User avatar
EA CO AS
Topic Author
Posts: 13439
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:02 am

We knew it was coming...they don't want to do it, but if WN goes to BFI, so will some of AS and QX's operations:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 21, 2005


ALASKA AIRLINES AND HORIZON AIR REQUEST
EQUAL ACCESS TO BOEING FIELD


SEATTLE — Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air notified the King County Council today of their request for equal access to Boeing Field, formally known as King County International Airport, with the intent of operating as many as 100 departures a day from the county-owned facility.

“We share the same concerns as many in our community about expanding commercial passenger service at Boeing Field,” said Bill Ayer, chairman and CEO of Alaska Air Group, the holding company of Alaska and Horizon. “However, if a direct competitor moves their operations to Boeing Field, we’re left with no choice but to request equal access.

“Maintaining competitive operating costs and schedules is necessary to continue offering the superior service and low fares our customers expect from us,” Ayer said. “We also need to protect the 14,000 Alaska and Horizon employees, many of whom are based in the Seattle area, whose livelihoods would be threatened if we allowed ourselves to operate at a competitive disadvantage.”

Alaska and Horizon currently operate 147 and 134 departures from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, respectively, which combined account for about half the airport’s traffic and make Alaska Air Group the Port of Seattle’s largest airline customer. Alaska and Horizon plan to retain operations at Sea-Tac, while moving certain flights to Boeing Field.

“For Horizon, a regrettable potential outcome of splitting our Seattle operations might be a decline in service frequency to some of the Pacific Northwest communities that depend on our Sea-Tac flights for connections to other domestic and international routes,” said Jeff Pinneo, president and CEO of Horizon Air.

The start of Alaska and Horizon operations out of Boeing Field is largely dependent on when facilities at Boeing Field could be built to handle such a dramatic surge in flight activity and the accompanying passenger traffic it would generate. Today the airport lacks sufficient ticket counter, gate, ramp and baggage facilities, as well as parking, access roads and connecting ramps from Interstate-5, to accommodate substantially more airport traffic. How such improvements and additional security and air traffic control would be funded is another unknown, since Alaska believes the county is obligated to accommodate, on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis, its application and those of other airlines to operate from Boeing Field.

“The cost of infrastructure improvements is just one of many reasons we’d rather not pursue commercial service at Boeing Field if we don’t have to,” Ayer said. “Just as important are the environmental issues that will have to be addressed. With the planned capacity improvements at Sea-Tac that this community has funded, which will accommodate increasing regional air traffic well into the next decade, we don’t see a compelling case for the kind of public impacts that an expansion of Boeing Field would create.”
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:05 am

YOu know, the WORST think that could happen to AS is that this request is APPROVED - then they'll have two hub operations in the same city. I thought AA was the only airline fool enough to do that, but who knows
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24557
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:07 am

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 1):
I thought AA was the only airline fool enough to do that, but who knows

AA doesn't do it, but British Airways does.

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 1):
YOu know, the WORST think that could happen to AS is that this request is APPROVED - then they'll have two hub operations in the same city.

There is no reason the request wouldn't be. BFI is a public facility. What they problably won't get is access to Southwest's terminal, so they may have to build their own.
a.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:08 am

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 1):
YOu know, the WORST think that could happen to AS is that this request is APPROVED - then they'll have two hub operations in the same city. I thought AA was the only airline fool enough to do that, but who knows

And where exactly does AA do that?
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:14 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 2):
What they problably won't get is access to Southwest's terminal, so they may have to build their own.

No, the county would have to ensure that they build a terminal complex that ensures capacity for both carriers. Here's how this shakes out:

SWA has proposed a 6 MAP facility, now AS is in the mix with about an additional 7 MAP capacity meaning the county would have to ensure that when it opened to comemrcial service the facility would support 13 MAP. Thats about 30-35 gates. Southwest and Alaska do not, cannot and are not permitted to construct terminals. The County now has to go through a planning process that includes environmental impact reports and everything else that goes along with a new airport. They then issue bonds for the construction based on a 13 MAP facility. Investors then sit back and say.. Wait a minute, SEA has the capacity, this is a non-starter - I'm not buying the bonds. End of game, end of story. No move by anyone to BFI.
 
UNDpilot
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 1999 3:31 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:14 am

BFI was where I learned to fly-it's a great (even charming) airport. Since I am active local Seattle politics, this is going to become a very 'hot' button issue.
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5478
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:16 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 4):
No, the county would have to ensure that they build a terminal complex that ensures capacity for both carriers. Here's how this shakes out:

Are you telling me that Kings County would force WN to build a 20 gate terminal just so Alaska can use 12 of the gates to add 100 flights without ponying up some money?

OMG.. I'm so through with this.
Aiming High and going far..
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:18 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):

And where exactly does AA do that?

They don't....yet. But what are they threatening to do should the Wright Amendment fall? Why open up operations at DAL of course.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:21 am

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 7):
They don't....yet. But what are they threatening to do should the Wright Amendment fall? Why open up operations at DAL of course.

That doesn't mean DAL will also be a hub. Think of AA's ORD hub and their satellite operations at MDW. UA does the same thing with ORD/MDW.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
goingboeing
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 1999 1:58 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:23 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 8):

That doesn't mean DAL will also be a hub. Think of AA's ORD hub and their satellite operations at MDW. UA does the same thing with ORD/MDW.

Ah yes...but they don't talk about their ORD/MDW operations...the talk over the WA is that they would move a large number of flights over to DAL. DFW plays up this "loss of service" as well. But there are nine million other threads about that - we now return you to the Seattle discussion.
 
N77014
Posts: 812
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:16 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:24 am

Why would there have to be voter approval on bonds for a facility that is privately owned?

If anything, all WN should have to pay is the developement and construction costs of their own terminal, with landing fee money contributing to the upkeep.

Whie I agree that the scope of WN's plans is large and a great challenge to AS, it is not anything that would put AS out of business.
A new life awaits you in the Off-World Colonies...
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Topic Author
Posts: 13439
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:26 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 4):
The County now has to go through a planning process that includes environmental impact reports and everything else that goes along with a new airport. They then issue bonds for the construction based on a 13 MAP facility. Investors then sit back and say.. Wait a minute, SEA has the capacity, this is a non-starter - I'm not buying the bonds. End of game, end of story. No move by anyone to BFI.

Which, if the above is accurate, was Alaska and Horizon's sole reason for requesting access to BFI at all - to make it so WN can't move there in the first place.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:30 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6):
Are you telling me that Kings County would force WN to build a 20 gate terminal just so Alaska can use 12 of the gates to add 100 flights without ponying up some money?

I'm beginning to think you have a reading and comprehension problem. King County builds it, not Southwest. Get that through your skull. If you have a learning disability, please advise. I'll apologize.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:36 am

Quoting N77014 (Reply 10):
Why would there have to be voter approval on bonds for a facility that is privately owned?

1. Airport bonds are not tied to city/county/state debt, they are airport debt.

2. Commercial Passenger Service Airports cannot be privately owned by one airline. They must provide non-discriminatory access to all carriers.

Way to go Southwest... Confuse the hell out of the general public by claiming you'll build your own terminal.

You see how you all got suckered into that??? And you're aviation enthusiasts. Imagine the casual observer or neighborhood lemming.
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5478
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:42 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
I'm beginning to think you have a reading and comprehension problem. King County builds it, not Southwest. Get that through your skull. If you have a learning disability, please advise. I'll apologize.

Southwest BFI

This is the last place I'm going to post it for you. now if you would please read closely..

Southwest will use its own financial resources for the approximately $130 million improvement of King County International Airport (KCIA). Southwest Airlines proposes to build an eight-gate commercial airport facility, which will include parking garage, passenger concessions, rental car provisions, special accommodations for cruise traffic and buses, and the necessary facilities for Southwest's flight operations, including gates, office space, baggage claim, and baggage screening.

Now where, in that entire excert, do you see that Kings County is footing the bill?

And if you must continue to try to bad mouth me or call me names, then it is going to become very personal.
Aiming High and going far..
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:49 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 14):
Southwest will use its own financial resources for the approximately $130 million improvement of King County International Airport (KCIA). Southwest Airlines proposes to build an eight-gate commercial airport facility, which will include parking garage, passenger concessions, rental car provisions, special accommodations for cruise traffic and buses, and the necessary facilities for Southwest's flight operations, including gates, office space, baggage claim, and baggage screening.

Yeah. I read it...

Now you read this:


http://www.faa.gov/arp/ACs/5190-5a1.pdf
 
ASAFA
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:52 am

Quoting N77014 (Reply 10):
Why would there have to be voter approval on bonds for a facility that is privately owned?

It isn't privately owned. It belongs to King County

Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air notified the King County Council today of their request for equal access to Boeing Field, formally known as King County International Airport, with the intent of operating as many as 100 departures a day from the county-owned facility.

Boeing7E7 is right. It is very doubtful this would ever get approval. The voters would have to bear much of the cost, not just terminals, but freeway and road improvements, parking, security, etc. AS is calling WN's bluff in hopes that the whole thing goes down. A smart move if you ask me.
 
legendDC9
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:24 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 5:53 am

Quoting N77014 (Reply 10):
Whie I agree that the scope of WN's plans is large and a great challenge to AS, it is not anything that would put AS out of business.

Maybe not out of business but diffinitly in a great disadvantage. BFI is a much better location for O&D traffic into the city of Seattle and will be cheaper to operate in. Southwest's ability to expand service will be enhanced as they currently utilize 5 gates at sea-tac and will be able to go up to 7-8 in a newly remodeled BFI, plus... It is afterall WN, they scare everyone...

Another, perhaps minor difference, but a difference non the less, BFI is just over 400 ft lower than SEA (21' vs. 433') which means that when the cloud cover drops, as it does so often, BFI will be impacted much later than SEA would. In fact, BFI as been used numerous times as a diversion airport in fog events.
 
User avatar
ERJ170
Posts: 5478
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:15 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:01 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
Now you read this:


http://www.faa.gov/arp/ACs/5190-5a1.pdf

I read it and I did not see where WN was violating anything. Could you point me to the section that you would like me to focus on, if you don't mind?

Quoting ASAFA (Reply 16):
The voters would have to bear much of the cost, not just terminals, but freeway and road improvements, parking, security, etc.

To be sure not. WN already stated they would pay for the terminals, parking, security, and miscellanous. Kings County already stated they would not pay for such things. They may, however, go to the State and request funding for the road improvements if they are needed. But if it is already a diversion airport with a lot of GA activitiy, I don't think much road improvement would be necessary.

I'm just not getting the problem with why this is such a problem to anyone. WN is not violating any rules, they are not asking Kings County to pay for it.. they are just wanting to move their operations to somewhere they feel they can do their business the way they want to.
Aiming High and going far..
 
User avatar
LN-MOW
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2000 12:24 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:13 am

Quote:

I don't think much road improvement would be necessary.

You obviously don't know the area so why are you so occupied by this?
- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:08 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
Now you read this:

http://www.faa.gov/arp/ACs/5190-5a1.pdf

The sections which appear to be relevant to Southwest's proposal are the following:

Quote:
An exclusive rights violation occurs when the airport
sponsor excludes others, either intentionally or
unintentionally, from participating in an on-airport
aeronautical activity. The effect of a prohibited
exclusive rights agreement can be manifested by an
express agreement, unreasonable minimum standards,
or by any other means. Significant to an
understanding of the exclusive rights policy is the
recognition that it is the impact of the activity, and
not the sponsor’s intent to create such an impact,
that constitutes an exclusive rights violation.

1-3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL
RULE. The following paragraph addresses those
situations where an arrangement tantamount to an
exclusive rights situation exists but does not violate
agency policy due to the surrounding circumstances
that make such an arrangement necessary.

a. Aeronautical Activities Conducted by
the Airport Sponsor (Proprietary Exclusive
Right). The owner of a public-use airport (public
or private owner) may elect to provide any or all of
the aeronautical activities needed by the public at
the airport. As a practical matter, most public
agencies recognize that these activities are best
provided by profit-motivated private enterprise.

The exceptions are usually those instances in which
a municipality or other public agency elects to provide
fuel service or aircraft parking. If it does so,
whether on an exclusive or nonexclusive basis, it
may not refuse to permit any person, firm, or corporation
operating aircraft from fueling its own
aircraft.

b. Single Activity. The fact that a single
business or enterprise is conducting most or all of
the on-airport aeronautical activities is not, in itself,
evidence of an exclusive rights violation. The absence
of competition alone is not a violation of the
exclusive rights policy. When an exclusive rights
violation is alleged, whether the opportunity to engage
in an on-airport aeronautical activity was
available to everyone who met the relevant and
reasonable minimum standards determines whether
enforcement action will be necessary. The fact that
only one party pursued the opportunity to do so
would not subject the airport sponsor to an exclusive
rights violation.

...

c. Space Limitation. A single enterprise
may expand as needed, even if its growth ultimately
results in the complete occupancy of all
space available. However, an exclusive rights violation
occurs when an airport sponsor unreasonably
excludes a qualified applicant from engaging in an
on-airport aeronautical activity without just cause.
An exclusive rights violation can be effected
through the use of leases where, for example, all
the available airport land or facilities suitable for
aeronautical activities are leased to a single user. A
sponsor’s refusal to permit a single FBO to expand
based on the sponsor’s desire to open the airport to
competition is not violative of the exclusive rights
prohibition. Additionally, a sponsor can exclude an
FBO from responding to a request for proposals,
based on the sponsor’s desire to create competition
at the airport. A lease that confers an exclusive
rights agreement will be construed as having the
intent to do so and, therefore, be in violation of
FAA policy.

Airport sponsors may be better served by requiring
that leases to a single user be limited to the amount
of land the user can demonstrate is actually needed
and can be put to immediate use. In the event that
additional space is required later, the incumbent
should be required to compete along with all other
qualified bidders for the available land. The grant
of options or preferences on future sites to a single
incumbent may be construed as intent to grant an
exclusive right.

Pay careful attention to Southwest's proposal. Southwest proposes only to rent LAND from the county, not facilities, and to pay landing fees at the airport in accordance with the airport's fee schedule. Note the bold portion of Section 1-3(a) above -- the airport owner may (not must) provide any or all aeronautical activities to the public at the airport. Southwest's proposal does not contemplate accepting any sort of services from the county aside from airfield maintenance, which is already provided by the county. They even propose to build and operate their own fueling operation.

It is also clear from Section 1-3(c) that Southwest's lease of airport land only contravenes FAA policy if Southwest is allowed to lease the only available land at the airport. It is clear from news reports that there is significant available land on the airport property for others to construct their own facilities, if they so choose.

If Southwest is willing to foot the bill to construct its own terminal, parking facilities, etc., it is difficult to argue that requiring operators to build their own facilities is an unreasonable minimum standard. Nothing in FAA regulations requires the operator to build a terminal simply because an airline requests it. More simply put, Southwest is requesting little more than a lease of land at BFI. If Alaska or any other airline wants to do the same at BFI, they ought to be allowed to do so until the land runs out.

[Edited 2005-07-22 00:21:28]
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:21 am

If King County wants to create the funding for a new terminal at BFI, then construct and manage it themselves, noting the AC 5190 linked above, they would have to allow equal access to it.

However, if WN requested to lease their own BFI property, with the intent to pay for, construct, and operate their own (WN) terminal, that would be allowable. King County could not force WN into allowing additional carriers into a WN-owned and operated terminal (of course, AS or any other carrier could lease their own land and build their own terminal), but neither could they grant WN exclusive rights at BFI.

Frankly, WN's announcement was a masterstroke. AS made the only competitive response that they could make, and it was one they basically were forced into making. WN's announcement:
1) puts SEA on notice that their landing fees, rates and charges, etc are too high. (My personal opinion is that this is WN's ultimate goal: to lower rates and charges at SEA).
2) puts AS on the defensive ("we'll have to split our operations between SEA and BFI, but we'll do it") and gives them a plethera of operating issues.

This could all be just smoke and mirrors, but it should be fun to see how it shakes out. And it's interesting to see the various ways that WN likes to shake the industry up.

Tom at MSY
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
Lono
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 5:47 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:31 am

Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 21):
Frankly, WN's announcement was a masterstroke. AS made the only competitive response that they could make, and it was one they basically were forced into making. WN's announcement:
1) puts SEA on notice that their landing fees, rates and charges, etc are too high. (My personal opinion is that this is WN's ultimate goal: to lower rates and charges at SEA).
2) puts AS on the defensive ("we'll have to split our operations between SEA and BFI, but we'll do it") and gives them a plethera of operating issues.

This could all be just smoke and mirrors, but it should be fun to see how it shakes out. And it's interesting to see the various ways that WN likes to shake the industry up.

Very well said..... It also puts AS on the defensive knowing that SW is not only willing to stay.... but to build a major hub in their backyard... It is about time someone took AS on in SEA.... It will be very enjoyable watching them fight for SEA....
Wally Bird Ruled the Skys!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:13 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 20):
Pay careful attention to Southwest's proposal. Southwest proposes only to rent LAND from the county, not facilities, and to pay landing fees at the airport in accordance with the airport's fee schedule. Note the bold portion of Section 1-3(a) above -- the airport owner may (not must) provide any or all aeronautical activities to the public at the airport. Southwest's proposal does not contemplate accepting any sort of services from the county aside from airfield maintenance, which is already provided by the county. They even propose to build and operate their own fueling operation.



Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 21):
However, if WN requested to lease their own BFI property, with the intent to pay for, construct, and operate their own (WN) terminal, that would be allowable. King County could not force WN into allowing additional carriers into a WN-owned and operated terminal (of course, AS or any other carrier could lease their own land and build their own terminal), but neither could they grant WN exclusive rights at BFI.

BFI already receives Federal Funding, so the rules of equal access would apply to any terminal construction on the field.
 
stlgph
Posts: 8986
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:43 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 11):
Which, if the above is accurate, was Alaska and Horizon's sole reason for requesting access to BFI at all - to make it so WN can't move there in the first place.

ding!
if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:54 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 11):
Which, if the above is accurate, was Alaska and Horizon's sole reason for requesting access to BFI at all - to make it so WN can't move there in the first place.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding

As soon as the second carrier proposed a move, it went from a proposed private project to a proposed public project. This is why such an arangement simply can't happen, and the FAA will block at all cost (they figure they waste enough money as it is so they don't want Airports to get into the same rut). All AS had to do was propose one flight and it would have made it a public project, they just slapped on 99 more for good measure.
 
stlgph
Posts: 8986
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:04 am

Boeing7E7-

when is Southwest going to realize that they can't get handicapped parking privileges at every airport they want to fly to?
if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:07 am

Quoting STLGph (Reply 26):
when is Southwest going to realize that they can't get handicapped parking privileges at every airport they want to fly to?

As soon as a smart enough judge see's they're faking it and takes away their right to the special blue card.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:09 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 25):
As soon as the second carrier proposed a move, it went from a proposed private project to a proposed public project.

Prove this. Cite the FAA regulation which states that the airport operator must provide terminal facilities comparable to what another tenant owns and operates. Cite the FAA regulation or federal law which states that airlines are no longer permitted to own their own terminals.

There already is a terminal ready and waiting at BFI for an airline which might want to use it, although it requires some upgrades to be suitable for large commercial jets.
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:10 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 23):
BFI already receives Federal Funding, so the rules of equal access would apply to any terminal construction on the field.

You're talking apples and oranges. Don't confuse the separate issue of equal access (which no one here is denying) with the issue that WN could build, pay for, and operate their own terminal on their leased or owned land if they chose to. What BFI can't do is give them exclusive rights to operate at the airport. WN could operate out of their own terminal (that they paid for).

Tom at MSY
(with 21 years in airport management)
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:28 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 28):
Prove this. Cite the FAA regulation which states that the airport operator must provide terminal facilities comparable to what another tenant owns and operates. Cite the FAA regulation or federal law which states that airlines are no longer permitted to own their own terminals.

Read away....

http://www.faa.gov/arp/publications/fedreg.cfm?ARPnav=fedreg#acip

Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 29):
You're talking apples and oranges. Don't confuse the separate issue of equal access (which no one here is denying) with the issue that WN could build, pay for, and operate their own terminal on their leased or owned land if they chose to. What BFI can't do is give them exclusive rights to operate at the airport. WN could operate out of their own terminal (that they paid for).

Tom... It became a public project as soon as AS proposed moving as well. The right of ability lease to a single operator was surrendered. It's not Apples to Oranges.

[Edited 2005-07-22 03:42:32]
 
aaway
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:22 am

Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 29):
You're talking apples and oranges. Don't confuse the separate issue of equal access (which no one here is denying) with the issue that WN could build, pay for, and operate their own terminal on their leased or owned land if they chose to. What BFI can't do is give them exclusive rights to operate at the airport. WN could operate out of their own terminal (that they paid for).

Tom at MSY



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 30):
Tom... It became a public project as soon as AS proposed moving as well. The right of ability lease to a single operator was surrendered. It's not Apples to Oranges

An interesting exchange, which leads to a couple of questions regarding Alaska's press release:

ALASKA AIRLINES AND HORIZON AIR REQUEST
EQUAL ACCESS TO BOEING FIELD


SEATTLE — Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air notified the King County Council today of their request for equal access to Boeing Field, formally known as King County International Airport, with the intent of operating as many as 100 departures a day from the county-owned facility.

Do the semantics of that initial paragraph of the press release hold the key to the private/public aspect of access to BFI? In other words, WN's proposed project would be a private venture, whereas AS apparently merely approached the operator to request access?

Does merely "requesting access" oblige King County to assume responsibility for public passenger facilities @ BFI? Would FAA guidelines allow King County, in response AS's request for access, propose a plan that mirrors the WN plan: leasing the land, but not funding the improvement?
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
ScottB
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:31 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 30):
Read away....

Nope. You claimed the FAA won't allow airlines to own and operate their own facilities; don't just give a link to about 20 documents regarding rules and policy. Cite the rule/regulation and give a source. Otherwise you've merely made an unsubstantiated claim which is worth about as much as a share of US Airways current common stock. I'm not going to go searching to disprove your claim if you can't back it up with anything specific.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 30):
Tom... It became a public project as soon as AS proposed moving as well. The right of ability lease to a single operator was surrendered.

Again, Southwest has structured their proposal in a very specific way because they knew this would be an issue. They are leasing land from King County, no more. Alaska or any other airline (or consortium of airlines) would also be free to lease land at BFI if they wanted. King County will not provide any facilities to Southwest aside from use of the airfield.
 
GentFromAlaska
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:21 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:46 am

Quoting Lono (Reply 22):
It also puts AS on the defensive knowing that SW is not only willing to stay.... but to build a major hub in their backyard... It is about time someone took AS on in SEA.... It will be very enjoyable watching them fight for SEA....

I think you used SW to mean Southwest. The SW airline code actually is assigned to Air Namibia.  airplane 
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:43 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 30):
Tom... It became a public project as soon as AS proposed moving as well. The right of ability lease to a single operator was surrendered.

You might want to retract this one. According to your own linked FAA AC 5190: "With few exceptions, an airport sponsor is prohibited from granting an exclusive right to a single operator for the provision of an aeronautical activity to the exclusion of others...". Therefore, the (as you put it) 'right of ability lease to a single operator was surrendered' implies a right that never existed in the first place.

Being that air service constitutes an "aeronautical activity", BFI can't exclude anyone who wants to serve their airport. Again I must say, BFI is well within their rights to lease property to WN so that WN can construct their own terminal. BFI just can't deny airport access to other airlines. It's as simple as that, my friend.

AAway:
From where I sit, the good folks that run BFI are kind of between a rock and a hard place, for a number of reasons, both good and bad:
1) GOOD: they are obviously pleased that two airlines (thus far) have expressed an interest in serving their airport.
2) BAD: are these two airlines merely putting up smoke and mirrors in an effort to entice SEA to lower their landing fees (this is what I'm thinking). It'd carry more weight, though, if the incumbent SEA airlines banded together and took their case to the SEA folks (they may already be doing this).
3) GOOD and BAD: BFI now needs to explore their many options regarding the possible design, funding, building, and operation of an airline terminal (and everything that goes with it)(I have no idea what sort of terminal already exists, but I'm sure its not much). How big should the terminal be? What kind of assurances will they have (pre-construction) that (whichever) airlines will actually operate out an airport-owned (assuming WN operates out of their own terminal) terminal, and at what levels?

Tom at MSY
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
777XI
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:39 am

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:12 pm

Someone brought up the question of where the FAA stated they would no longer allow airlines to operate their own terminals...but what about Legend's terminal at DAL? Wouldn't this whole situation be something similar to that--DAL providing public facilities for any airline which was interested in flying to DAL, yet also allowing airlines to construct their own private terminals if they so choose?

777XI
life is a journey, travel it well.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5450
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:15 pm

Quoting 777XI (Reply 35):
but what about Legend's terminal at DAL?

I believe B7E7 would say that it was grandfathered in, as it was in progress when the rules changed. That's my guess.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 13):
Way to go Southwest... Confuse the hell out of the general public by claiming you'll build your own terminal.

AS proposed adding 100 flights to BFI. "Way to go AS... Confuse the hell out of the general public by claiming you'll add 100 flights."

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 4):
SWA has proposed a 6 MAP facility, now AS is in the mix with about an additional 7 MAP capacity meaning the county would have to ensure that when it opened to comemrcial service the facility would support 13 MAP. Thats about 30-35 gates.

So if UA proposed adding 3MAP, NW 3MAP, CO 4MAP, DL 6MAP, etc., then the county would have to do it? Or at least consider it? Then you're right, it's over. However, I think someone will need to sign on the dotted line before the real work begins. In other words, AS' bluff will get called as well.

Quoting Lono (Reply 22):
It is about time someone took AS on in SEA....

Why? Are they really that bad? I've been flying them for many years, and I almost always have had a decent fare and better than decent service (great on QX). They control 1/2 of the flights at SEA. That means that 1/2 of the flights are by competitors. That's better than many hub cities I believe.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 18):
I don't think much road improvement would be necessary.

It's Seattle. It will take 10 years and a $250 million to widen Airport Way to 6 lanes - and the third lane each way will be carpool only! Besides, they'll have to reconfigure it three times to make room for 1) Sound Transit light rail; 2) Monorail; then 3) reconfigure for Sound Transit when they realize that they made the curves too sharp.

-Dave
-Dave
 
Lono
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 5:47 pm

RE: AS/QX Request Equal Access To BFI

Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:58 am

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 33):
I think you used SW to mean Southwest. The SW airline code actually is assigned to Air Namibia.

Thanks for that... I meant WN.... one too many...!!!!
Wally Bird Ruled the Skys!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 777PHX, ap305, Bing [Bot], BobPatterson, CM767, elmothehobo, evanb, Google Adsense [Bot], GoSharks, Jetty, jfk777, OslPhlWasChi, overcast, res77W, teme82, usflyer msp, Wolfman, Yahoo [Bot] and 374 guests