Originally Posted by tribe_has_spoken
Nice to see that tismfu subscribes to the Dan Rather school of reporting:
Here are the bits left out which convey the full picture of the presented facts regarding the appropriate landing fee.
I didn't think I had to spell it out, but here is the FULL picture:
With recent increased flights from Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) and others being started up by American Airlines (NYSE: AMR) -- 24 additional flights between the two -- as well as an increase in landing fees, that would result in excess revenue of $826,000.
This excess revenue would be used to pay off the debt AND, as stated in the other article from
TDMN...
However, council members asked why it has taken so long to increase fees and why they're only going up 20 cents, especially because the landing fees would still be as much as $1.48 less than the average rate at comparably sized airports. Meanwhile, parking and concession rates are some of the highest.
...you could
raise landing fees closer to the average while
lowering parking and concession rates closer to the average. Seems to be a fairer scheme for all involved, no?
It's pretty simple math that I think even our hallowed Schnurmanator could agree with.
A significant increase in landing fees -- and Gwyn would not say what that figure might be -- could trigger customer ire. "There are federal guidelines that dictate you shouldn't operate an airport for the purpose of making a profit. If you do you run the risk of a federal challenge from users of the airport," Gwyn said.
You combined two different paragraphs and presented them as one. That's not how they're presented in the article, Danny Boy.
