Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Increased passenger ticket fee may help pay for airport expansions
.png)
Ever paid attention to the breakdown of the fees tacked on to your ticket? In addition to the $2.50 9/11 security fee, and a government tax of about $4, you also pay a passenger facility charge (PFC) of $4.50. This PFC is how the government pays for all the horribly outdated airports in the country. That is right - proceeds from selling $9 airport sandwiches are not enough to maintain and expand airport facilities. And neither is the current PFC - which is why a proposal has been made to raise the PFC from $4.50 to $7.
I'm guessing the government saw how the airlines were raking in the cash from luggage fees, and decided they wanted a piece of the action.
The increase should bring in billions of additional Dollars - an airport like Chicago O'Hare sees 70 million passengers a year, multiply that by $7, and you have a nice chunk of change. Then again, with an upcoming $5.5 Billion expansion plan scheduled for O'Hare, they need all the help they can get.
Thankfully, this $2.50 increase is actually very modest - international airports charge far, far more for the luxury of landing at their airport. Amsterdam charges a $90 "noise isolation charge and passenger service charge", Glasgow airport charges $145 for the UK PSC. But the real winner here is London Heathrow, with a $155 PSC.
When you fly to these airports in a premium cabin, the fees can be as high as $300. So really, $2.50 seems like a pretty good deal if you ask me (these charges are all averages - some flights can be lower, some higher).
The proposal has been approved by the house, and is currently pending before the U.S. Senate, but chances are, it will become reality very soon.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ann Sep 9th 2009 6:51AM
What a surprise, an increase in another of those hidden government taxes called fees. The country is broke, why increase taxes, we're going down unless government stops spending money it doesn't have
Bev Sep 9th 2009 7:03AM
Ann : Your absolutely right. The government is spending money saying its government spending when it should be saying we are going to spend money and its coming from the taxpayer. I am not surprised either that it will now cost more to fly. They are going to price themselves right out of buisness if they don't watch out. Oh yes, if that happens they can get a bail out and we will end up paying again.
Hugh Sep 9th 2009 7:19AM
Does O'Hare really need a 5.5 BILLION expansion? I think not.
MIchael Boyd Sep 9th 2009 12:27PM
Does O'Hare NEED expansion?
Answer: Follow the money trail. Eventually, you will come to WANT instead of NEED.
The dollar controls the world MINUS one.
clowntown Sep 9th 2009 7:27AM
Geeee with all the traveling the Obamas do, you would think the government would bail out airports.
Jay Sep 9th 2009 7:42AM
yeah no other president ever traveled they all stayed in one place. some people need to just walk in traffic.
Jeff Sep 9th 2009 8:18AM
"an airport like Chicago O'Hare sees 70 million passengers a year, multiply that by $7, and you have a nice chunk of change." ... i think they miscalculating there. You can't count the people that simply have layovers, counting layovers would count the same people (same fee) multiple times.
NL Sep 9th 2009 12:35PM
When you fly with a stop at another airport on the way, you do pay the fees at that airport. You can check that online by pricing an itinerary. You will see that the taxes and fees are increased if you have a stop on the way.
VRPOOH Sep 9th 2009 8:34AM
I'm curious as to why all of a sudden most Americans are getting so stressed about government spending and travelling Presidents? Bush blew through more money than any modern president in his first term; and he took more vacation time during his first three years in office than Reagan did during eight years. Where were all the tea parties and outrage when 5.5 trillion was blown during Bush's first four years? Why aren't we upset over Jeff Gannon? Katrina? Folks, when a tornado tears down a town it costs money to clean it up. And if you really want to get hyper about the airline fees, check with the futurists during Bush's years that jacked up the price per gallon of oil. Record oil profits Bush had to find a way to pay back his oil company supporters. And if anyone actually thinks we went to Iraq and dropped 10 billion a month for any other reason that to get our hands on their oil supply, check North Korea. Bush let that mad man go crazier. But, if North Korea had a generous oil supply, I'm sure we would have been there in the name of humanity. Airlines are suffering over the greed of oil companies. And we have to pay for it. We have to pay for the Iraq war and all the other blunders made by Dumbya.
c Sep 10th 2009 8:27AM
People were upset about Bush's spending, but Obama has spent way more in 8 months than Bush did in 8 years. Where are you now? Why are you OK with this spending, but not ok with Bush's spending? Your question works both ways you know. I wasn't ok with Bush's spending, and Obamas unprecedented borrowing from China and printing funny money really upsets me. He promised to have a balanced budget. He promised to cut the deficit in half. He lied. He's spending us into bankruptcy. He's in indebting us to our enemies. I want fiscal responsibility from our politicians. You know, like we were promised?
CC Sep 9th 2009 2:42PM
I agree, and at least President Obama is spending the money on "us" Americans and not some foreign countries. Pres. Obama is spending money of the taxpayers on taxpayers,not oil tycoons.
Chuck Sep 9th 2009 2:07PM
You do not know what you are talking about as to oil. Bush didn't go to Iraq for oil. Hell, we have oceans of oil, natural gas, coal, and shale oil to last us indefinitely. It is the corrupt politicians, now Pelosi, Reid, and their other cronies that are preventing drilling. Hell, we could be selling oil to Saudi Arabia.
Gus Sep 9th 2009 8:46AM
On the meantime the security at our airports continue as low as the day the terrorists first attacked. The TSA is just a cheap reason for low paid employees to call themselves Federal employees, and the fees hikes are more and more ridiculous because the service simply gets worse. But god forbid these thieves need money. The taxpayer gets the "priviledge" of footing the bill whatever the cost, and there is NOTHING any of us can do about it, aside from the fact that only about 10% want or wish they could do anything. All that's left is to grease up really slippery and let uncle sam do his deed as he has for the past 200 years. Most of us will continue to smile and beg for more, while the rest of us will just keep on complaining without a visible solution to their gripe......
aj Sep 9th 2009 10:47AM
you seem not to understand that the fees are related to the person traveling, not you, for i suspect you do not fly, or even visit other than the local grocery store, sorry to say. typical of the griping that spending is too high; without relating to the issues at hand.
megan Sep 9th 2009 9:11AM
The government is corrupt - enough said.
kevin Sep 9th 2009 9:56AM
These funds go into the Aviation Trust Fund and have for years and years. Guess what - the govt. has spent only a fraction of the money. The rest has been "borrowed" by the government to the point where there is no way that you and I will ever get a fraction of the improvements we have paid for.
bj Sep 9th 2009 1:07PM
yes seven dollars dont sound like much, but when you figure all the people getting on that plane, over and over, someone is making bucks.!
Alex Sep 9th 2009 10:30AM
It's only $7. No big deal!
Seymour Sep 9th 2009 11:02AM
Most of you are forgetting all the new taxes added on during the Bush administration...taxes on YOU, while the ultra-rich got tax breaks that YOU never saw. That was Bush's tax cut program. More "trickle-down" economics that never trickled down to anyone. You're listening to too much Fox News and Druggie Limbaugh.
Ben Sep 9th 2009 11:23AM
Kevin is exactly right. These monies go into the Aviation Trust Fund, of which, the government uses/borrows against. We do NOT need anymore aviation taxes.