Project #ap4-4 third runway construction project PFCs UA disagree

Project # Ap':A Third Runway Construction Project Total Cost - $587.4 b611ion PFC Funds . 5104.3 Million CuGfic8tion . Disagree + b United disagrees with this proposed use ofPPCs because United bdiw© that the plan is inconsistent with the purposes of the legislation authOdag airportS to knpose PFCs. would faci]itat6 the Port’s improper diversion of federal air Uanspoaation aDdS to a local nruaicipaaty (revenue divenior!), and lacks the required detailed 6mncial plan. a liMb Despite many meetings with the airport, United has not been informed how, if built, this third runway will enhance the safety, security or up acity of the national air traruportldoa 9y8teal, reduce noise, or enhance competition mong air carriers as required to be eligible for PFC funding / (,t Spai£alty, United believes the Port can resolve its warm weather and Pacific Rirn limitadon8 by completing Project #AP+2. Moreover, the airport e$dmate that a third runway will provide $60 million ofopentional savings is not wppon8ble using standard bUSiD®S laladadon8. Indeed, United’s calCUIAtions suggest that a third runway will cause a cost increase on a net present value basis and that future passenger and operations growth are cweatly 8igni6antly below the level necessary to justify a new runway for the fore8ee£ble ARun. r..- q q : ( Ure Poa has also stated that the additional runway is necessary to elilniwte a swat minute avenge delay at the airport. The airlines do not dispute the amount of delay at the airport, but believe that allnost al:>ne of that delay…
V V