Alaska/Delta Cat Fight Continues

H46Bubba

H46Bubba

Well-Known Member
I had to chuckle a couple of time while reading the OpEd.

It’s unfair to tax all Sea-Tac passengers for new international terminal
By Joe Sprague
NOBODY likes waiting in line. It makes sense that the Port of Seattle would want to improve the international terminal at Sea-Tac Airport so that travelers arriving from Shanghai and Paris can clear customs and retrieve their luggage quickly. But when passengers arriving from Yakima, Walla Walla and every other city across the U.S. have to pay for the new international facility, we have a big problem.

Port officials are weighing a funding plan for the new international arrivals facility that should be scrapped. In its current form, the proposed scheme is unfair to local taxpayers. As the hometown airline, and employer of more than 6,600 people in the Puget Sound area alone, Alaska Airlines supports common-sense investments at Sea-Tac that would enable a strong future for our region.

The Port’s current proposal, though, is unacceptable for two reasons. First, the funding mechanism under consideration is grossly unfair. The plan would tax every traveler who flies in and out of Sea-Tac to fund the new international terminal. We understand the benefits of international flights serving Seattle. But why should every customer using our airport be charged for a project that would service just those passengers arriving from an international location, a group that constitutes only 10 percent of total passenger traffic?

The funding scheme also creates an unfair competitive environment. The primary beneficiaries of an improved international terminal are the global megacarriers that operate out of Sea-Tac.

Alaska fully embraces competition. We believe it has made us a better and stronger airline. But is it right to ask Alaska Airlines customers — local taxpayers — to pay for a new facility that would primarily benefit the hometown airline’s main competition? This is akin to asking Boeing customers to subsidize a plant that builds Airbus planes. Competition is healthy for our industry and for customers, but taking advantage of Seattle’s local airline to fund the growth of international megacarriers is not fair competition.

The second problem with the proposal is the price. The new international terminal has been forecast to cost a whopping $608 million, an alarming increase from the already high cost of $344 million originally proposed. To put that in perspective, this is more than the total cost that went into building CenturyLink Field, adjusted for today’s dollars.

Puget Sound-area residents have legitimate concerns with public projects that balloon in price and end up costing taxpayers in time and money. We can agree on the value of improving Sea-Tac’s international arrivals terminal. But do we really need a project with a price tag this high? Is this the best use of the Port’s limited resources?

Sea-Tac customers deserve an airport with modern, efficient facilities while allowing the airlines that serve Seattle to compete on a level playing field. We will continue to work with the Port and other airlines at the airport to find a more equitable plan that makes sense for our region and treats Sea-Tac customers fairly. Alaska has met repeatedly with Port officials to make our concerns known and advocate for those who would be footing the bill — you.

Alaska Airlines was founded by pioneers who believed in independence and standing up for what’s right. Today we call it the “Alaska Spirit,” and it’s what motivates us to fiercely stand by our values. That’s who we are, and that’s what defines how we serve the people in this community. We hope that same spirit can inform the Port Commission as it determines how to best allocate our public dollars to benefit the airport’s — and the region’s — long-term growth.

We encourage you to join Alaska in urging a fair and reasonable plan for funding the international arrivals terminal and email your thoughts to the Port commission: portseattle.org/about/commission

Joe Sprague is senior vice president of communications and external relations for Alaska Airlines.
Click to expand...
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/guest-its-unfair-to-tax-all-sea-tac-passengers-for-new-international-terminal/
 
Um, how else would you pay for the terminal? "Let's only tax Delta passengers," which is really what the SVP-Communications is saying, is not an "equitable" plan for building more facilities that, presumably, all airlines will be allowed (competitively, this is, after all, a "market"...) to rent space from.

King County (specifically) residents are indeed very familiar with ballooning costs for public works projects. "I paid for three stadiums and got two!" was a common complaint the last time I was up there. For $608 million, I guess it had better be a palace. What are the other alternatives?
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Um, how else would you pay for the terminal? "Let's only tax Delta passengers," which is really what the SVP-Communications is saying, is not an "equitable" plan for building more facilities that, presumably, all airlines will be allowed (competitively, this is, after all, a "market"...) to rent space from.

King County (specifically) residents are indeed very familiar with ballooning costs for public works projects. "I paid for three stadiums and got two!" was a common complaint the last time I was up there. For $608 million, I guess it had better be a palace. What are the other alternatives?
Click to expand...
Yes, but at the same time it's only the Delta pax that are going to benefit. And since Alaska runs the majority of their airline out of SEA, you're putting them at a competitive disadvantage just because Delta decided to show up.
I can see both sides. Indeed what are the alternatives?
 
z987k said:
Yes, but at the same time it's only the Delta pax that are going to benefit. And since Alaska runs the majority of their airline out of SEA, you're putting them at a competitive disadvantage just because Delta decided to show up.
I can see both sides. Indeed what are the alternatives?
Click to expand...
Alaska operates five international routes from SEA. New facility would be used by Alaska, Delta, British Airways. Lufthansa, Korean Air, Asiana, Emirates, EVA Air, Air Canada, and ANA. When the Port had the planning meeting, Alaska didn't pipe up or even offer an alternative. The CBP facilities here are outdated and there needs to be a better centrally located facility which a new International Terminal would have. Alaska has lost the Port's favored status.
 
Well, Alaska could practice what it preaches and take responsibility for the full $512 million the Port is spending on expanding the North Satellite for starters. But since Alaska is more than happy to benefit from the Port of Seattle spending money collected from other airlines I doubt they will make any mention of that.

And while I am sure the Port of Seattle will use this as an excuse to raise facilities rent just like they did when the A concourse was built (and boy how I remember they charged more per month for a 4x10 room than a 16x40 divided space simply because the tiny room was on the "new" side of the renovation partition) they aren't raising the PFC to do this so unless Alaska is successful in pushing through a fare increase I doubt that passengers will feel the brunt of it.

The Port of Seattle needs (and I think they will) consider it based not on what's good for Alaska (or Delta for that matter) but what works best for the Port and the region as a whole. You can darn well bet that the Port is under pressure to make the dank, dingy, dungeon of an immigration arrivals area better from more than just Delta.
 
H46Bubba said:
I had to chuckle a couple of time while reading the OpEd.


[URL='http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/guest-its-unfair-to-tax-all-sea-tac-passengers-for-new-international-terminal/[/QUOTE']http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/guest-its-unfair-to-tax-all-sea-tac-passengers-for-new-international-terminal/[/URL]
Click to expand...

You did better than I did! I saw that article on a different website and didn't even make it a few paragraphs in before I started outright laughing. 'Taking advantage of Seattle's local airline..." HA!
 
NightCargo said:
You did better than I did! I saw that article on a different website and didn't even make it a few paragraphs in before I started outright laughing. 'Taking advantage of Seattle's local airline..." HA!
Click to expand...
Delta is/was passing out lanyards that said "SEATTLE'S INTERNATIONAL AIRLINE" (read that in the "DELTA PEOPLE CARE" typeface) at one point. I did get a giggle upon seeing those in SEA. Snarky, the invaders from the South are.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Delta is/was passing out lanyards that said "SEATTLE'S INTERNATIONAL AIRLINE" (read that in the "DELTA PEOPLE CARE" typeface) at one point. I did get a giggle upon seeing those in SEA. Snarky, the invaders from the South are.
Click to expand...
Maybe some south shall rise again bumper stickers for good measure?
 
jtrain609 said:
Operating out of? More like have had bases in.
Click to expand...
Closing that pilot base the most recent time around was a terrible, terrible thing, for many and varied reasons. None of them related to the operation, mind you - it's how I became...sigh...a Californian.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Closing that pilot base the most recent time around was a terrible, terrible thing, for many and varied reasons. None of them related to the operation, mind you - it's how I became...sigh...a Californian.
Click to expand...

What airline are you talking about? DL (NW) has had SEA since the Wright Brothers more or less.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
What airline are you talking about? DL (NW) has had SEA since the Wright Brothers more or less.
Click to expand...

Western_Airlines_Boeing_707.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top