It’s no secret that airline operators aren’t running a charity. While the service they provide is worth the trouble of actually using it, most travelers have at least one or two horror stories under their belt, and this year we’ve seen too many bad examples of rejected and even abused fliers.

So keep that in mind when considering the pushback from major players in the airline industry against Denver International Airport officials’ plans to redevelop the Great Hall. We’ve argued the 34-year public-private partnership estimated to be north of $1 billion is worth pursuing. We stand by the claim, and welcome any cost savings the back-and-forth produces, but we hope the redevelopment continues apace.

As The Denver Post’s Jon Murray reported recently, DIA’s major airlines are raising major objections about the scope and price of the redevelopment plans. They are seeking to delay the process, and lobbying City Council members hard even as you read this. (Though airport operations aren’t supported by taxpayers, it falls to the City Council to approve DIA’s plans.)

Most of what the airlines are doing is predictable bargaining. They did it when DIA was still a dream, arguing that keeping the runways at Stapleton would be better for all involved. Their goal is understandable: They want to keep the enplaned passenger fee as low as possible. Presently, it’s $12 per passenger. If it rose to $13 to help cover costs, as DIA officials propose, the fee would remain near or below that of other busy airports. If in the debate ways are found to keep the fee lower, so much the better.

All that said, it is concerning that the executives are arguing they have been left out of the loop on cost discussions until late in the process. DIA officials say they’ve been transparent for more than a year. We urge the parties to quickly hash this out.

Denver has prospered thanks in good measure to DIA. The distinctive airport is a world-class facility wonderfully expressive of many core Denver values and desires. Now connected to Union Station via commuter rail, and seeing mushrooming passenger demand, the 22-year-old airport needs rethought so that it remains capable of safely handling the 60 million passengers who visit each year.

A chief concern is revamping the TSA security process. The present configuration is too inviting to exploitation from would-be bad actors and too burdensome for those just trying to get where they are going with a minimum of hassle. Given those concerns, delaying the contract approval to begin the public-private partnership strikes us as reckless and unnecessary.

Extending the expected Sept. 1 signing deadline would also be costly, as delays subject the airport to millions of dollars in penalties under the City Council-approved predevelopment agreement.

Sure, the price tag is a big one, but certainly not unusual for the long-term partnership, which also would update aging equipment, increase opportunities for eating, drinking and shopping and handle the increasing number of passengers moving through the airport each year — the bulk of them starting and ending their trip in Denver — all without the added cost of new construction.

We urge the City Council to keep this project on schedule, and look forward to any reasonable savings the airlines can exact in the 11th-hour shuffle.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.