If you want on or off the aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
Posted on 06/24/2006 12:23:19 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior Republican lawmaker influential on transportation matters said on Friday he wants Congress to prohibit U.S. airports from spending federal funds on upgrades to accommodate the European-made superjumbo Airbus A380.
"Until a U.S. airline chooses to acquire and operate the passenger version of the A380, foreign airlines that operate A380 passenger service to and from the United States should pay for any needed infrastructure improvements at the airports they serve," U.S. Rep. John Mica (news, bio, voting record), a Florida Republican, said in a statement.
Mica is chairman of the House of Representatives transportation subcommittee on aviation.
About 50 percent of the cost for A380-related upgrades would be financed through federal airport grants. So far, Los Angeles (LAX), New York's John F. Kennedy, Miami and San Francisco are preparing for A380 passenger service. Several other airports are evaluating A380 passenger and cargo development to see if carriers they serve will fly it.
Airbus, a consortium based in France, has struggled with its schedule to deliver the $300 million double-decker aircraft to its foreign customers. The first plane is scheduled for later this year with six- to seven-month delivery delays expected after that. A380 customers include Australia's Qantas Airways, Dubai-based Emirates, China Southern, and Singapore Airlines.
The A380 is slated to be the biggest passenger jet ever flown with room to seat between 550 and 850 passengers, depending on its configuration.
Because of the A380's size -- a 262-foot wingspan and a maximum takeoff weight of 1.2 million pounds -- airports, in some cases, may have to widen runways and taxiways and restructure gate areas to handle more people.
Mica released findings of a Government Accountability Office report that estimated the cost to upgrade infrastructure at U.S. airports to accommodate the A380 could reach $927 million, if major work is required.
One airport industry executive called the GAO figure high and included costs that may never be required.
Also, prohibiting federal grants for A380 construction may hurt airports that need to make certain upgrades for existing customers anyway.
For instance, JFK is strengthening four bridges to support the A380 as well as the next generation Boeing jumbo jet, the 747-8 Intercontinental, that will also weigh more than 1 million pounds.
Mica's statement exploits a hot-button transatlantic political issue -- the role of European governments in the development of Airbus planes and how that affects business at its chief rival, Boeing Co.. It also taps into strong election-year "Buy America" sentiment in Congress.
Mica said in a statement that it was "patently unfair" for taxpayers to pay for A380-related airport upgrades in light of the help that Europe gives Airbus.
The Bush administration has challenged European government loans for Airbus that it says are illegal subsidies under global trade rules.
In a counter complaint, the European Union alleged that Boeing benefits from indirect subsidies ranging from state tax breaks to government research and development contracts.
IB4TP?
If you want on or off the aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
And I call "I was right -- the airports won't support the restructuring for the 380 and I don't think the EU will want to shell out the subsidies for American airports.
Make the Euro-weenies pay Bump.
That is a very good point - why should I, as an american, subsidize airbust?
Nearly $1 billion in US taxpayer money for airport upgrades to handle a European subsidized aircraft?
Yes, I know that taxpayers provide transportation infrastructure across the country (interstates), but this is over the line.
Of course, if they could sell it as money spent that would reduce delays and increase safety.......
FYI, the purpose of the interstate system is was originally national security, put allowing a more efficient and versatile way to transport and mobilize than by rail. Public transportation and economic expansion were just side benefits.
On that thought, what is our strategic benefit for longer runways?
And it doesn't have the range for SYD-DFW. Ironically DFW would probably have the least difficulty in modifying taxiways to handle the A380. Due to new range projections on the 747-8 of 8300nm, QANTAS is interested in buying the 747-8I to allow flights from SYD to DFW which are both Oneworld hubs. QANTAS could let American Airlines feed its flights at DFW while bypassing the overcrowed LAX hub.
Lots of civilian airports were modified in the 1950's and 60's to be able to handle B-52's and military transports like the C-5.
Right. Do we have a new bomber coming on line? Maybe we should get the eurowennies to pay for the improvements first, then design a much larger bomber to make use of it! ; )
Ha! In before the ping. Good one, fd
If I remember correctly, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued in The Federalist Papers that federal funding of "post roads" was a good idea not only to deliver the mail but also to stimulate the economy. The interstate highway system should qualify as part of the "post road" requirement of the Constitution. The national security angle is good, but so is the other.
In the case of modifying airports for the Airbus, I don't see either national security benefit or economic benefit. If companies want to fly these planes here, they should find the money to modify the airports.
Bill
The anti-Airbus'ers are at it again. If it was a Boeing design & Europe wouldn't accomodate it, what would be their take on that?
It ain't DUFU, but I garner credits where I can! :)
Europe made mods to handle 747's, we should do the same if 380's become popular with the airlines.
Boeing isn't govern,ent sibsidized. Airbus isn't playing on a fair playing field and Boieng is still eating their lunch.
And your hypothetical is misplaced -- part of the reason Boeing DIDN'T do it was the weight factor (among many MANY MANY factors).
Airbus made many huge mistakes in making this monstrosity. Don't ask us to pay for it.
The way they're going they won't ever get it certified or built.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.