Air Travel

Question:

UA a "public" transport company? I think private is the word. Which recalls the suit brought successfully to prevent people who take the public bus from SFO to San Francisco from carrying any baggage. The suit, brought by the guys that run the limo service, claimed unfair competition.

Response:

> JF, you’re stepping into the middle of a political battle. What is most > convenient for the general public is not a consideration. This whole thing > is a power play by various governmental agencies. The airlines are caught > in the middle because these government agencies are trying to force them > to fund their political agenda (by funding these projects).

Yes, but an international airline, especially the size of UA should be aware that there are public relations repercussions when they make statements that get them involved, especially when these statements make the airline appear to block a laudable project from the eyes of "foreigners". Again, the airline must take into consideration that most readers are not fully aware of what is really going on on the local political scene but will still judge what the airline is doing. There was mention of UA being againts "air side money" being used for land-side development. If this is the case, I am very disapointed because an airport should be viewed as an entity and airlines benefit even when land-side is developped. I do not know how the funding/federal subsidies operate in the USA or specifically art SFO, but the fact remains that the image given was that UA was against the project instead of supporting it with some reservations on how it was to be funded. UA PR folks should be aware that any statement they make, even if intended for local SFO consumption, will make their way to the rest of the world through the internet and their statements should be worded accordingly.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Airlines including United Airlines, one of the largest operators at SFO, > fear that usage of airport fees toward PASSENGER transportation facilities > (versus airside facilities) would set a nationwide precendent. > Has United Airlines publicly and officially stated this ? If so, I find > it interesting that a public transporter (UA) is against public > transportation. > If this is the case, I will make a point of avoiding an airline such as > UA which takes steps to funnel money AWAY FROM PASSENGER CONVENIENCE. I > do not know how many employees UA has at SFO, but I find it very > shortsighted of it to block such a project since it would greatly > nbenefit its own employees as well.

Don’t know the actual number of employees UA has at SFO, but its way up there.  I understand they are the single largest employer at SFO. > Sorry UA, you want Airside-only funding, I want a total airport > experience > which is pleasant, convenient and affordable. I will not support an > airline which blocks efforts to improve the total airport system.

Not that I’m on UA’s side in this, but one of the problems is that BART itself is NOT going to the airport, but to Millbrae, where the pax will have to transfer to a people-mover system (ala Dallas?), which as I remember will only go to the new International Terminal that is under construction, leaving the pax with one heck of a long hike, especially if they have luggage to schlep, to get to UA, American and other airlines.  That unfortunately, as some of the other locals can tell you is the politics of the situation! >  The > airlines wish to continue insulating themselves from the community impact > that passenger to-the-airport transportation causes, preferring (in > California’s case) that the general public (through gas taxes and highway > construction) fully subsidize their needs.

I agree, except that in the case of SFO, pax to the airport is only a minor (IMO) contributor to the near gridlock that exists. > This attitude kind of reminds me about the deal Disney was trying to cut > with the Feds to get them to build the high-rise parking decks for > Disneyland off of Interstate 5 in Southern California about five years.

Hmm, that reminds me, who paid for the new UA high-rise parking structure??? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The negotiations to get BART to go to the airport have always been tenuous, > and few extensions of the system southward have been successful in the ~25 > year history of the system.  From my perspective as an air traveler, > political interests surrounding the train system, the airport, and most > significantly–other transit agency’s jurisdictions, have always overridden > customer/passenger desires including my own of hopping onto BART instead of > driving to the airport.  And now the AIRLINES of all things, want to stop > it.  Well, back to SJC for me. > As I said, this is a complex subject, and I can’t debate all of the nuances > here, but all I can say is that I’m highly disappointed that the airlines, > who need transportation facilities other than runways and jetways for pax > to get to their planes, are not only unwilling to contribute to a solution, > but are actively sabotaging good compromises–in this case a compromise > that I don’t think would have even costed them anything–to solve the > problem.

– Bob Parsons Remember…keep smiling, that way they’ll never know what you’re up to!

Response:

What it really gets down to is that we live in a patchwork society, and you can only build patchwork structures so high before they begin to collapse. It is gridlock, but on a far larger scale than anyone can conceive. The system should have been built envisioning the sort of metropolitan centers which today exist…that is with feeder airports, not feed ground transit. Every community should have had a small feeder line (air), taking passengers to a regional airport out in the boonies (flatlands, of course) that could have had all the space it needed, for the amount of volume that it was bound to have to serve. There is simply no room for expansion anymore, with the present structure.

Response:

>If this is the case, I will make a point of avoiding an airline such as >UA which takes steps to funnel money AWAY FROM PASSENGER CONVENIENCE. I >do not know how many employees UA has at SFO, but I find it very >shortsighted of it to block such a project since it would greatly >nbenefit its own employees as well.

Sorry JF but most employees at SFO live south of the airport and will not be helped one bit by the proposed BART extension. If anything, BART as planned will make public transportation less convenient for those of us south of the airport. >Sorry UA, you want Airside-only funding, I want a total airport >experience >which is pleasant, convenient and affordable. I will not support an >airline which blocks efforts to improve the total airport system.

JF, you’re stepping into the middle of a political battle. What is most convenient for the general public is not a consideration. This whole thing is a power play by various governmental agencies. The airlines are caught in the middle because these government agencies are trying to force them to fund their political agenda (by funding these projects). None of this is simple. —    http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/    Belmont, CA, USA    My opinions, not United’s.

Response:

In response to the comment and similar comments: > What it really gets down to is that we live in a patchwork > society, and you can only build patchwork…

Transportation is a societal issue, but those with a real $ay:   Highway and gasoline tax dollars:   – Transportation agencies   – Local Governments   – Federal Government   Customer dollars:   – Airlines   – Transportation agencies   – Airport Authorities   – Other businesses …all have conflicting motivations and aspirations, which often don’t coincidentally intersect with the public need. On a separate note, late this week the impasse broke with BART (the San Francisco-area subway system north and east of the airport, but not south or west of SFO) agreed to kick in a few million more dollars, and a 25% discount to United (and possibly other airline) employees.  Talk about an interline discount…

Response:

My 2 cents… I don’t think the airlines should directly pay a damn penny…   We subsidize roads with money from the general fund.. Put more of that money into public transportation.. If anyone should fork more money over, it’s CalTrans as this would alleviate traffic into SF…  If they don’t want to subsidize BART, then they will likely end up pouring more wasted money adding lanes on the 101..   I do agree that the airlines should pay some of the money, but that should come out of the existing PFC’s… As the FAA stipulates such PFC’s can not go into the general fund and can only be used to DIRECTLY benefit the airport.   Also, even in rush hour, for me a drive to SFO, parking  the car in Long Term and taking the bus to the terminal is ALWAYS quicker and better than the bumper to bumper traffic at Guadalupe Blvd, lack of parking and the crowded SJC terminals…   Het but if I can get a ride to the train station, I generally try to take CalTrain. – Nick This is a complex subject that I won’t get into fully, but apparently, federal funding for the extension of San Francisco’s ’subway’ system (BART) into San Francisco International Airport has been killed.   Airlines including United Airlines, one of the largest operators at SFO, fear that usage of airport fees toward PASSENGER transportation facilities (versus airside facilities) would set a nationwide precendent.  The airlines wish to continue insulating themselves from the community impact that passenger to-the-airport transportation causes, preferring (in California’s case) that the general public (through gas taxes and highway construction) fully subsidize their needs. This attitude kind of reminds me about the deal Disney was trying to cut with the Feds to get them to build the high-rise parking decks for Disneyland off of Interstate 5 in Southern California about five years. The negotiations to get BART to go to the airport have always been tenuous, and few extensions of the system southward have been successful in the ~25 year history of the system.  From my perspective as an air traveler, political interests surrounding the train system, the airport, and most significantly–other transit agency’s jurisdictions, have always overridden customer/passenger desires including my own of hopping onto BART instead of driving to the airport.  And now the AIRLINES of all things, want to stop it.  Well, back to SJC for me. As I said, this is a complex subject, and I can’t debate all of the nuances here, but all I can say is that I’m highly disappointed that the airlines, who need transportation facilities other than runways and jetways for pax to get to their planes, are not only unwilling to contribute to a solution, but are actively sabotaging good compromises–in this case a compromise that I don’t think would have even costed them anything–to solve the problem.

Response:

> Airlines including United Airlines, one of the largest operators at SFO, > fear that usage of airport fees toward PASSENGER transportation facilities > (versus airside facilities) would set a nationwide precendent.

Has United Airlines publicly and officially stated this ? If so, I find it interesting that a public transporter (UA) is against public transportation. If this is the case, I will make a point of avoiding an airline such as UA which takes steps to funnel money AWAY FROM PASSENGER CONVENIENCE. I do not know how many employees UA has at SFO, but I find it very shortsighted of it to block such a project since it would greatly nbenefit its own employees as well. Sorry UA, you want Airside-only funding, I want a total airport experience which is pleasant, convenient and affordable. I will not support an airline which blocks efforts to improve the total airport system.  The – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> airlines wish to continue insulating themselves from the community impact > that passenger to-the-airport transportation causes, preferring (in > California’s case) that the general public (through gas taxes and highway > construction) fully subsidize their needs. > This attitude kind of reminds me about the deal Disney was trying to cut > with the Feds to get them to build the high-rise parking decks for > Disneyland off of Interstate 5 in Southern California about five years. > The negotiations to get BART to go to the airport have always been tenuous, > and few extensions of the system southward have been successful in the ~25 > year history of the system.  From my perspective as an air traveler, > political interests surrounding the train system, the airport, and most > significantly–other transit agency’s jurisdictions, have always overridden > customer/passenger desires including my own of hopping onto BART instead of > driving to the airport.  And now the AIRLINES of all things, want to stop > it.  Well, back to SJC for me. > As I said, this is a complex subject, and I can’t debate all of the nuances > here, but all I can say is that I’m highly disappointed that the airlines, > who need transportation facilities other than runways and jetways for pax > to get to their planes, are not only unwilling to contribute to a solution, > but are actively sabotaging good compromises–in this case a compromise > that I don’t think would have even costed them anything–to solve the > problem.

Response:

This is a complex subject that I won’t get into fully, but apparently, federal funding for the extension of San Francisco’s ’subway’ system (BART) into San Francisco International Airport has been killed.   Airlines including United Airlines, one of the largest operators at SFO, fear that usage of airport fees toward PASSENGER transportation facilities (versus airside facilities) would set a nationwide precendent.  The airlines wish to continue insulating themselves from the community impact that passenger to-the-airport transportation causes, preferring (in California’s case) that the general public (through gas taxes and highway construction) fully subsidize their needs. This attitude kind of reminds me about the deal Disney was trying to cut with the Feds to get them to build the high-rise parking decks for Disneyland off of Interstate 5 in Southern California about five years. The negotiations to get BART to go to the airport have always been tenuous, and few extensions of the system southward have been successful in the ~25 year history of the system.  From my perspective as an air traveler, political interests surrounding the train system, the airport, and most significantly–other transit agency’s jurisdictions, have always overridden customer/passenger desires including my own of hopping onto BART instead of driving to the airport.  And now the AIRLINES of all things, want to stop it.  Well, back to SJC for me. As I said, this is a complex subject, and I can’t debate all of the nuances here, but all I can say is that I’m highly disappointed that the airlines, who need transportation facilities other than runways and jetways for pax to get to their planes, are not only unwilling to contribute to a solution, but are actively sabotaging good compromises–in this case a compromise that I don’t think would have even costed them anything–to solve the problem.

Response: