That was my reaction to these articles in the Seattle PI and the Seattle Times on Southwest Airlines' proposed move from the airport. Here are some numbers from the Times:
The Port already has cut projects, restructured its debt and trimmed staff to bring airlines' projected future costs at the airport down to an estimated $14.15 per passenger from $25 projected two years ago. Those costs would take effect in 2009, when the third runway is scheduled to open.
Despite those moves, Southwest said costs at Sea-Tac are threatening its ability to serve Seattle, and without the move, it might have to scale back operations here.Costs at Sea-Tac are the highest among the 60 airports Southwest serves, Chief Executive Gary Kelly said. Southwest's nationwide average airport cost is between $4 and $5 per passenger, and at Boeing Field the airline thinks it can operate below that average.
Sea-Tac costs amount to more than $10 per passenger, "with the cost destined to go higher," Kelly said.
Assuming those numbers are roughly right, that explains Southwest's desire to move to Boeing Field. But I found nothing in the articles to explain why Sea-Tac's costs are so much higher than the costs at other airports. Why, for instance, should the costs here in Seattle be higher than those in San Diego, another city served by Southwest?
I am not asking that question sarcastically. It is possible, of course, that Sea-Tac (and perhaps the entire Port of Seattle?) really is that inefficient. Monopolies, especially government monopolies, often are. But there may be another explanation. If so, I would sure like to see it.
Posted by Jim Miller at July 22, 2005 03:31 PM | Email ThisI have a friend who has done professional work at a number of airports including SeaTac over the past 30 years. He says that the SeaTac (mis)management is far and away the worst of any airport he has had professional dealing with. He says that the spirit of entrepreneur is alive and well at SeaTac; too bad management cannot remain focused on one subject for more than 10 minutes at a time.
SeaTac the best airport that the far left can deliver. Right up there with Sound Transit and the Monorail.
Posted by: JC Bob on July 22, 2005 04:15 PMBloated and dumb management combined with a union work force that gets paid twice what it should and does half the work it should for the number of employees.
Seattle will have to fall off the business map before anything is done to change the Port. I, for one, find it very difficult to maintain my residence in the Seattle area because the cost of flights to and from Seattle is so much higher than all of the other medium to large metropolitan areas.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on July 22, 2005 04:38 PMIf only Walmart were in the airline industry.
Posted by: Andy on July 22, 2005 05:07 PMWhile the third runaway is a big part of the cost increase, so are the environmental impact statements, the lawsuits over noise and the third run way mitigation costs. The cost of the third runway was double due to excessive litigation, environmental migration and other such costs. It is not surprising that every entity in Washington State including is impacted by our “business” environment.
Tell me that Ron Sims was impersonating David Irons on the John Carlson show a moment ago. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Posted by: steve_dog on July 22, 2005 05:42 PMThat said, I suspect the 'costly' situ at seatac is due to unions, sweetheart contracts and other silly rules by a government that is clueless about business; I'm not saying carelessly fill the nature swamps, but I suspect an imbalance of needs between govt and business; not a partnership for the good of all, but enemies; a bad path to choose; this needs to change; both sides have good points; let's use the best of both; Seattle can shine or just be another wannabe that is only a connector city en route to their REAL destinations;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 22, 2005 06:17 PMAll three Port of Seattle Commissioners whose seats are up for election this year voted for these property tax increase. Lawrence Molloy and Pat Davis are seeking re-election, while Paige Miller is running for the Seattle City Council.
There is no need for a tax subsidy. Aviation and shipping can support themselves. They do everywhere else in the country, outside of the State of Washington. Most local governments actually make a profit from their port authorities. Not hard to do when you start out with a natural monopoly.
The Port of Seattle decided on a fairly luxurious upgrade of Sea-Tac Airport several years ago. All of the airlines were in favor of this project at the time. Regardless, airport improvement has to be paid for either by airport users, federal taxes (mostly those imposed on airline tickets), or by local taxpayers. Sea-Tac does have one of the nation's highest per-passenger charges to the airlines.
Ron Sims' proposed competition between Sea-Tac and Boeing Field is patently absurd, and must be stopped before a really big hole is burned in our pockets.
While airlines pretty much have to pay their own way at Sea-Tac (the vast majority of the $62.5 million in property taxes subsidizes shipping and cruise lines, not aviation), Southwest Airlines would be getting a tremendous subsidy from King County taxpayers.
Although Southwest Airlines would be financing the construction of its own private terminal and parking garage, it would be paying virtually nothing to King County over the term of its 50 year lease.
King County taxpayers would be stuck with virtually all the costs of runway maintenance, air traffic control, airport security, fire protection, and other airport operations to the extent they exceeded paltry amount of rent that Southwest would be paying over the next 50 years. In addition, large sums of money would need to be spent on road and highway improvements to serve the vastly increased traffic flow to Boeing Field.
At the same time, Southwest would no longer contribute towards the $4.2 billion or so in Sea-Tac improvements. Other airlines, such as Alaska and Horizon, could move major portions of their operations to Boeing Field as well.
The Port of Seattle would then have to increase passenger charges on the remaining airlines even further. Or make additional increases in the $62.5 million in annual property taxes -- I believe they can be increased to somewhere around $100 million per year without voter approval.
We will basically end up with two municipal governments, both of which serve the exact same constituency -- the Port of Seattle and the County of King -- competing will each other for passenger aviation business. And both entities will be using TENS OF MILLIONS OF OUR PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS to bid against each other to offer the lowest prices to the airlines.
One of the reasons why our Port of Seattle taxes are so high is the desire to "compete" with the Port of Tacoma and Port of Everett for shipping business. (The latter two ports have much lower property taxes, since Tacoma and Everett have certain advantages which enable them to be cheaper than Seattle in the first place.)
We need change in this county, both in the King County Executive and in the Port of Seattle Commission.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 22, 2005 06:20 PMPort authorities in California actually make a PROFIT and give the money to local governments to blow as they please.
There is no excuse for government to LOSE tens of millions of dollars in year in an inherently profit-making enterprise when there is also a natural and legal monopoly.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 22, 2005 08:43 PM**....replacing functional uglyness with beautiful inefficency.**
Seattle must have gotten some of their uppity ideas from Portland. Some pinhead decided the sea wall down town was ugly and decided to replace it with a rod iron type of railing. And now every time the Willamette River rises in the winter they use plywood and tarps to contain the river. And then there's the steets in downtown Portland. Yes, visually they look nice, however you should hear what my 90 year old mother has to say about them. The brick/cobblestone type of street is difficult to walk on for the elderly and my mother gets around alot better then most 80 year olds. I'm supprised that Ron "Tax the Max" Sims hasn't come up with a street beautification program. Ooooops, I probably should have kept my mouth shut since he monitors the boards.
Posted by: Janet on July 22, 2005 11:39 PMI am an engineer and do a lot of work for different public agencies. I do not work for the Port of Seattle. They have extremely rigid engineering procurement requirements. So extreme that they have even run seminars on "how to do business with the Port of Seattle" when nobody proposed on work.
In the past, I gave up on trying to work for the Port.
I'll bet that you thought Initiative 200 stopped quota's and reverse descrimination... Please examine the following Port of Seattle contractor requirements.
http://portseattlecontracting.ebidsystems.com/documentdeliver.asp?dID=1328&
http://portseattlecontracting.ebidsystems.com/documentdeliver.asp?dID=1329&
http://portseattlecontracting.ebidsystems.com/documentdeliver.asp?dID=1336&
If you want a good laugh, look at the requirements of their professional services agreement (PSA) and note that consultants must use MicroSoft Word 2000, Excel 2000 and submit electronic copies on 3.5 inch floppies. Not only are they rigid, they are behind the times, see page 2 of 5 below.
http://portseattlecontracting.ebidsystems.com/documentdeliver.asp?dID=478&
Posted by: Bob on July 23, 2005 01:58 AMThe old Soviet Union was more conservative and better run.
It seems like SeaTac has slowly been morphing into some sort of showcase for local politicians and port commissioners to crow about. Frankly, I don't care if there is artwork in every terminal or new terrazzo floors everywhere. The new Pacific Market place is nice, but why do we need to feel like we're in a mall instead on an airport?
What I want is an easy-to-access airport, cheap on-site parking, easy check-in and security screening, clean restrooms, and enough Starbucks stands to get coffee.
I think it is time for the Port to start making the same hard choices we all have to make in the real world.
Posted by: Tony on July 23, 2005 09:51 AMCould we see in the near future the development of a decent regional airport in say.. Tacoma or Everett?
Consider...
Seattle ballyhoos about the Kingdome
Tacoma builds their dome cheaper and better...and it's still standing!
Seattle beats it's own drum at the Port and raises prices...
Tacoma gets a new Sealand facility going which is bigger, cheaper and better...
Seattle tears up it's rail yards because they're ugly...
Tacoma expands and improves their rail yards into a major regional hub....
Seatac becomes overpriced and non-functional...
Tacoma sees an opportunity...
can we forsee McCord closing in the future and becoming the new WA state regional airline hub?
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and insights on this issue. I was about to post something to the effect of "Southwest Airlines is one of the most profitable and fastest growing airlines in the country. They certainly know a thing or two about cutting costs to run an efficient business. If they decide to move to Boeing Field, then it is a good move for them financially and they know better than the Port Authority."
However, you explained how the SW defection would likely lead to increased subsidization by higher taxes on all of us. What we need are some wholescale changes in how the Port of Seattle does business and that is going to require voting the current tax-and-spend bums out of office. That would be a good start.
Posted by: Gary on July 23, 2005 12:22 PMIt is appropriate for Southwest Airlines to compete with Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, etc.
It is NOT appropriate for the Port of Seattle to "compete" with King County.
What we really need is a change in the Port of Seattle. And, by the way, I don't think commercial passenger aviation out of Boeing Field would be a good idea under any circumstances -- regardless of the other issues involved.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 23, 2005 03:01 PMThe old Soviet Union believed a military was necessary and supported it.
Posted by: South County on July 23, 2005 04:45 PMthat's it--simple; ports--build them with industry input as to what is best for them to be efficient and productive; cut the crap and get practical; alternative is wait for the far east to kill our ports with THEIR more efficient harbors; or perhaps someone like Mexico will step in and take the lead we left on the table;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 23, 2005 06:48 PMWhy don't you think that "commercial passenger aviation out of Boeing Field would be a good idea under any circumstances"?
As another poster noted, Southwest is one of the few airlines that has been profitable...
Posted by: timman on July 23, 2005 07:33 PMHe is simply another typical Seattle liberal in sheeps clothing.
How depressing.
Thank GOD I heard him before I sent in a big fat check.
Posted by: Irons is a FRAUD on July 23, 2005 07:35 PMWhen was this? rail yards are supposed to be ugly - if they aren't it means they aren't being used.
also - who is David Irons???
We've been doing that for ages.
Or at least since the NIMBIES torpedoed the idea of passenger flights out of Paine Field. Like every 747 and 767 ever built didn't take it's maiden flight out of Paine Field.
We're in Burlington (used to be in Mill Creek). Who wants to truck down through the crap congestion to Seatac every time somebody needs to catch a plane in or out?
Boeing Field isn't much better for us.
Us, we're scouting over in western Idaho, along the Clearwater and on the Camas Prairie. In a couple years, we're gonna be gone from western Washington.
We're small potatoes, family holdings maybe a couple mil, but real soon we're gonna be gone, our business activities and commercial activities and investments . . . gone.
How much of this are you poor loopy leftists willing to lose? Just keep going the way you're going . . .
Posted by: One_perfect_shot on July 24, 2005 01:55 AMI doubt seriously that we would see McChord AFB get closed any time soon.
It is too close to a mission-critical Army installation: Fort Lewis and its readily-airlifted forces (i.e. force projection from the NW CONUS) to be reasonably likely to be shut-down. The DOD is experimenting with blended -- one or two service branches based out of the same base -- installations, and, although MCAFB and Ft. Lewis are not "one installation", their geographic proximity to one another allows the mobility and war-fighting efficiencies that DOD is looking for in the concept.
As far as the expansion of the Port of Tacoma, the negotiation with the Puyallup's that led to an expansion of the facilities -- we'll see what the net benefits of that have been. It was a 'win' for expanding port facilities that are well-served by rail (interesting bit of historical irony, with your observation, when you consider that Tacoma beat out Seattle for the terminus of the first transcontinental railroad into WA, but lost to Seattle as far as becoming the city with the pre-dominent economic clout in Western WA), but, one has to be concerned about the part of the negotiation that the Puyallup's wanted that benefitted them.
I don't know that there has been any substantive expansion of the rail infrastructure in Tacoma, recently. There was some minor track improvement with the new connection to Freighthouse Square (Sounder), and there is some proposed in conjunction with the Amtrak's proposed abandonment of use of BNSF's Point Defiance mains to get into Tacoma. But that's about it. Tacoma Rail is doing some rehab of the existing Mountain Division, but I'm scratching my head trying to come up with any generalized expansion of rail facilities in Tacoma. OTOH, there have been some significant capacity improvements done in the corridor between Black River Junction and SODO, and there is active construction to provide a bypass route down by Lander Street that would cut closer to Fourth Avenue South (under the easterly extension of the Safeco Field roof track. The only track reduction in the Seattle area that I can think of is the rail-banking of the Lake Samm branch line tracks (Issaquah to Redmond) and the contemplated railbanking of the BNSF Renton-Woodinville spur along the east side of Lake Washington. Are those what you are referring to?
Posted by: FlyingTigress on July 24, 2005 07:59 AMScrew Sea-Tac, if I'm flying anywhere...It's direct connect or through LAX.
Posted by: Sailor Republica on July 24, 2005 11:14 AMDavid Irons is a Fraud: Well, I don't agree with you. I don't know David Irons very well, but from what I've seen he is Conservative- in an Eastside sort of way. He does strike me as a bit too much of a politition, but if the choice is between him and Simms there isn't any hesitation in my mind.
Personally I feel that the increased use of Boeing Field could be very benifical. Anything that brings more people and transit passing through the Seattle area is bound to be ggod for business- as long as we can get our act together and fix our transportation problems with out taxing the local population into oblivion.
I noticed that the current rail line runs right past Boeing Field (of course, that's why Boeing built it there). I want to know why we can't use our current rail lines to provide mass transit. The rail line that runs by Boeing goes straight to Downtown Seattle, and the BNSF spur runs up through downtown Bellevue, Downtown Kirkland, Downtown Redmond, and Downtown Woodenville. Why do we have to keep reinventing the wheel and build all these expensive new light rail, monorail, ect. Can't we look at what we already have and figure out ways to use them more effectivly before we build shiny new toys. (Reminds me of my father running out to buy a new computer everytime his old one gets infected with a virus).
"I noticed that the current rail line runs right past Boeing Field (of course, that's why Boeing built it there). I want to know why we can't use our current rail lines to provide mass transit. The rail line that runs by Boeing goes straight to Downtown Seattle"
Those are the tracks upon which Tacoma-Seattle Sounder service (incl. stops in Puyallup-Sumner-Auburn-Kent-Tukwila) runs.
The Boeing Access Road station for Central Link was deferred past the current construction. It would be interesting to find out, if SWA actually moves to Boeing Field, whether that would decision would be re-evaluated.
Re: the Renton-Woodinville spur. IIRC, what is proposed is "banking" the entire right-of-way to preserve the corridor (in lieu of abandonment, and having the corridor be vacated back to the abutting property owners -- and essentially precluding any future opportunity to use it for transportation-related uses) and allow it to be used as part of a transit corridor (LRT, commuter rail, etc.) in addition to Sim's concept of sharing the right-of-way for non-motorized use.
For more details see all the stuff at
http://home.earthlink.net/~dick156/
No "railbanked" R-O-W has ever been returned to rail or transit use, and likely none ever will, because once a "trail" is established, it will be defended to the death by armchair "environmentalists" who like the idea of other folks getting some exercise on the trail (we all know a few obese, hairsprayed, Ford Excursion-drivers who send hundreds every year to the Sierra Club to promote Rousseau-vian fantasies of carefree life under primitive conditions).
In fact, the likely result of "rail banking" is a trash-strewn, crime-magnet, neighborhood-destroying trail, PLUS future misuse of eminent domain to seize new land for transit construction (guaranteed to cost the taxpayers billions for perpetually-subsidized services to a few riders).
Posted by: Mark Seecof on July 24, 2005 05:04 PMI was depressed as well. Even at that, Irons would be a distinct improvement over Sims.
I plan to hold my nose and vote to exchange a half baked crappy politician for the real crap man himself.
Irons objected to the proposal by Southwest Airlines to build a new Terminal and Parking facility at Boeing feild because he insisted it was a bad deal unless Southwest covered ALL ancillary infrastructure costs including roads and other improvements.
Irons, if he had a good point, didn't make it. He was not ready with facts and figures to support his position or to discuss the relative interests affected, just general opinions and broad assumptions supporting his obdurate opposition to the proposal. In essence without saying as much, he acted like Sims would - if it's socialist spending that we cannot afford, go for it, if it's pro business economic growth stimulus, forget it. Irons simply said it is a bad idea because he beleives it is a bad idea.
I was hoping for a substantive argument for or against the proposal rather than a hollow NO.
I am not sure if I support Southwest's proposal any more now than I did before, but I lean toward it in spite of Irons'comments.
I also know that a rail "musemum" system that runs on rails down in California has already contacted the KC Council to offer to run a "musemum" which from the plans I've seen would be a defacto mass transit system. (They call it a "musemum" for tax purposes) Apparently they are ready to start service as soon as the County gains ownership because they have resources prepared to expand in Portland- but Portland hasn't built the tracks yet.
As for David Irons- Just because a politican gives a knee-jerk no to any plan that may cost money does not turn me off. (In fact I count it as a slight plus). However, I think what is going on is that Irons is using this as a wedge issue to steal some Seattle/Magnolia votes than would usually go to Ron Simms. (This is also relatively cost free for David Irons because the FAA is the decision maker, and the decision will be made before Irons is- hopefully- in office. Also, all though SW moving will probably benefit everyone a little, there are no specific people who benefit greatly from such a decision).
Posted by: madmartagan on July 24, 2005 08:24 PMGee... Don't mince words. Tell us what you really think, okay?
And those portions that aren't easements, but are owned in fee by railroads? For example, land sections granted to the railroad during the late 1800s from which portions were retained for use of the tracks, or, acquired from underlying property owners?
I'm not suggesting that they'll be converted tomorrow. Or 10 years from now.
Madmartigan,
Re Irons on Carlson. I agree. However, I wished that Irons would be better prepared, less dogmatic, or more circumspect.
I want a good conservative that can kick Sim's ass, and to me that means one that is specifically pro business on this issue
and/or thoughtful about reasons why not to be. I imagine Irons is aware that he was not very good; at least I hope so!
I'll still vote for him, what's the choice? I'd like him to give swing voters reasons to do so as well.
I'm beginning to think that Western Washington is made up of cans of liberal-greedy-corrupt and oppressive Democrat worms!......And those cans are just popping open these days - one by one!
Jim,
You raise some interesting questions concerning Sea-Tac and the Port of Seattle's budgets ! I'm sensing another can about to pop!
I'm beginning to think that Western Washington is made up of cans of liberal-greedy-corrupt and oppressive Democrat worms!......And those cans are just popping open these days - one by one!
Jim,
You raise some interesting questions concerning Sea-Tac and the Port of Seattle's budgets ! I'm sensing another can about to pop!
Now to the meat. The costs quoted have two factors. One, that everyone is focusing on is operating costs, but the other factor is number of landings and level of service. It is my impression that SEA-TAC has been off lately on their landings. A better written article would have also quoted landing totals. Airports have a significant fixed costs. The more landings per airport, the more those costs are spread out. One also must add the additional homeland security costs to the equation. While not the best, SEA-TAC is better at moving people through security than a lot of airports.
On the other side of the coin, I don't believe Southwest will find Boeing Field all that much cheaper, if it was honest and covered all the costs. Look at what they are proposing. They want their own building and only pay the marginal costs of adding their service to the airport. They are not sharing in any of the fixed costs, nor the costs of other buildings on the airport. Of course the costs would be cheaper and the county would be a fool to accept the deal. It will drive the costs up at SEA-TAC and not cover all the additional costs at Boeing. Additionally, it would add to downtown noise.
When the deal is too good to turn-down, one needs to look harder at what his being hidden. Southwest is playing Seattle and King County. It is time they called their bluff and play hardball back. If Southwest wants to move their operations fine, but they need to cover all the costs, including the promised coverage costs at SEA-TAC until other airlines fill the landings lost by Southwest.
Posted by: tc on July 25, 2005 05:57 AMDoes all of King County get the opportunity to cast a vote for County Executive?
PS: Notice I did say Cast and not Count! I know I know!
Posted by: GS on July 25, 2005 08:06 AMOh I feel so much better now!
Posted by: GS on July 25, 2005 08:48 AMHow many people are EXCITED about the Port of Seattle and King County "competing" to offer the lowest rental prices for Southwest and other airlines? Basically "competing" by each entity using the same King County taxpayer dollars. Who wins? Airline stockholders. Who loses? King County taxpayers.
It is really unfortunate that the Port of Seattle spent several billion dollars more on improving Sea-Tac airport than was really necessary. But I would much rather have the airlines (who begged the Port to make all these improvements) pay the full tab, even if their rents go sky-high, than I would have King County taxpayers (a) make up the shortfall that lower rents and less business at Sea-Tac would create for the Port and (b) pay for the necessary improvements at Boeing Field to allow Southwest and other commercial aviation.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 25, 2005 10:01 PMhttp://fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1395.pdf
which explains that Federally-granted railroad rights-of-way from 1875 on (and some before)--which describes most railroad rights-of-way in the Pac. NW--are only easements! The reversionary owners vary, and include the Federal government. But it's accurate to say that most railroad right-of-way reverts to someone else upon the abandonment of rail service.
(Of course railroads purchased some property, or obtained it from state and local governments, and we're not talking about Federal checkerboard land-grants here. But most railroad rights-of-way are held by easement!)
Posted by: Mark Seecof on July 26, 2005 03:11 PMIf you don't like where we are right now, do more than blog about it. Find someone you like, work for them, and start to change the way things are.
Posted by: Liberal & Proud on September 1, 2005 05:03 PM