL. These guys are pretty savvy and not just some local appointees, I think they're going to call DL's bluff. Honestly where else can DL grow, the Michigan economy which was doing poorly during the good times is really being hammered under current economic conditions, JFK is slot controlled and DL's inadequate terminal facilities are not helping, CVG is shrinking. Really it only leaves MSP and MEM as the only places besides ATL where DL can grow, and no matter how many times they claim they would they will never chose MEM over ATL for anything.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9182 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1678 times:



Quoting Micstatic (Reply 2):
We will see that this is incorrect. They never said pull-out.



Quoting Micstatic (Reply 2):
They said downscale. Anything is possible these days.

Wow... yeah, the worlds largest airline hub to all of a sudden close... Let me know if that happens, because I will go to Home Depot and ask an associate about building a bomb shelter!!  duck 

I don't see that happening either. If either were to shift flights around, especially FL, where would they place the extra flights and planes? I would guess up to MKE or BWI, especially considering that according to another FL thread that they're interested in growing MKE.

Not sure about DL tho. Maybe they'll build up JFK and DTW a little more... Who knows, it's just speculation at this point anyway...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
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...
DL's New CEO Not Happy With CRJ's? posted Tue Jul 20 2004 19:58:08 by Cumulonimbus
Project James - Potential New UK Charter Airline posted Thu Oct 23 2008 10:11:21 by Humberside
AA Says Cutting SMF-DFW Frequency Due To New Fees posted Thu May 29 2008 19:59:02 by FATFlyer
AirTran.. Do They Have New Interiors? posted Fri Feb 8 2008 07:58:47 by BR715-A1-30
UA Employees Not Happy posted Thu Jan 10 2008 22:54:25 by Platinumfoota
Potential New Service To Casablanca Airport posted Sat Nov 10 2007 11:35:22 by Bambicruz
EK Still Not Happy With 787/350XWB posted Mon Oct 22 2007 08:37:04 by B7x7
Potential New Routes/Airlines Out Of MHT posted Mon Sep 10 2007 00:53:45 by Jawake
Dublin T2 Approved, Ryanair Not Happy. posted Thu Sep 6 2007 20:54:52 by USADreamliner
Got My First Look At DL's New Livery@ATL posted Tue Aug 28 2007 16:28:04 by Lgbga