Airlines Didn't Get The Memo
You know how the Mayor's PR machine has been spoon-feeding stories to the L.A. Times about how we "need" a $720 million makeover at the international terminal to attract more flights here?
You know, the stories with un-named "economists" opining that airplanes are instinctively attracted to shiny new terminals? The ones covering the happy happy ground-breaking photo-ops?
Well, it turns out the airlines didn't get the memo.
The Daily Breeze reports, "Nearly two dozen international airlines have joined a fight against Los Angeles International Airport over steep increases in the rents and other fees they pay to operate there."
The article goes on to say, "That complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Transportation late Friday. In it, 22 airlines that use the Tom Bradley International Terminal describe the rate increases as unjustified, unfair and unlawful."
Wow! Where was the photo-op for THAT? Why don't the local TV stations send reporters to cover THAT story? Twenty-two airlines are complaining about the remodeling for which City Hall and the press-release journalists claim they are clamoring? Can you say "cognitive dissonance?" Sure you can.
The airlines, of course, don't object to the remodeling per se. But they don't want to pay for it, and wonder why they're supposed to pay higher rates since the airport agency is already operating at a profit. Good question.
Perhaps the L.A. Times should interview some REAL economists, to see whether raising the cost of using an airport is likely to increase, or decrease, demand for use of that airport. Oh, here's another question: given an industry that's always teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, will a major hike in operational costs help, or hurt, that industry?
P.S. As for the need to remodel to accomodate the new Airbus planes, Airbus announced today it's laying off 10,000 workers. Maybe the remodel for that isn't a "rush" job.