IBJNews

Pact cuts costs for airlines at Indianapolis International

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A new financial agreement with airlines using Indianapolis International Airport was approved Friday morning, settling what had been a fractious battle with airlines that had complained about having to foot part of the bill for FedEx Corp.’s local expansion.

Total costs in rents, landing fees and other charges for airlines are set to decrease over the five-year term of the agreement, according to the Indianapolis Airport Authority. Cost per enplaned passenger will gradually fall to $8.86 in 2015 from $10.50 this year.

The cost-per-enplanement had been estimated at $13, previously.

The airport said it will reduce its capital improvement program by $150 million over the term of the agreement as part of a cost-containment strategy.

“”We believe this agreement demonstrates our door is wide open for continued dialogue with airline executives about new and expanded air service in Indianapolis, especially to key West Coast markets,” Marsha Stone, chief financial officer of the Indianapolis Airport Authority, said in a statement.

According to the agreement, a landing fee of $1.95 per 1,000 pounds is forecast to drop to $1.80 by 2015 instead a previously projected $2.15.

 The new fee structure “helps ensure the continued success of FedEx,” the authority said.

FedEx’s Indianapolis cargo hub was at the center of what could have been disasterous outcome for the airport.

As IBJ previously reported, Northwest Airlines, Delta Air Lines, AirTran Airways, Continental Airlines and Southwest Airlines filed a complaint against the airport authority with the Federal Aviation Administration in 2007.

They alleged the FedEx expansion at Indianapolis could cost them an additional $23 million in landing fees through 2028.

That’s because the authority promised to reduce landing fees for FedEx at the same time it committed to spending $49 million for a new aircraft parking apron at the company’s hub.

The FAA dismissed the airlines' complaint in August 2008, but did so in part because it said the issue wasn’t yet ripe for FAA review. It noted the authority had yet to impose on airlines the costs related to the FedEx expansion.

Among other nods to airlines in the new airline agreement is cutting the term in half, to five years. Terminal rent remains constant at $95 per square foot. The airport authority also pledges to shave its operating and maintenance costs by $65 million.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Curious too
    Is this why airline service here is so wretched?
  • $215 Million Question
    Interesting that the FedEx cargo-hub expansion cost was $214 million.

  • Question
    How is the airport going to shave $215 million in maintenance/operating/CAPEX expenses? What is being eliminated?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT