IBJNews

Pact cuts costs for airlines at Indianapolis International

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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. I still don't understand how the FBI had any right whatsoever to investigate this elderly collector. Before the Antiquities Act it was completely legal to buy, trade or collect Native American artifacts. I used to see arrow heads, axes, bowls, corn grinders at antique shops and flea markets for sale and I bought them myself. But that was in the late 60's and early 70's. And I now know that people used to steal items from sites and sell them. I understand that is illegal. But we used to find arrow heads and even a corn grinder in our back yard when I was a child. And I still have those items today in my small collection.

  2. I lived in California and they had many of the things noted in the proposed suggestions from the "Blue Ribbon Panel". California is near financial collapse now. Let's not turn the great state of Indiana into a third world dump like California.

  3. The temporary closure of BR Avenue will get a lot of attention. But, one thing reported by the IndyStar really stands out to me, and is extraordinarily depressing: “Police also have agreed to crack down on noise violations, traffic violations and public intoxication.” In other words, the police have generously agreed to do their jobs (temporarily, at least), instead of just standing around waiting for someone to call 911. When is someone in this department going to get off their fat arse (looking at you, Chief), get their minds out of 1975-era policing and into 2014, and have his department engage in pro-active work instead of sitting around waiting for someone to be shot? Why in the hell does it take 7 people getting shot in one night in one of the city’s biggest tourist destinations, to convince the police (reluctantly, it would appear) that they actually need to do their f’n jobs? When is the Chief going to realize that there’s a huge, direct, proven correlation between enforcing the law (yes, all laws, especially those affecting quality of life) and preventing larger crimes from occurring? Is it racial BS? Is that what this extraordinary reluctance is all about? Is the department and the city terrified that if they do their jobs, they might offend someone? Whom, exactly? Will the victims of violence, murder, assault, rape, robbery, and theft be offended? Will the citizens who have to tolerate their deteriorating quality of life be offended? Will the businesses who see their customers flee be offended? Or, is it simple ignorance (maybe the Chief hasn’t heard about NYC’s success in fighting crime - it’s only the biggest g*&#am city in the country, after all)? Either way, Chief, if you don’t want to do your job, then step down. Let someone who actually wants the job take it.

  4. I thought Indiana had all the funding it needed for everything. That's why the state lottery and casino gambling were allowed, as the new tax revenue would take care of everything the state wanted to do.The recommendations sound like they came from California. Better think about that. What is the financial condition of that state?

  5. I was a fan of WIBC in the morning, Steve was the only WIBC host that I listened too, he gave the news with so much flare that I enjoyed listening to him on my way to work. Katz is no Steve. Sadly, I will not be listening to WIBC anymore.

ADVERTISEMENT