Should they be Raised to Pay for 21st Century Airport Infrastructure?

Case Analysis
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
PFCs: Pros or Cons - Should They Be Raised to Pay for 21st Century Airport Infrastructure?
The increasing financial constraints in airports and the stunted development triggered a legislative reaction in 1990 to combat the problem. The Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) required airports to increase charges between $1 and $2 per passenger. In 2000, Congress raised the federal PFC cap to a maximum of $4.50 per head. The increase in charges has various implications for the different stakeholders. Despite their cons, PCF is necessary, and Congress should eliminate the cap to facilitate the increase in charges from the current amount to a higher figure.
Inflation has been on the rise since, hence the plummeting purchasing power of the PFC. The principal aim for PFC is offsetting the cost of building and modernizing airport infrastructure. However, due to inflation, the current rate of PFC is unable to cater to the costs. This has adversely affected the airport’s ability to deal with the increasing demand for infrastructural improvement. The alternatives available to PFC like the Airport Improvement Program Funding (AIP) and airport revenue collections are inadequate to meet the growing demand for airport infrastructure (Rodriguez, 2017). PFC is hence more reliable than AIP and should be put in place.
Additionally, PFC is pro-competitive, assisting airports in establishing facilities that encourage new entrants and facilitate the expansion of incumbent carriers (Imes, 1995). The start of the 1950s saw airports negotiating long-term leases with the airlines. The move allowed the airlines to lock payments to cater for debt and finance airport improvements. The incumbent airlines took advantage of the financial support to g...