January 15, 2008
Moving Ahead With Airport Congestion Pricing
After talk of flight caps to help ease airport congestion that leave many travelers very irritable, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced another policy to help ease airport woes. The DOT will let airports charge airlines based on the time of day and volume of traffic their planes are landing in. Previously, aircraft was only charged based on plane weight.
The hope, per the USDOT, is that "airports would be able to spread traffic more evenly throughout the day - allowing them to serve more passengers, reduce delays, and help avoid the need for sustained federal government intervention." The USDOT also hopes that the revenue from fees will allow operators of many airports (like the Port Authority, which has JFK, LaGuardia and Newark airports - which have the lowest on-time arrival rates in the country) to fund expansion projects (like that of Stewart Airport).
The Port Authority's pleased but wants more, issuing a statement saying, "It's good the (Federal Aviation Administration) is focusing on the delays issue, but these small steps don't address the fundamental problem when dramatic action is needed. The right solution is expanding capacity through 21st century technologies, working with the airlines on more rational schedules and better customer service."
And the flight caps will begin in March. Currently, there are about 100 flights per peak hour at JFK; with the cap in effect, that will be reduced to 82 or 83 flights.
|
Coincidentally, there's an hour long ground stop for DTW and PIT to LGA.
Great. Congestion pricing for roads, congestion pricing for airports, etc. Pretty soon only the wealthy will be able to do things during daylight hours and the rest of us will be re-arranging our schedules so that we don't get hit with all kinds of fees we can't afford.
"Congestion pricing" is really just a euphemism for "weeding out lower income people so that rich people can do what they want with less hassle."
It's cute how the FAA has "allowed" the airports to charge airlines for peak usage.
<sarcasm>Because the airlines will happily absorb those fees as the regular cost of doing business.</sarcasm>
We don't need a terrorist event to destroy the airline industry. We are pretty good at doing it ourselves...and take out the economy too. Two birds with one stone!
Well, to be fair, the rationale behind the congestion pricing deals is to convince those who don't really need to be on the road/in the air to do it at other times so that those who do need it have a little freer mobility. Though, in effect, it is weeding out the poor.
Why shouldn't the airports charge more for peak hours? The airlines already charge more for the most popular flight times i.e. when business travelers want to fly. The comparison to congestion pricing for Manhattan drivers is weak at best. And exactly how high do you think they would raise fares anyway? When you consider the wide distribution of prices people on the same flight pay for a seat a few extra dollars per person is a rounding error.
Actually, it's the comparison to airlines charging more for popular flight times which is weak because that's private industry and not the government doing it.
Private industry can charge what it wants within the free market system, and if the competition charges less then customers are free to make a choice and go elsewhere. But the government has a monopoly and is supposed to be representing all people equally. It shouldn't be divvying up public resources based on who has the most money.
The only mitigating factor is that the government will be charging the airlines, and not tacking on another service charge directly to passenger ticket prices. Airlines can choose to absorb some or all of this cost if they want. But still, it comes down to the government making vital public resources more available to the rich than to the poor and middle class.
Again, the comparison to roads is weak because nobody is reselling access to the roads the way the airlines are selling access to the airport. Maybe the government should simply bypass the airlines and tack on different taxes based on the time of day. And I think that I am going to disagree that leisure travel access to airports is as vital as access to roads. And you even admit that customers are free to make choices so why can't the middle class and poor do the same comparison shopping they are already doing? Some will choose to fly earlier in the day which is entirely the point of this exercise - shift the demand.
And again I'll ask, exactly how much do you think this is going to work out to per ticket?
"weeding out lower income people so that rich people can do what they want with less hassle."
that's life, deal with it
don't the airlines already charge more for more desirable flights? this is only going to add more cost to the consumer, because there's no way they're going to eat the increased charges.
airlines suck!
I'm usually on the other side of the debate, but there just is no entitlement or right to air travel, during peak periods or otherwise. There is no right to road travel either, but I'm much more likely to agree that road fees as damaging because of our auto-oriented society.
If there is such a high demand for these slots, there's no logical reason the government (airports) shouldn't be able to charge more. Being managed by the government doesn't mean they should ignore economic realities.
Again, the point is this: Government should not be parceling out public resources (in this case favorable flying times at local airports) based on who can afford to pay the most. If private industry wants to do that, then fine. But the government shouldn't be doing it.
And bypassing the airlines to charge passengers directly would make the situation worse, for reasons I explained above.
Minor points:
-- Not all travel at airports is "leisure travel." But even if it was, why should people with less money be denied equal access by the government? (And not all road travel is "vital" either, especially considering the availability of public transportation.)
-- Lower income people are indeed free to comparison shop, and maybe some airlines will absorb the increased fees (which I acknowledged above as a mitigating factor). But if they don't then you basically have a system where the gov't is sanctioning favoritism for the wealthy.
-- I don't know what it works out to per ticket, but it doesn't matter. The issue's the same. But if it causes a low income family to be inconvenienced so that a wealthier family can fly at a better time, then it's the wrong thing for government to do. Private industry? Different story. The government monopoly that's supposed to provide equal protection for everyone? Wrong.
The USDOT says that "airports would be able to spread traffic more evenly throughout the day." What that REALLY says is that travel times throughout the day would be further stratified by income, with wealthier people receiving preferential treatment from the government. But hey, if you don't mind that our government wants to make it harder for lower income people to use public resources at reasonable times then we'll just have to disagree.
NEWSFLASH:
The ACTUAL poor don't drive cars in urban areas or fly across the country.
They already can't afford to.
I KNEW that one was coming. I guess, aydiosmio, that you've never been to the American Airlines terminal at Kennedy where all the flights to the Dominican Republic are boarding. I suppose all those people packed into that dingy building every day with their kids and their baggage are wealthy, right? You've probably never tried to find a parking spot in Washington Heights or East New York either. Because I can tell you without any doubt whatsoever that there are just as many cars in those neighborhoods as anywhere else. The cars may not be Lexuses and Acuras, but they're definitely there and they're definitely not owned by wealthy people looking for cheap parking spots.
It's obvious that the main stumbling block for you is the fact that the government is involved. That makes sense, but I think you are ignoring the reality that government-run airports is the only workable system. Airports are extremely large pieces of infrastructure, both in and of themselves, and how they tie into other infrastructure. In this day and age, only the government can take the risk on such a large project.
Even if airports could be privately run, the government would still have to get involved because you could not have two airports in close proximity to each other, for obvious reasons. There are also not that many suitable locations for airports, which would limit the ability of private enterprises to practically compete. It's not like with a coffee shop where you can just open a competitor across the street.
IMO, large infrastructure is one area where the free market fails. For example, almost no private enterprises want to build new refineries, although the demand is clearly there. There are almost no private transportation systems in existence anymore (Japan has privately-run trains, but the infrastructure was built by the gov't).
In certain limited situations, and this is one of them, the government should act like a private enterprise.
But hey, if you don't mind that our government wants to make it harder for lower income people to use public resources at reasonable times then we'll just have to disagree.
Or you could try to make a compelling case. I hear everything you are saying but you haven't shown why everyone has a right to fly whenever they want. The reality is the airlines are already stratifying by time by making certain tickets more expensive so "the poor" are already forced to pick a flight time and fare that works for them. Why shouldn't the government get a cut of that extra money the airlines are making? Maybe they'll actually use the money to invest in better airports. And Econ 101 shows it is impossible for a business to pass 100% of a tax increase onto the consumer.
Look at it however you want but the reality is that the airports are not being utilized very efficiently. I was at the American Airlines terminal at JFK a few months ago for a noon flight on a weekday and the place was a ghost town and there was no wait to takeoff after we left the gate. When did noon become unreasonable? You're spinning this like the "poor" are going to have to fly at 4 AM - just like the automobile congestion pricing opponents want you to imagine millionaires in Porsches swilling champagne as they drive up and down empty city avenues like their in a rap video. The reality is that business is going to bear the majority of the cost increase since those are the people that want to fly at 8 AM and 6 PM.
Maybe you would rather just go back to the time when airlines were regulated and airfares were about triple what they are now. The poor and middle class didn't fly all too often period. Those poor Domincans at the American Airlines terminal would be sitting at home making a phone call rather than visiting. All this flying is bad for the environment anyway. FYI, American build a $1 billion dollar new terminal so the poor don't have to sit in a dingy terminal any longer.
And politburo, there are plenty of private enterprises that would like to build new refineries or expand their current ones. It's just that they get blocked in court by the local citizens.
Nobody has a "right" to fly any time at all. But the government shouldn't be making things harder for people with less money (whether they could be considered poor, middle class or otherwise). The USDOT's attempt to "spread traffic more evenly throughout the day" is really just moving people with less money onto less preferable flights, and that violates the government's commitment to equal protection. But since I'd be repeating myself if I said that all over again, I'll just add:
HOW BOUT DEM COWBOYS!!!!!!!!!!!
"there are plenty of private enterprises that would like to build new refineries or expand their current ones. It's just that they get blocked in court by the local citizens."
Naturally I didn't do an exhaustive search, but the only examples I could find was a guy in Arizona who was trying to build one (it appears to be going forward), and a proposed refinery in Illinois. I don't recall any cases about new refineries being blocked by courts. My work is related to the industry and if such a case occurred, I likely would have heard about it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Well I hear what you're saying but I don't think you would get a court to agree with your equal protection theory. It would seem that a logical extension would be that parking meters and road/bridge tolls are illegal. Aren't roads there for everyone? Don't parking meters discriminate against the poor? And subways and buses should be free too.
In the end you have to prove that the increase in fare would be an undue burden. And frankly, if you could show me how a noon flight is a severe disadvantage.
This is BS. Since the airports in the NYC area are all high traffic, we will all be taxed more than the losers from Oshkosh. FU USDOT.