JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News

127.0.0.1 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:39:08 +0100, Tim Kynerd
wrote:


Sorry, Robert, but there's no logical reason why people who pay to park
shouldn't also pay to ride AirTrain to and from the parking lots. Parking
is one service; AirTrain is another.

they pay for it via the parking fees

Yo idiot,

By now three people have pointed out that if parking fees didn't go up
the day Airtrain opened, then parkers are not paying for Airtrain.

But no one has answered whether they did or not.
--
Peter T. Daniels

My numbers were for the 12 months ending November 2003 per
http://www.panynj.gov/aviation/traff...mmary2003.html

About half the passengers through JFK are international, vs about 1/4
at Newark. Perhaps the recession has had less efffect on international
travel. Anyway, 2001 was not a typical year for air travel (to put it
mildly).

The point is that both airports are about the same size, buth have
connections from Penn Station that are comparible in price, frequency
and convienience, but only one (Newark) is publicized there.

T'aint right.

Arnold Reinhold

"Sancho Panza" wrote in message ...
"Arnold Reinhold" wrote in message
om...
JFK handles slightly more traffic than Newark (31.5 Million passengers per
year vs 29.5).

That may be reversed:

JFK

1999
2000
2001

% Change2001/2000 Revenue Passengers (millions)31.732.929.4-10.6%

Aircraft Movement343,299 345,089 292,367 -15.3%

Cargo (tons)1,752,821 1,864,383 1,466,389 -21.3%

EWR

1999
2000
2001

% Change2001/2000Revenue Passengers (millions)33.634.230.5-10.8%

Aircraft Movement457,972 450,229 436,420 -3.1%

Cargo (tons)1,084,660 1,070,379 786,660 -26.5%

http://www.panynj.gov/aviation/traffic/coverfram.HTM

"Peter T. Daniels" writes:

By now three people have pointed out that if parking fees didn't go up
the day Airtrain opened, then parkers are not paying for Airtrain.

But no one has answered whether they did or not.

Then did not.

Before AirTrain opened, long term parking rates were $5 per 12 hours,
or only $3 for under 12 hours.

Currently, long term parking rates are $5 per 12 hours, or only $3 for
under 12 hours. A free round trip on AirTrain, valued at $10, is
included for each person in the car.
--
David J. Greenberger
New York, NY

David J. Greenberger wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" writes:

By now three people have pointed out that if parking fees didn't go up
the day Airtrain opened, then parkers are not paying for Airtrain.

But no one has answered whether they did or not.

Then did not.

Before AirTrain opened, long term parking rates were $5 per 12 hours,
or only $3 for under 12 hours.

Currently, long term parking rates are $5 per 12 hours, or only $3 for
under 12 hours. A free round trip on AirTrain, valued at $10, is
included for each person in the car.

It's also possible that the parkers were previously paying for
some or all of the free shuttle bus that served the subway and
the parking lots. /pure speculation

On a related note, I did, a few weeks ago, take the B15 (?) bus
to the airport, take a free round trip on the Air Train and then
took the Q10 (?) to Kew Gardens to get on the subway. The bus
stops are not marked at all from an arriving passengers
perspective, but the first employee that I asked knew right
where it was.

--
Steven O'Neill

In article ,
(Steven M. O'Neill) wrote:

David J. Greenberger wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" writes:

By now three people have pointed out that if parking fees didn't go up
the day Airtrain opened, then parkers are not paying for Airtrain.

But no one has answered whether they did or not.

Then did not.

Before AirTrain opened, long term parking rates were $5 per 12 hours,
or only $3 for under 12 hours.

Currently, long term parking rates are $5 per 12 hours, or only $3 for
under 12 hours. A free round trip on AirTrain, valued at $10, is
included for each person in the car.

It's also possible that the parkers were previously paying for
some or all of the free shuttle bus that served the subway and
the parking lots. /pure speculation

Parking is one of two the golden geese at US airports. It pays for
everything. The other golden goose is the PFC which also gets perverted
into a general fund and transit revenue stream. One egregious example
is directly on topic. The Portland light rail extension, AirMAX, is
significantly financed by the $3 PFC that every commercial air passenger
pays coming and going.

So now we have examples on both coasts of what happens when rail goes to
the airport. Everyone's costs and expenses go up and rail users pay
nowhere near their fair share of those expenses.

In article ,
Tim Kynerd wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:31:40 +0000, mrtravelkay wrote:

Robert Coté wrote:

Trust me. They get back the "free" ride to the parking lot in parking
fees many times over. Aitrain represents a major potential hit to one
of their most profitable activities no doubt the $5 is to keep the lots
full.

Plus, the cost to build and maintain it is probably astronomical

Sorry, Robert, but there's no logical reason why people who pay to park
shouldn't also pay to ride AirTrain to and from the parking lots. Parking
is one service; AirTrain is another.

It's called bundling and is extremely common.

The whole concept of "free parking" has been confusing since the
Monopoly game put in the square. There is no free parking, it costs to
purchase land, build and maintain and somebody ends up paying for it.
It's bundled in the price of goods purchased at the big box or mall.
It's bundled in the movie ticket price, etc. However, this is a two
sided coin. Those big box prices are lower precisely because of the
large parking lot and business model built around it. You get those low
everyday prices even if you arrive by walking. In that case the parking
lot subsidizes pedestrians. It is certainly posssible to unbundle but
airport parking fees are so much higher than costs that unbundling
airtrain fares would result in massive increase in train pricing and
equally massive reductions in the costs of parking.


Unless, of course, the PA raised parking fees when AirTrain opened -- and
presumably by $5 for the first hour/day. Otherwise, airport parkers are
being subsidized by other riders.

You need to look at the economics of airport parking before making such
a brash statement. Airport parking fees and Passenger Facilities
Charges are why municipalities love airports.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Coté" wrote in message
...

is directly on topic. The Portland light rail extension, AirMAX, is
significantly financed by the $3 PFC that every commercial air passenger
pays coming and going.


Well, not quite, bobby - that $3 only covers the part of AirMAX that is on
Airport property. Those trains run all the way to Beaverton (on the other
side of downtown). Also, that $3 is only on departures - not both ways.
And do note, the $3 fee only applies to construction (airport share = ~$28
million) - not operating costs.

'Course, you're welcome to challenge this - but to do so would undermine
most of your other arguments about how much LRT costs.

Robert Coté wrote:

In article ,
Tim Kynerd wrote:


On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:31:40 +0000, mrtravelkay wrote:


Robert Coté wrote:


Trust me. They get back the "free" ride to the parking lot in parking
fees many times over. Aitrain represents a major potential hit to one
of their most profitable activities no doubt the $5 is to keep the lots
full.

Plus, the cost to build and maintain it is probably astronomical

Sorry, Robert, but there's no logical reason why people who pay to park
shouldn't also pay to ride AirTrain to and from the parking lots. Parking
is one service; AirTrain is another.


It's called bundling and is extremely common.

The whole concept of "free parking" has been confusing since the
Monopoly game put in the square. There is no free parking, it costs to
purchase land, build and maintain and somebody ends up paying for it.
It's bundled in the price of goods purchased at the big box or mall.
It's bundled in the movie ticket price, etc. However, this is a two
sided coin. Those big box prices are lower precisely because of the
large parking lot and business model built around it. You get those low
everyday prices even if you arrive by walking. In that case the parking
lot subsidizes pedestrians. It is certainly posssible to unbundle but
airport parking fees are so much higher than costs that unbundling
airtrain fares would result in massive increase in train pricing and
equally massive reductions in the costs of parking.


Unless, of course, the PA raised parking fees when AirTrain opened -- and
presumably by $5 for the first hour/day. Otherwise, airport parkers are
being subsidized by other riders.


You need to look at the economics of airport parking before making such
a brash statement. Airport parking fees and Passenger Facilities
Charges are why municipalities love airports.

Airport parking fees are an interesting case. The tax or in lieu fees
on the property covered by the lots owned by an airport authority is
probably lower than the tax on the land covered by the private parking
lots which have to provide van or car shuttles. The airport if it isn't
taxed on the land is definitely making money and even if it is taxed
equally, it probably is still doing better than the private operators.
The Airtrain at JFK and the equivalent system at Newark Airport is free
inside the complex and at least at Newark also serves as an
interterminal connector. The question arises as to the fee charged when
the ride is not to a parking lot but rather to a transit connection. On
the Airtrain, 5 dollars could well be reasonable for the line to Jamaica
since it is well outside the boundary of the airport and it could be
justified at a higher price per round trip than the implied amount for
the parking lot cost (3 dollars or less) because of the greater cost.
The same can not be said for the connection to the A train. Apparently
the connection point is very close to a normal remote parking lot stop.
Thus a round trip price of over 3 dollars is unjustified since that is
greater than the feel to park at that location and ride the Air train.
The Jamaica connection is clearly off property (at least a mile and
probably a lot more) while the A train connection is on property or very
close to on property as I understand it. Clarifications from others are
welcome.

The following somewhat related comment belongs in the "how times change"
category and is related. In the 1950's, Newark, New Jersey got as much
in taxes on Penn Station, Newark as it did in fees in lieu of taxes on
the entire Newark airport property, parking lots, runways, etc. from the
Port of New York Authority. Today with New Jersey Transit owning Penn
Station, I doubt Newark is getting much if anything in the way of taxes
or in lieu payments.

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

127.0.0.1 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:39:08 +0100, Tim Kynerd
wrote:


Sorry, Robert, but there's no logical reason why people who pay to park
shouldn't also pay to ride AirTrain to and from the parking lots. Parking
is one service; AirTrain is another.

they pay for it via the parking fees


Yo idiot,

By now three people have pointed out that if parking fees didn't go up
the day Airtrain opened, then parkers are not paying for Airtrain.

But no one has answered whether they did or not.

What form of transit did they use to get to the parking lot before
Airtrain? Was there a charge for it?

Michael Voight rogue Cisco employee disguised as mrtravelkay
trolled:

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

127.0.0.1 wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:39:08 +0100, Tim Kynerd
wrote:


Sorry, Robert, but there's no logical reason why people who pay to park
shouldn't also pay to ride AirTrain to and from the parking lots. Parking
is one service; AirTrain is another.

they pay for it via the parking fees


Yo idiot,

By now three people have pointed out that if parking fees didn't go up
the day Airtrain opened, then parkers are not paying for Airtrain.

But no one has answered whether they did or not.

What form of transit did they use to get to the parking lot before
Airtrain? Was there a charge for it?

**** off asshole! Stop asking so many retarded questions, idiot!

About Rogue Cisco Employee Michael "mrtravelkay" Voight,
a.k.a. the "mrtravel" Netkook Troll/Usenet Flooder

"mrtavelkay" is the latest usenet handle of a brainless troll whose real name is
Michael Voight, email .

He is better known by his previous stupid handle, "mrtravel".

The idiot works for Cisco in San Jose and apparently they don't
keep him busy enough so he has to troll usenet when he isn't
looking for foreign brides to marry in exchange for money
in alt.visa.us.marriage-based and alt.personals.big-folks, or trying
to pick up minors in alt.personals.teens or any of the number of creepy
newsgroups he frequents. Some of his other trolling aliases are Network
Guy, , sleepydoc , jlhunt
, and Lost 5 of 8 , mrt ,
news.sf.sbcglobal.net , not-nomen
, David Tanner
, Jeff Davies .

All intelligent members of the usenet community have killfiled him, so he takes
great pains to get past their killfiles by rubbing his only two cerebral neurons
together and coming up with gems like: mrtrav , mrtrav3
, mrraveltay . The lastest product of
his brain diarrhea is mrtravelkay and he seems to like to
hang out in alt.personals.fat. Hmmm....

His phone number is 831-252-2606.

He's got a daughter in Orange County that one of his ex-wives had the
intelligence to take away from him. Lord only knows what could have
happened to her if she had continued to live with the kook. The other kids
he has belong to his previous Russian sleazy brides, and since they come
and go so do the kids. It wouldn't hurt to let Cisco know what kind of
deviant sexual pervert maniac they have working for them, so....

For starters, forward his idiotic posts to .

He works in technical support, so forward them to .

He often posts through sbcglobal and prodigy, so forward them to
and as well.

You can also call them at 1 800 553 2447 and ask to speak with a supervisor
and explain that you are EXTREMELY unhappy that this idiot spends his whole
day at work playing on the internet on company time. THEY WILL NOT LIKE
THAT.

Then write to corporate headquarters explaining what this idiot is doing
and telling them HOW BAD IT IS FOR THEIR COMPANY IMAGE. They will LOVE
that you brought this to their attention:

Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
USA

Then also call them. You should always follow up email or letters with
phone calls. Always ask for supervisors or managers. Try to get as far up
as possible.

(408)526-4000
(800)553-NETS or
(800)553-6387

Contact Investor Relations and tell them you are interested in investing in
their company but won't do so until they get rid of this asshole who is
wasting company resources:

Cisco Systems, Inc.
Investor Relations Department
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
Phone: (408) 526-8890
Fax: (408) 526-4545
Email:

Might as well contact customer service too, they LOVE to hear about this
type of stuff:

USA 1 800 553 6387




Then finally, send letters with copies of his nasty posts addressed
personally to each one of the OFFICERS of the company using the
headquarters address. Believe me, they READ your complaints and are VERY
INTERESTED in them, especially if it's about one of their employees. They
will take a PERSONAL interest in rooting this ASSHOLE out of their company:

John Morgridge, Chairman
John Chambers, President, CEO
Donald Valentine, Vice Chairman
Larry Carter, CFO, Sr. VP-Fin. and Admin., Sec., Director
Richard Justice, Sr. VP, Worldwide Field Operations

Have fun!