If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Kansas City)   Problem: Dysfunctional federal government causes airports to scramble for infrastructure dollars: Solution: $7 per ticket fee. Problem: That's kind of like a tax, so lawmakers and citizens say lol nope   (kansascity.com) divider line 25
    More: Interesting, federal government, Airlines for America, aviation fuel, lawmakers, infrastructure, Indianapolis International Airport, fees, own resources  
•       •       •

1207 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Oct 2013 at 7:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-15 07:43:36 AM  
Solution - close the airport because it isn't able to operate at a profit.
 
2013-10-15 07:44:26 AM  
Isn't the airport infrastructure maintenance fee built into fee the airline pays the airport so it is already sorta kinda in the ticket?
 
2013-10-15 07:44:52 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Solution - close the airport because it isn't able to operate at a profit.


Free market at work. If KC is unable to support an airport then KC shouldn't have an airport.
 
2013-10-15 07:50:33 AM  

timswar: Lost Thought 00: Solution - close the airport because it isn't able to operate at a profit.

Free market at work. If KC is unable to support an airport then KC shouldn't have an airport.


Rand be praised!
 
2013-10-15 07:51:15 AM  
Forcing people who don't fly in and out of MCI (not KCI) to pay for a new terminal is teh Socialism.
 
2013-10-15 07:51:25 AM  
Red state problems.

Raise taxes? Nope.
Raise Fees? Sure.

Support something that doesn't pay for itself? Sure, as long as the socialist government does it.
Complain when the socialist government won't pay to support something that isn't self supporting? Sure. Because it benefits us.

/I'll never understand flyover states.
//Thus I fly over them
 
2013-10-15 07:52:08 AM  

Muta: Isn't the airport infrastructure maintenance fee built into fee the airline pays the airport so it is already sorta kinda in the ticket?


Maintenance is subsidized by federal grants; it keeps the ticket prices low(er), the airport open during off-season, and encourages the airport to upgrade security and safety because they aren't cutting into profits to do so.
 
2013-10-15 07:59:10 AM  

TFerWannaBe: Maintenance is subsidized by federal grants; it keeps the ticket prices low(er), the airport open during off-season, and encourages the airport to upgrade security and safety because they aren't cutting into profits to do so.


Where in the Constitution does it say that their airport business is guaranteed a certain level of profit?  Simple solution, allow maintenance to cut into profits.
 
2013-10-15 08:01:04 AM  

Muta: TFerWannaBe: Maintenance is subsidized by federal grants; it keeps the ticket prices low(er), the airport open during off-season, and encourages the airport to upgrade security and safety because they aren't cutting into profits to do so.

Where in the Constitution does it say that their airport business is guaranteed a certain level of profit?  Simple solution, allow maintenance to cut into profits.


Is there a chance that you're confusing the Airlines, a profit driven entity, with the airports themselves?
 
2013-10-15 08:11:25 AM  

Muta: TFerWannaBe: Maintenance is subsidized by federal grants; it keeps the ticket prices low(er), the airport open during off-season, and encourages the airport to upgrade security and safety because they aren't cutting into profits to do so.

Where in the Constitution does it say that their airport business is guaranteed a certain level of profit?  Simple solution, allow maintenance to cut into profits.


Do you believe that major metropolitan areas should be without airports?
 
2013-10-15 08:16:47 AM  
What part of my post looked like support of the policy? I just answered your question.
 
2013-10-15 08:19:50 AM  
fta "We want the government out of this," said Mark VanLoh, the director of the Aviation Department at Kansas City, Mo.

"The department is an enterprise fund department of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, and is supported wholly by airport user charges. No general tax fund revenues are used..."

You got 98% of what you wanted, Mr VanLoh. Why u soar loser?
 
2013-10-15 08:24:08 AM  
Wait, what?

People fly to Kansas City deliberately?

I keed, I keed.

I don't quite get this story. It would appear FTFA that there is already a per ticket fee capped at $4.50 that they want to raise to 7 or 8 bucks. It's not a tax at 4.50 but it is at 7 or 8 bucks?

Granted I just woke up at 5 am and haven't had coffee yet but it still seems a little weird.
 
2013-10-15 08:25:22 AM  

Muta: TFerWannaBe: Maintenance is subsidized by federal grants; it keeps the ticket prices low(er), the airport open during off-season, and encourages the airport to upgrade security and safety because they aren't cutting into profits to do so.

Where in the Constitution does it say that their airport business is guaranteed a certain level of profit?  Simple solution, allow maintenance to cut into profits.


Your plan would rapidly degrade the runways to gravel cart paths.
 
2013-10-15 08:27:34 AM  

dionysusaur: Muta: TFerWannaBe: Maintenance is subsidized by federal grants; it keeps the ticket prices low(er), the airport open during off-season, and encourages the airport to upgrade security and safety because they aren't cutting into profits to do so.

Where in the Constitution does it say that their airport business is guaranteed a certain level of profit?  Simple solution, allow maintenance to cut into profits.

Your plan would rapidly degrade the runways to gravel cart paths.


Where in the Constitution does is say their runways must be better than gravel cart paths?
 
2013-10-15 08:35:10 AM  
I always grumbled about the airport use fees in Canada, but damn do they have nice airports.
 
2013-10-15 09:39:09 AM  
They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!

/rather see the money used for high speed trains
 
2013-10-15 09:49:33 AM  

dionysusaur: Your plan would rapidly degrade the runways to gravel cart paths.


If that is the case then shouldn't the airport change the airlines more to properly maintain the runways?
 
2013-10-15 09:55:17 AM  

Muta: dionysusaur: Your plan would rapidly degrade the runways to gravel cart paths.

If that is the case then shouldn't the airport change the airlines more to properly maintain the runways?


Where do you think the airlines will get that money from? Maybe passengers?
 
2013-10-15 10:12:51 AM  

monoski: Muta: dionysusaur: Your plan would rapidly degrade the runways to gravel cart paths.

If that is the case then shouldn't the airport change the airlines more to properly maintain the runways?

Where do you think the airlines will get that money from? Maybe passengers?


Because only passengers benefit from the airport?  They don't do things like spend money in places they travel to, and open up all kinds of new economic opportunities that would be lost if there were no airport?

Should people who don't own cars be exempt from all taxation related to roads?

Should people who don't currently have kids in school be exempt from all property tax that goes to the educational system?

Should people who don't care about Mars be exempt from NASA funding?

Macroeconomics =/= microeconomics
 
2013-10-15 10:21:05 AM  

quatchi: People fly to Kansas City deliberately?


Well, to be truthful, we're thrilled to be able to fly out.  Unfortunately, we do have to return too.
 
2013-10-15 11:15:24 AM  

monoski: Muta: dionysusaur: Your plan would rapidly degrade the runways to gravel cart paths.

If that is the case then shouldn't the airport change the airlines more to properly maintain the runways?

Where do you think the airlines will get that money from? Maybe passengers?


So the people who benefit from it have to pay for it. What's the problem again?
 
2013-10-15 12:34:37 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Muta: TFerWannaBe: Maintenance is subsidized by federal grants; it keeps the ticket prices low(er), the airport open during off-season, and encourages the airport to upgrade security and safety because they aren't cutting into profits to do so.

Where in the Constitution does it say that their airport business is guaranteed a certain level of profit?  Simple solution, allow maintenance to cut into profits.

Do you believe that major metropolitan areas should be without airports?


Listen, if the airports can't turn a profit like our Interstate Highway System, I say let'em burn.
 
2013-10-15 04:10:34 PM  
On the flip side, I'd pay $7 to not have to go through TSA checkpoints.
 
2013-10-15 11:34:22 PM  
You know what would fix the problem almost overnight? Start taxing the fees for the 'unbundled' services that used to be part of the ticket price. See, when the airline charges you $25 to check a bag, they don't pay the 7.5% tax on that $25. If they just raised the ticket price and let everyone check a bag, they'd have to pay that.

The airlines saying they were adding bag fees to give customers that didn't want to pay it a choice was just marketing. It is a tax dodge, pure and simple, and those taxes are what funded the AIP.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report