NW had a heavy vested interest in how Midfield would be paid for, as stipulated in the 1996 agreement. NW went as far as to mandate that the concourses attached to the Davey Terminal must be demolished, no capex could be invested into the L.C. Smith Terminal, all gate leases at DTW must be variable, use-based in 2009 (at the conclusion of the pathetic 50-year lease covering L.C. Smith/Davey) and how PFC would be appropriated to Midfield's cost vs. North Terminal's.

DL has also shown a heavy vested interest in how Midfield is being paid for, pushing for the shopping/dining overhaul, increased parking rates, creative fees (e.g. charges for ground transportation vehicles accessing the terminal, etc.), etc. DL has also issued further proposals, such as a nominal fee (e.g. $1) for accessing a cell phone parking lot, etc.

If PFC aren't enough to service Midfield's debt -- and that will increasingly be the case in the future it appears -- costs must be recouped somehow. The easy way is to raise airline related rents & fees, which of course DL wholly opposes, hence the urge for other creative revenue increases.

At the end of the day, you're right, DL has to serve its shareholders, which is why I expect it to support the ability for PFC to be raised to $7 nationwide (which would help many of its other operations, including the new terminals being constructed at SLC). But it's flat out wrong to say DL doesn't care how infrastructure is being paid for.