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. these guys only skill was to steal from other's hard earned savings.

  2. I voted for him last time and it WAS the LAST time. He needed to to quit running around the world on useless trips, and giving our $$ away to sports teams. I'll vote for anyone but Ballard next time. BTW...we gave $40M to the Pacers and cannot even watch the games on TV.

  3. For the people concerned about traffic, you should know that mixed-use projects (like the one being proposed), actually allows for and encourages more people to walk and bike, thereby mitigating additional automobile traffic. If we continue to design and build suburban-type projects in the City (i.e. automobile-oriented projects), we are not offering anything different from what the suburbs offer, which means we will continue to lose jobs/people to the suburbs. The reason Broad Ripple is somewhat successful today is that people want to live in a place that offers the convenience of being able to walk/bike to restaurants, retail, nightlife, the Monon, etc. Why would you not want to support a project that is complimentary to what already makes the area desirable? The real argument with this project should be its lack-luster design and layout, not the density.

  4. It is unfortunate that there is a perception that celebrities validate an event. The Indy 500 stands on its own, especially for those coming in from out of town. It was always so disturbing to read the gushing descriptions of Ashley Judd threaded throughout the local coverage. Very happy that era is at an end.

  5. Good ole' Obamacare. Thanks liberals and those who didn't bother to vote.

ADVERTISEMENT