• People in Kansas City love their airport. Pride in a local airport probably isn’t very common around the country, but it is a very important aspect of this campaign. Mayor James, before celebrating criticism of the airport, counseled consultants not to criticize the airport for that very reason.
• The plan at hand is to spend $1.2 billion to reduce the number of gates we have now. Where else does a city spend that sort of money to get less service?
• The matter of financing has never been an issue with the Show-Me Institute. Back in 2014, we listed some reasons to oppose the airport terminal, but the cost to taxpayers is not one of them. Financing only became an issue when city leaders said that the airlines agreed to finance the project. They didn’t.
• Regardless of whether the financing is done publicly or privately, it would result in a higher cost to travelers to pay down the debt. That higher cost would make MCI less attractive to airlines and travelers alike. Consider Cincinnati, where ticket prices were so high that local businesses flew employees out of Dayton, an hour away. Or consider Sacramento. Or San Jose.
• We published a piece in 2014, “Five Good Reasons to Reject New KCI Terminal.” At least four of those reasons still stand, and the piece remains a worthwhile read.

According to the Star story, Kansas City engineering firm Burns & McDonnell has proposed to privately build and finance a new single terminal at MCI. However, there appear to be strings attached:

One key to the proposal for Burns & McDonnell is that it would get an exclusive arrangement with the city to provide the design and come up with a guaranteed maximum price.

Other firms would not have access to make their own offer, nor would the city request bids.

Not surprisingly, Steve McDowell, CEO of BNIM (another architectural firm in KC), expressed concern that such a deal would exclude a great deal of area architectural and engineering talent, telling the Star that “some of the best work in the country is coming out of our city, and I’d hate to see that not taken advantage of for the design of our gateway.”

• The Show-Me Institute is aligned with The Kansas City Star editorial board calling for a policy debate that is “open, fair, complete, fact-based and inclusive.” If the past four years are any indication, it’s fair to wonder whether that debate will happen.
• Lastly, the Star mentions that privately financed airports are nothing new; they’re common in Europe. And therein lies an idea worthy of consideration in Kansas City. If Burns & McDonnell is eager to build and operate a new terminal, why don’t they buy the whole thing? The Show-Me Institute published a paper on this not too long ago. (See page 17.) Not only is Branson’s airport privately owned, but the Kansas City Council previously considered privatizing MCI.

If the City is open to private financing and private operations, how far are we from private ownership?

The post Important Background on the Airport Discussion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Branson Airport (BKG) made news in 2009 when it became the nation’s only privately constructed and operated commercial airport. Unfortunately, in large part due to poor timing, passenger levels were far below expectations and the project has been in financial trouble for the last couple years. The airport’s problems trebled when Southwest decided to halt service to the market last year.

Stripped of its only major airline, Branson Airport management has been trying to lure new service. To do that, the airport plans to use $1.5 million of private money and $500,000 of public money (courtesy of Taney County) to create a revenue guarantee for prospective airlines. If an airline agrees to serve Branson Airport and fails to turn a profit, this guarantee will make up the difference.

We’ve seen the use of revenue guarantees before in Missouri, notably at Columbia Regional Airport. The Columbia region provided a revenue guarantee to American Airlines, which prompted Delta Airlines (who was already serving the airport) to end service. In essence, publicly funded airline revenue guarantees take the risk of providing airline service from the private sector and give it to taxpayers. This is a questionable use of public resources, and it subsidizes air travel.

Even though Branson Airport is a private operation, a revenue guarantee would not be the first public support it has received. The city of Branson has paid a set amount to the airport for every out-of-town passenger that it has brought in, and Taney County helped the airport secure initial financing. With the airport on the verge of financial collapse, and the county now preparing to subsidize commercial air service, the question becomes whether the public should be invested in bailing out this private venture. Especially with nearby Branson-Springfield National Airport (SGF) growing briskly in the last couple years, it may be in the interest of the taxpayer to let the airport sink or swim on its own.

The post Airline Revenue Guarantee Could Make Touchdown in Branson appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When I was growing up, I regularly played golf at the Forest Park municipal golf course in Saint Louis. Later, in my high school and college years, I noticed that the quality of the course was improving, a lot. This happened at the same time (late 1980s) that the city of Saint Louis outsourced the management of the golf course to a private company. As that outsourcing, or privatization, of the golf course has continued, the quality of the course has continued to improve. I doubt you would find one golfer familiar with the course before and after who thinks the outsourcing of its management and operations did not significantly enhance it.

That same type of story is repeated throughout Missouri. Good government need not be big government and the public sector does not have to provide public services in every case. There is a role for private delivery, often regulated, of public services in Missouri. In many cases, the private sector can deliver those services more affordably and at a higher quality than the government.

In fact, Southwest Missouri is home to one of America’s most enterprising privatization projects. The Branson Airport is America’s only fully private commercial airport. In a capitalist system, not every business attempt succeeds, and the Branson Airport may yet fail. (I hope not.) But if it fails, private investors will be out their own money, unlike Mid-America Airport in southern Illinois, where local governments have had to continually fund that little-used white elephant.

On the other end of the spectrum is City Utilities (CU), Springfield’s municipal behemoth. Missouri’s other large cities are primarily served by private utilities. Those private utilities pay taxes, face more regulations, earn a return on investment, and still charge comparable rates to CU. Springfield needs to consider following the example of Florissant, Mo., a decade ago, and divest itself of its public utilities.

Research has shown that privatization works best when the driving force is pragmatism, not ideology. Politicians and voters can still debate about what services should be provided as part of the eternal debate over the role of government in our society. But privatization is more about how those services are provided, not whether they should be. Unless you genuinely believe that as many people as possible should be on the public payroll, like the big city political machines of yesteryear, then a government service that you depend upon or care about likely can be addressed with privatization.

There are certain roles that should always belong to the government, such as police powers, and never to the private sector. Furthermore, the role of government regulation in many privatized public services is important, such as regulation of private utilities. Finally, in some instances, such as animal control, private partnerships with non-profit groups may be preferred to for-profit companies. Whatever way you look at it, there are numerous examples, such as Cox Health operating ambulance services in Christian County or the existence of private libraries in Taney County, where privatization can provide better services at lower costs for Missourians. Just play golf at Forest Park to see the evidence.

David Stokes is the director of local government policy at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Privatization Can Benefit Missouri Taxpayers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In the United States, due to significant financing advantages given to publicly owned airports and onerous federal regulations, all but one of the 502 commercial service airports in the United States are publicly owned, most by local municipalities. That one private airport is Branson Airport in southern Missouri. As the case study points out:

The success of Branson Airport may be uncertain, but one of the features of private enterprise is that individuals and companies risk their own capital, not of that of their fellow citizens, in hopes of a larger return.

The other six commercial service airports in Missouri are all publicly owned, the largest of which are Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (STL) and Kansas City International Airport (MCI). However, they also can benefit from partial or full privatization. The most basic level of privatization, contracting airport services, already is in place at both Lambert and Kansas City. These contracts allow the airports to attain services through competitive bidding from the private sector. MCI is one of the few airports to privatize its security screening through TSA’s Screening Partnership Program (SPP).

However, airports in Missouri can go much further in privatizing operations. This includes privatizing the management of airports or even leasing the airports to private entities through the Airport Privatization Pilot Program (APPP). Kansas City considered this option for MCI once before. This program is actually the only way a municipality can use proceeds from its airports on other public goods. However, the program requires a complex negotiation between the local municipality, the FAA, airport workers, and the airlines. As the case study states:

Should Kansas City pursue the APPP route of privatization, the city could expect significant proceeds from the sale. However, it would require complex and lengthy negotiations with the potential buyers, airlines, and the FAA in order to participate in a program with no record of long-term success.

The full or partial privatization of airports can have many benefits for air service in the state, whether it is simply reduced costs or financial gain from an airport sale. The case study “Government Privatization in Missouri: Successes, Risks, and Opportunities” outlines some of the possibilities that might allow Missouri to create an example of airport privatization for the rest of the nation.

The post Privatization: Airport Possibilities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, the airport has had trouble from the start. Timing didn’t help, as the airport opened in 2009, just months after the onset of the largest post-war recession in American history. Falling demand for air service and “capacity discipline” from air carriers meant actual passengers at Branson fell far short of meeting both expectations and operating expenses. In 2011, Branson Airport LLC went into debt forbearance. On top of these financial woes, the airport’s runway has had structural problems that led the airport to sue the construction contractor.

Southwest’s decision in early 2013 to begin service to Branson Airport looked promising to help save the venture from financial demise. Passenger levels increased, but not enough to satisfy Southwest’s bottom line. So on Dec. 5, the airline announced it would end service to Branson as well as two other small airports.

While no one wants to see Branson Airport fail, the overall story is one that shows the benefit of using the market to build transportation infrastructure. Private developers saw an opportunity and took a risk. As it turned out, actual demand is falling short of projections. A private company sought to make a profit and now they, not local taxpayers, may pay the cost.

The post Southwest’s Decision To End Service Could Doom Branson Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But today we are talking about a different Branson. You may have heard that Saturday marked the beginning of Southwest Airlines service to Branson, Mo. There will now be daily flights to Chicago, Dallas, and Houston, and one flight a week to Orlando. This news comes on the heels of a decrease in flights to Columbia, Mo.

There is obviously a lot that contributes to the decision for an airline to begin or increase service. But it is worth noting two things. One, Branson is the only privately owned and operated commercial airport in the country. Many were skeptical that it would succeed. Industry expert Mike Boyd predicted when the airport opened that “the local population is too small, and the region’s attractions aren’t sufficient to consistently generate sufficient traffic for profitable air service.” Branson may be small, but the area has generated enough demand to keep air service over the past few years.

And, they have done it without major subsidization. This airport does not rely on taxpayers to operate (but it does receive $8 from the city for each arriving visitor). Nor does it rely on taxpayer money to attract business. Columbia ran into trouble when it offered subsidies to one airline but not the others; the others are now gone. Subsidies may help attract an airline in the short term. But Delta official Trebor Banstetter reinforced that subsidies such as revenue guarantees will not keep an airline around if the flight does not prove to be successful without that guarantee.

The post You Are Now Free To Move About The Country Without Subsidies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In economic terms, public goods are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Except in extreme circumstances, the water I consume does not limit your consumption of water. In this case, the water in the Missouri River is non-rivalrous. However, with utility services — as opposed to national defense or local roads — it is easy to prevent someone from using the asset if necessary. They are excludable. It is hard to argue that water access and infrastructure needs to be provided by the government, especially when there are private providers operating in the area that have a proven ability to provide the product. And it is even more difficult to make that argument when a lease, management contract, or utility sale would be valuable to taxpayers. (To those who might scream about everyone having the basic right to water, you are all free to collect rain water to drink, and to take baths in a local stream all you want. This is about the demand for pressurized hot or cold water coming into your home on demand by turning a tap.)

To its credit, Kansas City’s water division at least charges for its water like a private good instead of a public good. The fact that Saint Louis still lacks water meters for most of its consumers is absurd. Even if Kansas City changes the debate some by charging for water more like a private good, the fact is that public utilities far too often lack the political will to charge what they need to charge for the asset.

Also in Kansas City, the private contract to operate the animal shelter has been pulled. This happened awhile back, and I touched upon it here, but this is a great disappointment. This is clearly not a failure of privatization, unless saving money and increasing adoptions is a failure. It might be considered a failure of this particular private operator, but I remain unconvinced. I think that there is a core group of activists/volunteers who will never be happy with any system until they get a no-kill shelter in Kansas City. I say this as a dog-lover who got my dog (who passed away last year at 10) back in 2000 from a local shelter.

I think the city caved to accusations, as this statement indicates:

“We’ve been receiving allegations from some of the volunteers who put in time out at the shelter regarding mistreatment of animals,” said David Park, director of Neighborhood and Community Services for the city. 

Park acknowledged the shelter has been run better now than in the past. 

“They’ve done a wonderful job, as far as increasing the number of adoptions. (Previously) the number of animals that were euthanized was far greater than the number that was adopted, and now the opposite is true,” Park said. 

According to Park, the city has to protect itself, even if the allegations have yet to [be] proved. 

“Until we have the formal results of the investigation back, we don’t want to renew a contract for a year, for another year, and then have something surprising come out of the Missouri Veterinary Medical Board — then we need to cancel right away.”

The private airport in Branson is struggling financially. It does not appear to be struggling in its day-to-day operations, but I’ll try to fly there next week to make a better judgement. They have two commercial airlines offering regular flights to Houston, Atlanta, and Denver, and more charter services. It remains to be seen how the airport’s debt issues will play out over time. I certainly hope that this experiment succeeds, but who knows? If it does fail, it will fail with (mostly) private money. Compare that to Mid-American Airport over in Illinois, and pick which style you want.

The post Missouri Privatization Roundup appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is exciting that the private commercial airport in Branson is expanding its operations; it is also exciting that at least some airline service in mid-Missouri can be operated at a profit without government support. Here is to hoping for much more of both!

The post More Good News for Aviation in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kansas City has considered this idea, and it would be wise for St. Louis to consider it as well. The idea that only the government can operate our airports may be deeply imbedded in public opinion, but private operators could certainly undertake airport operations if given the opportunity. Hopefully (and apparently), Branson will show us the way.

The post Private Airport in Branson Seems to Be Flying Along Smoothly appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

[Branson Airport Executive Director Jeff] Bourk, citing $99 flights from Branson Airport to Boston, agrees that the competition is likely helping to keep fares down.

“When you’re traveling, we want you to consider all your options and use what works best for you,” he said. “But with the fares that we’re seeing, there will be more and more people using both airports.”

The post Update on Airports in Southwest Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This will be a grand experiment for Missouri and the entire country. If it works, it may open up a range of new possibilities, and perhaps once again encourage Kansas City to consider privatizing its airport. If the Branson airport fails, it will do so without taxpayer dollars being involved — only the investors would lose their money. (Remember when companies sometimes used to fail without the federal government bailing them out? Those were the good old days. …)

In my opinion, the best thing the airport has going for it, businesswise, is that it is starting small:

Peet also has set expectations low. Reno gets about 2.5 million air travelers a year, or nearly 68,500 travelers a day, he notes. Discount king Southwest Airlines has 38 flights a day there. But to reach Peet’s goal of 250,000 passengers a year, Branson Airport needs only 685 passengers — five to six planeloads a day.

Branson is not an easy drive from St. Louis or Kansas City. My family went to Branson for a weekend last year, and we drove. I would love to have the option to fly there on a discount airline. If I could knock two hours off the trip each way by flying, that would be worth a little extra money to me. For people who live farther away, this airport opens up Branson to a lot more people — not to sound like a chamber booster for them, or anything. …

This line in the article immediately reminded me of The Simpsons:

“Reno’s got beautiful scenery. Branson’s got beautiful scenery. They’ve got a lake. We’ve got three lakes. They’ve got lots of hotel rooms. Branson’s got lots of hotel rooms. They’re pretty isolated. Branson’s pretty isolated. The only thing they’ve got that we don’t are the casinos, and a lot of people don’t want to be around gambling.”

Because we all know that Branson is what Las Vegas would be like if it were run by Ned Flanders.

The post Branson and Its Fancy New Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.