Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
City Of Atlanta Lays Off ATL Airport Employees  
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4674 posts, RR: 11
Posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4253 times:

Some background onto FAA policies regarding public airports. All airport revenues must remain on airport and can not be diverted to non airport sources, such as other city departments.

Today the city of Atlanta laid off dozens of airport employees as the city struggles with their budget, this was also proposed by the recently elected mayor.

My question is, if the airport is self sufficient (which they are), and revenue can not legally be diverted from the airport, then how would this action help the city?

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/atla...workers-receive-sudden-544548.html

With all of the corruption that has taken place in Atlanta over the years I'd love to see the FAA investigate the airport for potential revenue diversion in this matter. In my opinion, 67 hard working aviation professionals may have just lost their jobs because of potential illegal activity.


Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4021 times:

This is an ongoing fight between many US cities and airports that they own. Many of these cities are in very deep financial holes and must do cost reductions. But US airports are enterprise funds and generate their own money which legally can only be used for on airport uses. In most cases (not ATL it is over extended) these airport enterprise are in better financial shape than their owners. You can blame the mayors and the city councils in these cities for the airport cuts. Most of them are too lazy to distingish the airport employees from other city employees. They do the polically easy step of across the board cut rather than only do cuts in the department that are not enterprise funds.

User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3297 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3840 times:

Quoting RL757PVD (Thread starter):
With all of the corruption that has taken place in Atlanta over the years I'd love to see the FAA investigate the airport for potential revenue diversion in this matter. In my opinion, 67 hard working aviation professionals may have just lost their jobs because of potential illegal activity.

I think we'll find that the airport's own finances are not in as spectacular shape as most assume. The new leases with DL and FL leave the airport in a relatively precarious position at a time when major capital investment is in full thrust.

In fact, I'm pretty confident that this is the case.


User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4674 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3608 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 2):
I think we'll find that the airport's own finances are not in as spectacular shape as most assume. The new leases with DL and FL leave the airport in a relatively precarious position at a time when major capital investment is in full thrust.

In fact, I'm pretty confident that this is the case.

I can see where that would happen, however I had not heard of it getting to the point where the airport required assistance from the city to operate. I have always felt that airport employment levels should be determined by the airport and their needs, and not by the city mayor during the budgeting process. I know that technically being a city department complicates that, but to all of a sudden, not need over 100 jobs at an airport that isn't shrinking, tells me that somebody somewhere dropped the ball.



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3658 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3001 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RL757PVD (Thread starter):
My question is, if the airport is self sufficient (which they are), and revenue can not legally be diverted from the airport, then how would this action help the city?

Being a City employee with a position at the airport does not mean that 100% of the employee cost is funded by airport revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if certain benefits, such as medical and pension, are paid by the City's general fund instead of the airport's fund. This means that the City saves on labor costs by letting them go.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5236 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2926 times:

While PFCs must be used for airport expenditures, do revenue from other sources have to be used at the airport, such as landing fees, concessions, and parking?

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25367 posts, RR: 49
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 5):
While PFCs must be used for airport expenditures, do revenue from other sources have to be used at the airport, such as landing fees, concessions, and parking?


Yes.

There have been court cases over the years including one here in Los Angeles(where the airport is a big profit center), with the continued outcome theme being that airport income cannot be 'diverted' to other city coffers.
While cities may try to get clever with accounting maneuvers including authorized things such as bill backs for contract services (eg City fire department covers airport), revenue generated at the airport must stay at the airport, and the airline community watches these things like a hawk and will quickly raise a red flag if they determine they are cross subsidizing non-aviation uses.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
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...
Door Comes Off Of A Delta B772 In ATL posted Thu Feb 3 2005 01:48:18 by Pilottim747
City Of LA Now Wants To Run An Airport At El Toro posted Sat Jun 7 2003 00:40:14 by FATFlyer
Air Canada Lays Off Most Of US Florida Staff, FLL posted Sat Apr 26 2003 23:03:26 by SegmentKing
What Is The Name Of Atlanta's Airport? posted Wed Jul 17 2002 05:50:19 by CX747
69 Salt Lake City Airport Employees Arrested posted Wed Dec 12 2001 05:14:44 by B757300
Comair Lays Off 2,000 Employees posted Fri Apr 27 2001 20:24:25 by Boeing757/767
A Couple Of Questions About The Movie "Airport" posted Sat Feb 13 2010 06:16:30 by C5LOAD
Airport Employees And US Pre-clearance posted Wed Nov 18 2009 23:14:18 by CGKings317
City Names Lufthansa Jets - City Of "Bocholt" posted Sun Oct 18 2009 04:48:26 by AlexA340B777
Removal Of SkyTeam Logo Off CO Aircraft. posted Tue Aug 18 2009 20:08:40 by Evanbu