I don't understand why the short term parking structure would be razed. Most
parking structures are built to last for many, many decades to recoup costs. Is
it really too old that its seismic risk is that bad?
No they are not raising taxes to pay for the new airport.They are
just raising the gate fees, landing feee, runway fees and other fees to the
airlines......who will in turn charge us more for our tickets to fly. So
obviously the airlines are the bad guys not the people who lied to you about the
airport 1.8 billion dollar expansion costing taxpayers nothing.No,
no additional "taxes" to us here locally at all. Money just gets
invented these days...especially when government is involved.This is
like obamas recent propose corporate tax rate CUT...except that his tax cut
increases taxes by $250 Billion over the next ten years on oil and gas companies
that will in turn raise the price of fuel on ALL of us including the poor...but
meanwhile our President is taking credit for cutting the Corporate tax rate.
See how it works?I hope everyone realizes that almost entity that
wants/gets money only gets it from one place.US!!!Wake
up people. Its all just a propagandized shell game.
2 bits,The majority of the $1.8 billion project will be funded
through revenue bonds. That is, the increased landing fees, gate fees and
rental space that the airlines have agreed to pay will support the debt service
payments of these revenue bonds.Airlines are regularly ordering and
buying new equipment and planes to replace "retiring" equipment and
planes. So, in a sense it is the airlines that are ordering a new airport. I
am not an expert but a new airport with new and more efficient gates may be
needed to support the new generation planes like the "Dreamliner".
Things I found funny in the article:1. Delta and Southwest have
already agreed to a 3 cent per passenger increase to their surcharge. Well duh.
Make it 10 cents. 20 cents. Who cares? In the end it just gets passed to the
passenger anyway.2. The current airport can accommodate 21M fliers
per year. The new airport: 24M. An increase of 3M, with a cost of $1.8B?
That is $600 per increased passenger we can accommodate, meaning we will then
have to rebuild again by the time it's done. Seems short-sighted to me.I for one think it's time to rebuild. SLC is the only airport where I
still wait in security lines for more than 30 minutes. On Tuesday morning it
was 50 minutes. Most other airport: 10-20 minutes.
Iron Rod,And on December the 21st. the world will end as
well...thank you for the Econ 101 lesson, but like December 21st., it just
'ain't going to happen' and the sky didn't fall on chicken little either.
With the current growth in Utah, 21M to 24M passenger increase in 10 years seems
a little short-sighted. If passenger increase of 2.8% from 2009-10 is
consistent, should plan for 27M in 10 years.#1 SLC Sports Fan - Salt Lake isn't much bigger than Boise? Salt Lake passengers 21M, Boise
passengers 2.8M. That's a HUGE difference.
I don't trust much of what is said, saying anything to put your name in lights,
or tack the "airport reconstruction" to a title of some administrator
is my main concern. I've seen the entry to the airport rebuilt and
rebuilt many times over...at what cost? I drive to the airport often, and entry
construction has had to cost millions and millions...just to be torn up again
two years later. Our Salt Lake Airport is and has been wasteful
(tearing down a fairly new parking structure for example). Oh, and
let's talk about the airport gestapo police department...not a friendly bunch
I might point out that Salt Lake City WAS NOT Western's #1 choice to establish a
major hub out of 30 years ago. Denver was preferred, and the DIA facility was
built to accomodate not just United, but Continental, Frontier and yes Delta.Would a major legacy carrier like Delta stay in Salt Lake City if a
chance to move into a more major metropolis like Denver, Phoenix or Las Vegas
opened up? Not likely. So what we have presently should be satisfactory given
that Salt Lake City would be the perfect focus operation for Southwest and they
prefer older, less costly facilities.As for international flights,
people should face reality that going to Denver should be the closest stop
anyone should expect to fly to Europe and the west coast to Asia. Would an
airline try to fly Tokyo or Paris out of Boise? Salt Lake isn't much bigger,
and the subsidies to keep these flights going are corporate welfare at its
Construction of the new airport is supposed to be completed by 2022. If Salt
Lake City has any chance of hosting the Olympic Winter Games of 2022 it had
better be finished.
Re VeracityAirlines will only fly if they can make enough money to
compensate for the inceased fuel charges.To make that money the
airlines have to charge more if fuel inceases.Planes will only fly
if people can afford the fares.Car rental agencies will only rent
cars at the airport if the airlines carry people into the airport.Look for the price of fuel to go up dramatically due to political reasons.Salt Lake could become the Athens of the Intermountain West.
Some comments lack focus and are only worth 2 bits...and whether Delta is here
or someone else, planes will still come and go and cars will be rented...this is
Let's hope that the majority airline Delta stays healthy and keeps their hub in
SLCWestern moved their hub to Salt Lake under their President Larry
Lee and Delta acquired Western. That gave Delta a presence in the Intermountain
west.Say Delta acquires US Airways which has a huge hub in PHX.
Would two hubs that close together fly? Maybe yes may be no.Delta
is currently trying to develop a domestic hub at LGA (La Guardia) which is very
close to their International Hub of JFK.What if Delta decides to
downsize SLC as a hub as they currently are doing in Memphis and upgrade PHX?If we or Israel attack Iran the price of fuel will increase, if Iran
decides to close the Straits of Hormouth the price of fuel will dramatically
increase. When the price of fuel increases the business model of
the airlines is to fly less and charge more.So who will pay for the
construction bonds if the airlines are unable to pay for it with landing fees or
rental car fees?
A good job explaining the basics of what's going to happen with our airport.
Thanks, Mr. Page.
The one thing you didn't explain is... how does having $250 million in the bank
mean you can take on a $1.8 BILLION project?$250 million is a lot,
but it's a drop in the bucket if you need $1.8 BILLION.Taking on a
$1.8 Billion project because you have some money in the bank is like families
who think they need to buy a McManssion because they have a little money in the
bank.A little mis-information in the article is... the airport isn't
50 years old. In fact very little of it is actually 50 years old. The parking
structure is probably less than 10 years old. And we have rebuilt all of the
concourses since the original airport was constructed. A little piece of the
ticket area is all that's 50 years old.We have planes that are 50
years old and still flying (B52s etc). But this stationary building that has
been retrofitted numerous times over the same 50 years needs to be completely
replaced??? I don't get it.