Airports disappointed FAA bill doesn't raise PFC cap

By Aaron Karp | February 8, 2012

US airports are happy that the newly passed FAA reauthorization legislation (ATW Daily News, Feb. 8) restores "stability" to agency operations—and, by extension, airport construction project planning—but the bill's lack of a passenger facility charge (PFC) increase is a definite loss for airports.

US airports are allowed to impose a maximum $4.50 PFC fee per flight segment on airline tickets after gaining approval from FAA for a targeted construction project. Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA) has long argued that the cap, set in 2000, has not kept pace with the rate of construction cost inflation. It has asserted that the cap would have to be at least $8 to be worth what it was in 2000.

A year ago, House of Representatives aviation subcommittee chairman Tom Petri (R-Wisc.) warned that the PFC cap likely would not be raised (ATW Daily News, Feb. 7, 2011): "We had a pretty robust [PFC cap] increase [in the FAA reauthorization bill that stalled in 2010] to take into account inflation over a number of years. The airlines don't like that … There is a concern [by airlines] about some of that money being hijacked for" non-aviation-related projects.

But, in contrast to the prevailing sentiment in the Republican Party, Petri said a PFC hike would be helpful: "The system does have to grow and airport facilities for the traveling public are an important part of that."

ACI-NA president Greg Principato, while pleased that Congress has finally passed an FAA reauthorization bill, said in a statement: "We are deeply disappointed that Congress chose not to move towards [greater use of] local financing options like the passenger facility charge, which is a local fee charged by airports to assist them in addressing their capital needs."

US airlines, on the other hand, praised Congress for not boosting the PFC cap. "The bill holds the line on aviation taxes paid by passengers … which have doubled over the last 20 years," Airlines for America (A4A) stated. "This is critically important to the economic viability of the airline industry."

Discuss this news 13

07 Feb20:36

Time for airports to stop

By Anonymous

Time for airports to stop building monuments to themselves. What passenger really needs or cares for a fancy facility. All the passenger wants is to get to and from the gate easily and then pick up their baggage in a timely manor.

08 Feb04:27

No matter in all industry,

By Anonymous

No matter in all industry, there are punches of executives think they are smart...

08 Feb10:31

Yes, passengers should expect

By JvW

Yes, passengers should expect a convenient and quick passage through an airport to their aircraft, and that aircraft should be able to arrive and depart on time rather than sit around waiting. That can only happen though if airports invest sufficiently into their infrastructure: runways and terminals. PFCs are an important funding option to help make that possibble.

08 Feb15:26

Great point! Too many

By steve

Great point! Too many atrium's,fountains,sculptures,paintings,and vaulted ceilings which are hard to heat and waste energy.Build a box building that reduces heating and cooling costs and let the museums provide the art.In a local town nearby,a high school was built that was functional without the sweeping lines,multiple foyers and the like and some residents complained that it did not look good.Its a school for Pete's sake,not an art gallery.
For the passenger needs only to change flights and board flights,function not form is what matters.

08 Feb15:43

For those who believe an

By KDK

For those who believe an increase in the PFC was not warranted, then they can proceed with the cost to make physical improvements to the airport - which often times is not only for the benefit of aircraft operators, but for the benefit of airlines that operate from the facility.

With fire trucks that cost in excess of $1,000,000 dollars a copy, snow removal equipment that routinely costs in excess of $750,000 (snowblower), runway and taxiway lighting systems for improvements that can easily run $2,000,000 or more, minor runway and taxiway pavement rehabilitation (runway slab replacement) that can easily run hundreds of thousands of dollars, please tell me how an airport sponsor is going to pay these projects down with a $4.50 PFC that has the buying power of around $2.00.

Therefore, if I'm going to use an airport facility, then I have no problem paying for the cost of using the facilities in which the airlines operate from.

That is no different than the majority of airlines that charge for the carriage of checked luggage - especially since I know many airline mechanics, can see what it takes to keep an airliner in a safe and flyable condition, because it is such a labor intensive industry, so if the airline industry wants to charge me $20 or more dollars, I have no problem paying that.

Have a wonderful day.

08 Feb16:41

I'd rather pick my baggage up

By Anonymous

I'd rather pick my baggage up in a timely manner in the terminal than have to go to some timely manor. Well, maybe stately Wayne Manor would be cool, you know, just to meet Bruce and Alfred.

08 Feb17:32

I agree with you. The thing

By Yonier Pinon

I agree with you. The thing is that is really hard to make people to understand how the aviation industry works. They don't take a few minutes to think that all the (PFC's) that are collected by airports, is use to improve those facilities. Travelers likes to have restaurants in tthe airport, they also wnat to be safe. But all these cost money and like i said i agreed with you. Ii tried to explane people how this industry works and they just go away. My son is 7 years all and he belongs to the young eagles, here in Sarasota and he fly, and he already notice with only 7 years old, that some improvements has to be done. I'm saying that KSRQ is not a good airport, but what i/m saying is that people need to understand and be more educated in relation with this industry.

08 Feb17:36

That's right people wants

By Yonier Pinon

That's right people wants airports to be a perfect facility, they just want to land and pick their baggage in seconds, but to update the bag-room airport have to charge you for that. So, please do a little reading about (PFC's) and them post something with logic.

08 Feb17:40

Bachelors Degree in Science

By Yonier Pinon

Bachelors Degree in Science with a Major in Aviation Technology.

Increase (PFC's) is what we need, and remember NextGen is coming. So, get ready to start paying for this too. Any desagree e-mail me at

y.pinon@student.evergladesuniversity.edu

Thank's and have a great day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

08 Feb18:22

PFC's are a ripoff for the

By Anonymous

PFC's are a ripoff for the flying public. There is no monitoring how the money is being used, if for airport I
Prove menus at all. I from the era before PFC's, and airport improvements were done then without having to raise ticket prices.
The airlines are correct in lobbying against another government scheme to rip off the public. Don't we pay enough taxes already on an airline ticket?

08 Feb18:31

Y' Pinon: impressive

By IguanaDC3

Y' Pinon: impressive credentials. We've ALL got 'em. How's about night classes to learn the King's English next, however? Everglades U' clearly failed ya' in that regard, good grief.

08 Feb18:54

I question the concept of

By Anonymous

I question the concept of PFCs. It's ludicrous that I'm paying the same $18.00 per family member round trip on a $340.00 airline ticket from Washington to Louisville, as I paid on my $3,400 first class ticket round trip from Washington to Maui. If you believe in elasticity, the $72.00 the family of four pays for PFCs on the short trip discourages flying. The $18.00 on the trip to Hawaii is virtually irrelevant.

09 Feb20:11

Thanks. I will think about

By Yonier Pinon

Thanks. I will think about it.