It depends on the airport. Some airlines get breaks at most airports because they are "signatory" carriers who take on a burden to guarantee airport revenue bonds but I believe a bankruptcy filing would free them of that obligation. I presume at that point they would then become a "non-signatory" carrier and pay what the other carriers pay, especially if they owed an airport a ton of money prior to their filing and then the airport is left holding the bag because of the bankruptcy filing. MIA has been screwed out of a ton of money over the years by carriers being behind in their payments, despite hefty late fees, and then filing bankruptcy. Some bankruptcy courts have even ruled that payments made shortly before the filing had to be refunded back to the airline which screws an airport even more. Most airports rent out a concourse or series of gates for long-term periods and of course airlines with a ten-year old lease are paying less on an annual square footage basis than a new carrier leasing gates at current rates. MIA doesn't lease out concourses or gates and charges airlines a concourse fee in, concourse fee out, jetbridge fee in, jetbridge fee out, on top of the landing fee and all those fees are based on aircraft type. They are also charged bag claim device fees, aircraft parking fees, etc. etc. I believe AA and DL and maybe another domestic carrier pay somewhat less than the other carriers for being signatory carriers. In any event, Jon, DEN is in deep doo-doo with the United situation occurring at this time and not 20 years down the road when most of the bonds had been paid off. They would have to do something to attract new service but they still have to pay their revenue bonds payments, plus their operational and maintenance expenses. If they give fee breaks to a new entrant or a current airline who jacks up service, you may see some other existing carriers balk at paying higher fees to make up for carrier(s) getting the breaks. This is the risk a community faces when they decide to build a new airport and are dependent on only one carrier to make it happen. No one could foresee the mighty United ending up this way back when they constructed the airport. As I recall it, Continental was large as hell at Stapleton and when they saw the operating costs at the new airport (and presumbably United getting the sweetheart deals at the new airport) they bailed out of the hub they had at Denver. In retrospect it was a smart move on CO's part, and a dumb move on DEN's part to build a new airport relying mostly on one carrier to make it work. Now they're betweeen a rock and a hard place. Jose Prize Fan of UA somehow making it through all this In a message dated 5/21/2003 10:27:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, exatc@xxxxxxxxxx writes: > Subj:Re: Airport official: replacement for United may be necessary > Date:5/21/2003 10:27:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time > From:<A HREF="mailto:exatc@xxxxxxxxxx";>exatc@xxxxxxxxxx</A> > Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> > To:<A HREF="mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> > Sent from the Internet > > Jon > Aren't the carriers contracts in place already? IIRC the primary carrier > at > most airports always got the sweetheart deal because of volume. Also the > airports received enplanement money from the FAA for all passengers. This > may have been modified recently with the PFC. The other carriers normally > paid a premium fee to use the facilities. > Al > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jon Wright" <jwright@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:39 AM > Subject: Re: Airport official: replacement for United may be necessary > > > > I understand completely about needing to cover their fixed costs, but if > > United dies, they won't be able to cover their fixed costs and they'll > need > > to come up with an alternate source of funds. Presumably the other majors > > would pick up most of the O/D traffic by increasing frequencies between > > Denver and their hubs. That leaves the airport with, what, the sort of > level > > of service maybe SAN gets today? Busy, but nowhere near the amount of > > business they get now. > > > > At that point they have a half-empty airport and they have to decide how > > badly they want to be a hub. Given the state of the airline industry, I > > don't see anyone building up a hub without a lot of incentives. And you'd > > think discounted landing fees would be one of the incentives a potential > > hubber would insist upon. > > > > Cheers, > > Jon > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <B787300@xxxxxxx> > > To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 6:42 PM > > Subject: Re: Airport official: replacement for United may be necessary > > > > > > > And my point is that DEN has very high fixed costs to make required > hefty > > > bond payments that they sure as hell don't want to default on. They > also > > > have substantial maintenance and labor costs to operate the airport and > > all > > > these costs come from fees assessed to the airlines, tenants, rental > car > > > companies, limos, taxi, buses, etc. > > > > > > They can't lower the fees much for other new carriers because there > won't > > be > > > enough revenue coming in to pay the bills. One scenario could be the > > > governing board persuading the city and/or county to tax property > owners > > to > > > subsidize the airport through property taxes, which would probably > cause > a > > > firestorm of revolt against anyone voting in favor of such a measure. >