[Mpls] Airport Redux: Shrinking Airline Industry

[Allen]

Good Afternoon,

I'm glad to see that there are other people who are questioning 
expansion at the airport.  It seems that the mayor is questioning it 
also.  I enjoyed his comments about the humphrey terminal and how 
putting more airlines there was akin to sticking them at the kiddy table 
for dinner.   My question is what exactly can the city of Minneapolis do 
in regards to the proposed expasion? 

BTW - I don't want to get too off topic but I have to disagree with 
Gary's fuel claims on the impact they have on air travel.  Fuel, 
depending on the price, account for 15-18% of an airlines expenses.  
That's half of their labor costs about about the same as a slew of 
things that can tossed into miscelanous.  Fuel prices may have an impact 
on travel costs.  However, it could be offset by cost savings in other 
aireas (productivity gains; more fuel effecient aircraft and practices, 
etc).  I'm not too concerned about the long term impact of fuel prices.  
As long as it doesn't happen quickly, there is time to adjust and cope.  
What I'm concerned is that at the very time the state says it needs to 
cut LGA money to MPLS, it's willing to put at risk 3/4 of billion 
dollars to help NES try to preserve it's old school fortress hub.

Allen Graetz
Lowry Hill


Gary Hoover wrote:

>I try to follow news related to energy and environmental topics related to Minneapolis issues.
>
>I never really liked the old phrase "It's the economy, stupid!"   Remember that one?  However, my premise is that it could now well be remade into "It's the energy, stupid!" or "It's the environmental economy, stupid!"
>
>Energy and environmental issue relate very directly to the decisions we make regarding development of transportation infrastructure.  So, here goes with a summary of recent related info on the topic:
>
>http://www.energybulletin.net/4125.html  Good old Forbes is ran a poll called "US: Which Airline Will Not Survive?"  (published Jan 21, I believe.)  The issue of rising fuel costs is the first mentioned cause, although, of course, other matters figure in...
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6865852/  MSNBC ran a Forbes update, focusing on rising fuel costs as the key cause of the fact that 2,005 airline losses will likely be triple earlier estimates.... (as of Jan 25)
>
>http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/52463.html  -- Jim Rogers, a well-respected US investor, recently published "Hot Commodities" -- joining the ranks of serious investors taking "peak oil" into account.  Oil prices will trend upward due to shorter supply combined with greater demand....one can infer that jet fuel prices will continue to rise as well....long term.  
>
>We cannot assume lower fuel costs will cause air travel to expand.  Fuel costs may fluctuate, but will rise long-term.  The airline industry is already in the throes of shrinking.  Spending dollars on airport infrastructure expansion is like throwing those dollars away, it seems to me.
>
>I hope that we citizens, political leaders, and policy planners take time to become informed about the energy and environmental issues which are likely to shape our lives for many years to come.  Too often, we are content to hear a phrase like "the hydrogen economy" and assume that everything is alright, then.  The reality is complex, challenging, and will require a great deal from us as we decide how to spend scarce resources to shape our urban infrastructure.
>
>A one-paragraph aside: there are many more complex threads to weave into the discussion.  There are local/global environmental impacts of air travel, which are now of course economic impacts as well.  There are at least two dimensions to the geopolitical implications of our local urban infrastructure planning.  First, Americans are increasingly identified with a lifestyle of consumption which requires resource wars to support it.  Every investment we make either reinforces this perception or provides evidence that we Americans are beginning to truly act with the next generation and the people we impact all over the globe in mind.  The second dimension is this: as we take the lead in developing energywise, environmentally sustainable urban infrastructure, we encourage like-minded development around the country and around the world.  We all benefit from the spread of sustainable infrastructure anywhere it happens.
>
>But more on that later....?  for now, I think I simply want to continue to pose the questions:  "Is investing in airport expansion a wise thing, given that the energy scenario for the next ten or twenty years will likely cause air travel to become more expensive?  Won't the air travel industry almost certainly contract rather than expand or remain stable?   Shouldn't we put increasingly scarce dollars into local sustainable urban transportation, rather than into the airport?
>
>-- pedaling for peace and justice from Kingfield, for now -- Gary Hoover
>
>REMINDERS:
>1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at mplslist at tcq.net before continuing it on the list.
>
>2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
>For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
>For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
>________________________________
>
>Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
>Post messages to: mailto:mpls at mnforum.org
>Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
>
>
>  
>