Ne Katedralama

autora/ice cronomy

Ovo ljeto sam imao priliku letjeti preko Plesa. Obišavši sve terminale i zgradu mogu dati neki empirijski sud o viđenom.

Međunardoni dolasci – nakaradno. Ovdje vrijedi opis Denisa Kuljiša u članku u Jutarnjem, o kojem sam pisao ovo ljeto. Sve je ograđeno šperpločama, uključujući prilaz kontroli putovnica i nakon toga čekaonicu za prtljagu. Drvena vrata kroz šper-zid, sa znakom zabrane otvaranja, ograđuju odlaske i dolaske. “Samo se krpa i majstoriše.” Zašto??

Domaći odlasci – strašno nakaradno; Kad sam ja čekao, kasno navečer, posljednji let, terminal je bio osvjetljen sa 7 golih žarulja, (bez ijedne lampe, svjetiljke, lustera) od toga 4 su bile obične 100W (a možda i manje). Uz žarulje, svjetlo je davalo i par ekrana iznad gateova. Naravno instalirane rasvjete nije moglo ni biti kad terminal nema pravi strop. Sve žice, kablovi i cijevi su bile na izložbi, a u pozadini crni, kao tek zagoren zid. Terminal nema wc, pa ako vam zatreba morate nazad iza osiguranja i onda opet kroz osiguranje. Osjećaj trećeg svijeta.

Domaći dolasci – dobro i jednostavno (valjda zato jer je i novo). Na dolascima i ne treba biti puno filozofije, ali bar da se ne hoda po šperločama. Međunarodni odlasci – ispada da je i jedini terminal koji je reprezentabilan i međunarodno usporediv. Sa barom, duty-freeom i (vrlo važno!) lako dostupnim wc-om.

Naravno da ovakvo izdanje zavrijeđuje renovaciju, tj. izgradi novo. Nema se šta više krpariti po “starom”. Sada je legitimno pitanje što i za koliko izgraditi. O potrebi i razlogu nove zgrade za Pleso sam već pisao. Kao i posljedicama izgradnje nepotrebno skupih arhitektonskih remekdjela – troškovi se na kraju svale na avio kompanije i letače. To svakako nije način za privuči više kompanija i više letača. A u slučaju Plesa, potencijalna situacija je još gora jer će novu zgradu financirati Vlada poreznim novcem svih građana Hrvatske i grad bez ikakve odgovornosti za potrošnju, a potom troškovi otplate kredita biti svaljeni na opet poreznike/letače.

Problem je jednostavan. Veliki gradovi (ili hoćemo-biti-veliki-grad poput Zagreba) troše prevelike svote novca, a ponekad i poreznog novca, za izgradnju aerodrosmkih katedrala, dok bi jednostavnije i jeftinije zgrade, koje ne opterećuju naknadno putnike glomaznim naknadama za isplatu troškova izgradnje, služile istoj svrsi. Pa tako i u Hrvatskoj sa izgradnjom 300 milijunskog novog Plesa.

Neidhardt – Novi putnički terminal učinit će zagrebačku zračnu luku vrhunskim svjetskim aerodromom i prvorazrednim obilježjem suvremenog identiteta Zagreba i Hrvatske.

Identitet nije svrha aerodroma! Zato se IATA pobunila i rekla “Ne želimo plaćati katedrale!” Članak (ispod) od prije 2 i pol godine u WSJ objašnjava probleme političke ekonomije izgradnje aerodroma, tko ih plaća, tko i što bi ih trebalo isplaćivati, tj. kroz koje prihode (ne porezne) te ustrojstvo aerodroma.

Politics & Economics: Airport Improvements Stir Up Fights Over Fees; Tussle at Charles de Gaulle Underlines Brewing Tension Between Operators, Airlines

Adam CohenWall Street Journal(Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 25, 2006.

ROISSY, FRANCE — Charles De Gaulle Airport has become the latest front in a global battle in which air carriers have attacked airports from Toronto to Tokyo for lavish spending and fat fees that airlines and their passengers end up paying.

The conflict underlines a struggle over who should pay for airport- infrastructure improvements and raises questions about whether airports are best run with public or private funding.

Charles de Gaulle’s owner, Aeroports de Paris SA, which yesterday said it filed for an initial public offering, is raising the fees it charges airlines in order to fund more than 1 billion euros ($1.23 billion) in infrastructure improvements.

Airlines, led by Air France-KLM, are furious that the airport’s fees have climbed 26.5% during the past five years and are slated to rise another 5% over each of the next five years. They are calling on the European Union to regulate airport charges.

In the U.S., airports are government-owned and rely largely on public funds — a mix of federal money and tax-free municipal-bond issues — and investments by airlines, which often build their own terminal buildings. That doesn’t make them inexpensive, however. Airlines rank New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International and New York’s John F. Kennedy International as two of the most expensive airports in the world.

In Europe, where many airports were originally state-owned, governments recently have turned to privatization, following the example of the United Kingdom, which sold off London’s airports in 1987.

While many of Europe’s airports have been privatized and weaned from state funds, Charles de Gaulle’s owner, Aeroports de Paris, is a latecomer. It was changed from a state entity to a state-owned company last year. It is now a for-profit business, receiving no direct public subsidies. The company plans to collect 500 million euros to 600 million euros by selling off less than half of its shares. The French state plans to keep a controlling stake in the company.

Aeroports de Paris is renovating Charles de Gaulle’s Terminal 1, expanding Terminal 2 to accommodate more traffic and Airbus’s new double-decker A380 and building a train to link the terminals. When Terminal 1 opened in 1974, the windowless concrete doughnut with moving walkways suspended in clear plastic tubes was considered avant- garde. But the terminal now handles almost twice as many passengers as initially planned.

“This place is confusing and outdated,” said Colorado native Jeremy Turpen, on his way to Tanzania to climb Mount Kilimanjaro. He motioned toward the jumble of signs and crowded check-in counters in an area of the terminal that hasn’t been redone with sleek flat-screen displays and space-saving counters.

Making the terminal less confusing and adding modern amenities like wireless Internet access will take four years and cost 250 million euros, according to Aeroports de Paris. Company officials complain that airlines asked for these improvements but are unwilling to pay for them.

European airport operators say their charges reflect costly investments. Airlines say Charles de Gaulle, Athens International, Toronto’s Pearson International and other airports are spending too much to build architectural masterpieces when cheaper, simpler terminals would suffice. “We don’t want to pay for cathedrals,” said Giovanni Bisignani, head of the International Air Transport Association, the airline lobby leading the push for a single European regulator.

IATA also says Aeroports de Paris is violating international aviation rules that bar airports from charging for infrastructure before it is built. Mr. Bisignani charges that, ahead of Aeroports de Paris’s public offering, the French government is “fattening up the airport to sell it at a higher price.”

EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot recently met with airlines and airport operators to discuss the tension and “hopes they will work out the problem themselves,” said spokesman Stefaan De Rynck. If not, he says the EU could step in this fall with a proposal for regulation.

Airlines contrast Charles de Gaulle with London’s Heathrow, Europe’s busiest airport. Heathrow is owned by BAA PLC, which was the world’s first big privatized airport company in 1987. Like Aeroports de Paris, BAA needs government permission to raise its charges.

Mr. Bisignani noted that the U.K.’s Civil Aviation Authority has allowed BAA to raise prices but only at a modest rate, encouraging the airport company to find revenue elsewhere. He said the U.K. regulator keeps BAA on a tight leash, while a similar French authority established last year rubber-stamped Aeroports de Paris’s requested price increase.

French Civil Aviation Authority spokeswoman Marie Bertin said the company is “making a lot of big investments.” She said the issue is complicated because Air France, which was only recently privatized, didn’t pay anything to use the airport for many years.

BAA, which owns seven U.K. airports, last year made a profit of GBP 672 million ($1.2 billion). Much of this income came from its airports’ retail shops, parking fees and property leases to hotels and offices. Of Heathrow’s GBP 936 million in total revenue last year, less than half came from airline charges, according to Duncan Bonfield, BAA’s director of corporate communications.

Heathrow also is making massive infrastructure investments, with roughly GBP 450 million budgeted for improvements linked to accommodating the Airbus A380, Mr. Bonfield said. The airport also is building a GBP 4.2 billion fifth terminal due to open in 2008. To fund these investments, Heathrow will raise its charges according to a formula cleared by the CAA — inflation plus 6.5% a year until 2008.

Charles de Gaulle is turning to Heathrow’s business model, where retail shops and airline charges both drive income. The Paris airport only started focusing on retail income three years ago, when Pierre Graff took over as Aeroports de Paris chairman, company officials say. Since 2003, income from retail shops like a Veuve Clicquot champagne boutique has climbed to 20% of the airport’s total revenue from 5%

Oglasi
Oznake:
%d bloggers like this: