Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The Raider Nation._ Our band kicks brass
1,853 posts, read 9,685,134 times
Reputation: 2341
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Since this is really going to pay for the airport we overbuilt to USAir's specifications, and since we only need the money because USAir went through bankruptcy and got out of its lease, and since the revived USAir is off competing in other markets to the benefit of air travel consumers in those markets--I'm really not all that concerned about targeting out-of-town folks to pay a little more.
Since you are always harping on this, how about telling us what those special specifications are that no other airline can use. Is it possible that they were specifications that made it usable? You act like this is some special airport that is nothing like any other in the world.
Not Brian, but just since there hasn't been an answer yet, I'd say it isn't that other airlines can't use most of the things, it's just that it makes it inefficient for the current non-hub use. For example, if you were designing a new airport terminal today for Pittsburgh's use, you would not make separate landside and airside buildings. All that does right now is inconvenience almost every customer since there is almost no connecting traffic at this point. Makes it less efficient for baggage, etc. Another feature that's now dead but used to be for USAir's use only is the conveyor belt baggage system. This also relates back to the separate buildings, though, which was efficient for hub use when more of the traffic was connecting than originating or ending here.
The main feature the airport has right now that CAN'T be used is too much capacity. So the fees are too high for the remaining operations because they're paying for a too-big airport. The reason it was built with that capacity is because of USAir. Saying Colodny didn't want it is not really true; he didn't want it earlier in the decade but by 1988 when they signed off on it it was clear to him they needed it. It's all right in the article you linked. Yeah, Foerster was pushing it for years. But Colodny resisted it until it was in the company interest:
Quote:
"There came a time that the quality of service was suffering because of overcrowding and the lack of adequate gates," Colodny recalled in a recent interview. "That's when we got into a serious discussion with the county commissioners and the airport [about the new terminal]. The driving factor was that Pittsburgh was a key hub for USAir and was key for the growth and expansion of the airline."
Quote:
Although Foerster lobbied tenaciously for the project, Colodny said the airline would not have committed unless it felt it was the right thing to do. "We are grown people. We signed that agreement with our eyes open," he said. "USAir, under my leadership, would not have done it unless we could achieve an agreement that we thought was fair for both sides."
Quite far from "Colodny didn't even want the damn thing." Hell, after it opened USAir touted it in their TV ads at the time.
Greg completely covered what I was going to write, and more. I'll just add that overall the airport still works quite well for our current needs (although I agree the separate airside terminals aren't necessary). The problem is that they didn't need to spend nearly that much money to get an airport that would have been sufficient for our current needs.
I'd also note that in general I don't really care about pointing fingers, since this is now about decisions made 20 years and more ago. It is only relevant in this case because people are raising the issue of the fairness of the means by which the airport is paying off its debts.
People rightly point out that it was probably foolish at the time to rely so heavily on a lease with a single airline, because companies can and do go bankrupt when they operate in highly competitive industries, and thus the deregulation of the air industry made it forseeable that airlines could go bankrupt and void their contracts. But the flip side of that realpolitik as applied to leases and bankruptcies is that when creditors are left unpaid due to bankruptcy, they will turn around and pass those losses on however they can.
In other words, you can't say of the USAir bankruptcy "that's business", and then turn around and start talking about issues of fairness when it comes to the airport paying down its debts. That's business too, and all part of how we expect our economy to function, for good or ill.
The other thing that sucks about this and many other US airport designs is that they were built for a time when anyone could go through security without a ticket. Thus we have the Airmall here, originally meant for everyone, but now not such a great idea since there's no connecting traffic and others can't go in. I'm guessing they can't get near the rent they used to be able to get for those shops.
Since you are always harping on this, how about telling us what those special specifications are that no other airline can use. Is it possible that they were specifications that made it usable? You act like this is some special airport that is nothing like any other in the world.
interesting, seems like it was pushed as a big public "jobs" project so the blame can't be placed entirley on US Air. really, it's a shame they couldn't have expanded Allegheny County back in the day, much closer to the city.
Location: The Raider Nation._ Our band kicks brass
1,853 posts, read 9,685,134 times
Reputation: 2341
Ok, let me get this straight. Every thread that I have ever seen that even mentions the word "airport", Brian is sure to mention USAir special specifications, bankruptcy, and it's the airlines fault.
Now you are telling me that you were talking about a baggage belt system, and a landside terminal as special specifications. What you are really telling me is that you have nothing, but a personal vendetta against USAir.
The airport was designed by a firm in McKees Rocks. I'm willing to bet the belt system, and double terminal was their idea. Since a belt system is used in every real airport throughout the world, I can hardly blame them for wanting to be up to standards. As a side note, Southwest didn't use the system when they first moved in, but now they do. I wonder how inefficient it can really be.
A double terminal is great for keeping screened passengers separate from unscreened, and makes it really easy for people to make their connections. That's the brilliance of an X shaped terminal. I guess we should blame everybody involved for not being able to see 30 years into the future.
They should have known that the airline industry was going to be destroyed, and that the world economy was going to collapse. They should have been visionaries and designed a 1950's type terminal that could only handle one flight a week like the one in Youngstown.
Now you are telling me that you were talking about a baggage belt system, and a landside terminal as special specifications.
Those were just a couple examples. I don't know them all. The baggage belt system is now turned off; they wasted I dunno how many millions on that and it made everyone's USAir luggage slower when terminating at Pittsburgh. (If you flew in on another airline your baggage got there way faster. I experienced it both ways.) That was a waste of money for any use, and I think a lot of people who wasted a LOT of time waiting for luggage might like to strangle the designers. (This is really a place where USAir would get the blame but perhaps not deserve it if they didn't choose the system.) No, we're mainly talking about an airport that's at least twice as big as it needed to be. The ONLY reason it's that big terminal-wise is because of the USAir hub. That's also the reason they are separate buildings. Now we are paying for it.
They should have know the airline would collapse? No, not really. (You might say they should have planned better for the contingency, but that's expecting too much I think.) But don't come along trying to say the high cost of the airport now is not because of USAir. It doesn't matter whose idea the design choices was; the design choices were made because of the hub use. (Although if you think USAir had no input in the design process I think you are deluding yourself.) Without the hub use, the place is overbuilt and poorly designed. Period. Which airline's hub it used to be isn't particularly material either. It's not a vendetta, it's reality.
The thread was started because people think the fees are too high. Well, the fact that the airport was built as a hub and now doesn't have one is the reason the fees are so high. It also makes the fares to a lot of places lower, though, so there is that tradeoff.
The other thing that sucks about this and many other US airport designs is that they were built for a time when anyone could go through security without a ticket. Thus we have the Airmall here, originally meant for everyone, but now not such a great idea since there's no connecting traffic and others can't go in. I'm guessing they can't get near the rent they used to be able to get for those shops.
I hope that changes back someday--our airport security is really kinda ridiculous.
But anyway, they don't seem to be having a vacancy problem, so at least it is viable even if it isn't making them a lot of money.
Ok, let me get this straight. Every thread that I have ever seen that even mentions the word "airport", Brian is sure to mention USAir special specifications, bankruptcy, and it's the airlines fault.
I have no idea if it is true that comes up in every discussion of the airport, but certainly it is likely to come up in every discussion involving the airport's finances, because it is kinda hard to overlook the fact that the airport still has piles of construction debt it has to pay off.
By the way, I am again not all that interested in questions like whose "fault" it is. The facts are that USAir signed a lease that made up a very large portion of the planned financing for the airport construction, and USAir was able to void that lease in bankruptcy, leaving it up to the airport to find alternatives for that financing. Again, I am fine with people treating that as all part of the rough-and-tumble of business deals, but then the same analysis should apply to the airport making up the lost revenues wherever it can.
Quote:
Now you are telling me that you were talking about a baggage belt system, and a landside terminal as special specifications. What you are really telling me is that you have nothing, but a personal vendetta against USAir.
Oh please. Those are two particular examples, but it would be sufficient just to look at the sheer size of the airport. We've got large sections that are entirely closed down. I assure you, they aren't benefiting any current airline.
Edit: By the way, believe it or not, but I actually have no personal feelings one way or another about USAir. It is just a company, a company I still use quite a bit myself, and I understand that in our economic system, companies are expected to act in their own financial interests. Conversely, you seem awfully sensitive about merely factual descriptions about USAir's role in the Pittsburgh airport's construction, but I don't think whatever personal feelings you might have about USAir are matched by others here. Unedit.
Quote:
I guess we should blame everybody involved for not being able to see 30 years into the future.
Well, it was a lot less than 30 years before USAir went bankrupt and voided their lease--if it had been 30 years, the airport would have been paid off first.
Generally, I really do think this was a foreseeable event. Pre-deregulation, you could sorta count on the business models of the airlines staying roughly intact for long periods. But after deregulation, there was no reasonable expectation of that being true anymore. I know this is all being discussed with the benefit of hindsight, and these things tend to take on a momentum of their own once they get started, but I do think sometime in the 1980s the County should have backed away from the deal and done something different.
Quote:
They should have known that the airline industry was going to be destroyed, and that the world economy was going to collapse.
They should have known that deregulation meant that airlines would become much riskier ventures, and that whenever there was a negative shock to the airline industry, there would likely be some bankruptcies, which would allow the relevant airlines to void any long-term lease deals. You don't need to know the exact details of the future to predict that, because that is the normal state of affairs in highly-competitive industries with large fixed costs.
Last edited by BrianTH; 03-14-2011 at 10:48 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
