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.

The revenue guarantee was part of the deal that brought American Airlines to Columbia, and prompted Delta’s departure. The idea is simple: American Airlines is guaranteed a certain amount of revenue from flights out of Columbia. If that revenue level is not reached, the city of Columbia and other regional supporters have to pay the difference. It was supposed to give American Airlines the incentive to test the Columbia market. The new service, if successful, would be profitable enough to convince the airline to operate following the expiration of the guarantee.

There is good reason to be skeptical of this government interference in the commercial aviation market. First, it transfers risk from the private company (which raises the expected value, and hence their incentive to service the route) to taxpayers who may or may not ever use the airport. Second, a revenue guarantee can make it difficult for a competitor to enter the market without the same type of risk reduction. Delta Airlines left the Columbia market for precisely this issue. Third, a revenue guarantee can be difficult to take away without risking service reduction. This is because even if American rarely (if ever) uses the revenue guarantee the insurance that the guarantee provides is part of the financial equation that determines the amount of service.

But ending the revenue guarantee is no easy choice. Small airports across the country are having trouble attracting air service, as national airlines consolidate and reduce less profitable routes (a practice known as “capacity discipline”). Cities without regular flights are at a distinct disadvantage in attracting businesses and residents.

However, Columbia Regional Airport would likely be able to attract airlines without the guarantee, as it did before the city wooed American Airlines. The real issue is how many routes and where the routes would go. City officials have long had grand designs to expand the airport’s reach to the west, build a new terminal, and massively increase total passengers. They were, when they were chasing American Airlines, and likely will remain unwilling to let the private market interfere with realizing those goals. Residents will have to decide if city leaders’ goals are worth subsidizing the airlines and interfering in the transportation market.

The post A Guarantee for More Flights Out of Columbia Regional Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Perryman said that declining traffic and air service out of Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (Code: CVG) and recent upgrades at Charlotte/Douglas International Airport (Code: CLT) played a role in Chiquita’s relocation in 2011, which took several hundred white-collar jobs with it.

Aside from relying on Perryman, Alonzo quoted some leaders of economic development groups, who, as can be expected, support building a new airport. But not all is well at Cincinnati’s airport since its $500 million renovation in 1994. According to the Manhattan Institute of New York’s City Journal:

You can see those extra charges reflected in the sky-high fares at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, a Delta hub and winner of the top spot in Forbes’s 2009 list of “rip-off airports.” Last year, an average ticket out of the airport cost $526, compared with $372 in nearby Dayton, Ohio, and $387 in Indianapolis. International flights averaged $1,408, 36 percent more than the national average. Is the airport really a reason to relocate to the area, as businesses often claim? The Cincinnati Business Courier found that three-quarters of the Cincinnati firms it surveyed were flying employees out of the Dayton airport, more than an hour away by car. “Unless you’re suffering from delusion, you realize that the Cincinnati airport is now really in Dayton,” aviation expert Darryl Jenkins told the Cincinnati Enquirer. Similarly, a 2006 study found that nearly one-fifth of local fliers drove to other airports to avoid the hub’s high prices. Delta is now reducing flights from Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, and passenger traffic at the airport is down 65 percent since 2005.

So there you have it. The cost of building a new airport has contributed to making travel to and from there more expensive, so travelers seek other venues in neighboring cities. A new airport does not attract business, as proponents claim — quite the opposite. (Proponents of building a new terminal at MCI already complain about losing market share to neighboring airports. This would only make it worse.) Remember, Chiquita left Cincinnati seven years after their airport renovation and partly because of reduced air service.

Now Cincinnati airport consultants want to do to Kansas City what has been done to Cincinnati.

No thanks.

The post Let’s Not Follow Cincinnati’s Lead On Airports appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here is a quick recap of recent events. This past year the airport enjoyed service from American Airlines, Delta, and Frontier Airlines. But American Airlines is now the only commercial airline staying in Columbia, as Delta already left the market, and Frontier exits in May.

Consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff will provide design services for the new terminal for $38,000. In a recent press release, Parsons Brinckerhoff hypes the new terminal and defends the need, stating that “Columbia Regional Airport has been experiencing growth and has seen an increase in the number of commercial airline service offerings.”

After reading that, I literally double-checked the date of the press release to confirm that it indeed said March, 28, 2013, and not 2012. While it is technically true that the airport has increased commercial airline service offerings, the statement leaves off the very important second half of that statement — the growth has stopped, and service offerings are much lower than they were a year ago.  It is like saying George Bush is president. It was true, at one point in time, but you are not going to find him at the White House today.

Still, city leaders seem confident with their multi-million dollar plan. The Columbia City Council decided on Monday to transfer $1.2 million away from other city projects to fund the terminal, and plan to allot another $18.7 million to the project in the 2014 Capital Improvement Plan, in hopes that the federal government will agree to contribute a large portion of the total cost.

The post Funny-But-Not-So-Funny Update On Columbia 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.

Frontier just began flights from Columbia to Orlando, Fla., last November. American Airlines now will be the only provider at the airport — and the company receives a revenue guarantee for two years to provide service. So if American does not make a profit from this market, they can still dip into funds that Columbia will provide to make up for any lost revenue.

Delta Senior Manager Trebor Banstetter commented that revenue guarantees “can be a tool to perhaps get things started, [but] . . . airlines really like to see a service that can sustain itself and be successful, without having a guarantee in place.” He added that the most important thing when considering what a community can offer an airline is “having the community and the travelers embrace  the service and use it on a regular basis because without that it’s hard to justify operating the route.”

Banstetter makes the point that revenue guarantees and other subsidies are not sustainable. The only way to keep service at the airport is if the flight itself is profitable. Prior to 2008, Delta served the Columbia airport with revenue assistance from the federal government, as part of the Essential Air Service program to provide air service to rural airports. Delta continued serving the airport for the next few years, until it was no longer profitable (Delta reported a $900,000 loss in 2011). During this time, Columbia had two airlines and no city subsidies — and now it has just one, plus subsidies.

Columbia officials would be better served if they give up on the “40 in 2020” goal to have 40 percent of mid-Missouri airline passengers using the Columbia airport by 2020. The loss of Frontier and Delta are real indications that flying to Columbia is not profitable for airlines. Yes, it would be convenient for Mizzou students and others in the area to have affordable flights closer than Saint Louis or Kansas City. It might be difficult to conceptualize because we live in a world where the federal government subsidizes almost everything, but there are costs to doing business. We all face constraints in resources. Airlines cannot provide services to a market that is not profitable. How long will it take for Columbia officials to understand this?

The post Now It’s Time To Say Goodbye appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, being pro-business is not the same as being pro-free market. Being pro-business can devolve into being pro-some businesses and anti-other businesses. For example, my colleague Kacie Galbraith wrote about the Columbia Regional Airport and the various incentive schemes city officials are cooking up to entice American Airlines to offer service there, at the expense of Delta. The proper response would have been lowering costs and burdens for ALL airlines and letting the free market determine which, if any airlines, might serve the Columbia region.

The Speaker has assured the taxpayers that there will not be anything like “Aerotropolis” coming down the pipe. That is great to hear. Yet, when Speaker Jones talks about “implementing incentives,” I get nervous. The biggest incentive for businesses to locate in Missouri would be a favorable environment for ALL businesses. The incentives that legislators talk about usually mean a new tax subsidy, taking money from one group of people and giving it to another.

I hope the House moves in the tax cut direction and away from the business incentive direction. I have blogged (a lot) about the benefits of eliminating the corporate income tax and the taxes on pass-through entities. As I mentioned before, the Senate seems disposed to pass some sort of income tax cut. If the House follows suit, it is possible to enact some meaningful reform.

The post And Over In The House appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

MidAmerica Airport in St. Clair County, Ill., was built in the 1990s with high hopes that business would materialize. Have you ever flown out of MidAmerica? Me neither. The airport failed to ever gain a significant amount of passenger traffic. The government provided subsidies to airlines that did fly there, and many still quickly left the market. Fast forward to today: the airport continues to operate. This is when I wish I could tell you that there was a miraculous turnaround and MidAmerica found a way to become profitable. Oh, how I wish. The airport is still open because it has more than $100 million of debt to pay off. Where would MidAmerica find the money to pay?

The Manhattan Institute just published an article about the growing number of new or expanded airports that are underused or virtually empty. It gave me a sinking feeling in my stomach when I thought about the future of the Columbia Regional Airport. We have written about the airport’s expansion plans and Delta’s recent departure from the Columbia market. The Manhattan Institute article points out that “… airport expansions often increase ticket prices, driving businesses away. After airports have built new facilities, they pass the expense on to passengers in the form of pricier tickets.”

I do not know what the future has in store for Columbia Regional Airport. But MidAmerica’s failure shows us that “if you build it, they will come” is not necessarily true. I am not in a position to say whether Columbia is in need of expansion or improvements. But I take Delta’s departure from the market as a sign that they do not see Columbia as an area for growth in air travel. Columbia officials need to evaluate whether there are real opportunities for growth. If there are not, then a costly government-funded airport expansion is not a wise decision.

The post Empty and Broke appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Well guess what happened. Delta declined the offer, and announced it will exit the Columbia market in February 2013.

I said it before and I will say it again: what were Columbia decision-makers thinking?

They interfered with the market by offering American a revenue guarantee, which is essentially a subsidy. Delta officials had to step up and say “hey wait a minute — this isn’t fair if we are competing with an airline whose flights are subsidized by the government. We cannot compete with that.”

Columbia then found itself in a lose-lose situation. The city would have been out another couple million dollars if Delta accepted a deal that matched American’s, forcing taxpayers to spend even more. Or, Delta would decide to leave an unfair market and the city would lose the options they worked hard to grow at the airport, which is what happened.

What happens in two years, when the revenue guarantee for American ends? Will the city extend the deal, or just hope that the market suddenly becomes profitable? It is not prudent to subsidize a market that would not survive on its own just because someone likes the idea of it. I hope this will serve as a memorable example of the damaging consequences of government intervention in the free market.

The post No Free Rides for Delta appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recent  news of the city of Columbia offering special incentives to American Airlines, but not to Delta, prompted Phil Garcia to write about the consequences of rent seeking (and even compared the situation to his children wanting more allowance). Garcia commented how rent seeking hurts competition and raises taxpayer burdens. Check out his excellent letter to the editor in the Jefferson City News Tribune — Your Opinion: Airport ‘rent-seeking’.

Also read our posts explaining why Columbia made a poor decision, and a related op-ed about how Columbia intends to pay for an airport expansion.

The post Privilege Seeking appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I know Columbia Mayor Bob McDavid has a catchy-sounding goal of “40 in 2020” — meaning, to have 40 percent of mid-Missouri airline passengers using Columbia’s airport by 2020. But doling out subsidies is not the best way to strive for this goal.

The revenue guarantee enables American Airlines to break even on each flight. But what about Delta, which already services Columbia without subsidies? Let’s look at an example. Airlines have a minimum amount they can charge for each ticket before they start losing money — say it is $200. But because Columbia is helping American, that airline now can provide fares at $150. Delta, on the other hand, does not have this extra help and cannot lower its prices below $200. Which flight will passengers choose? Unless they have an unwavering love of the Delta Biscoff cookies, they will choose the cheaper American flight; and this is how Delta now will be at a disadvantage in the marketplace.

Delta officials know this, and already warned the city that they will expect a similar subsidy if the American deal goes through. I expect that we will now see a domino effect.  Chances are, Columbia will have to spend taxpayer money to keep Delta from leaving the airport, even though they were already providing service there for four years. There is also a third player. Frontier Airlines is scheduled to begin service to Columbia in a few weeks. They will have good reason to ask the city for a revenue guarantee as well.

The city created an artificial need for other companies to now require subsidies that previously they did not expect or request. Thank you, Columbia, for giving us an example of how subsidies can cause harm to a city.

The post Dominoes In Columbia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Incentives often appear to be an easy solution to spur economic development. But this plan is now backfiring for Columbia. Delta has served the Columbia market since 2008 —  without any special government incentives. Now that American has been offered a two-year revenue guarantee of $3 million, Delta is reconsidering its service to Columbia.

In a letter from Delta Senior Vice President Robert Cortelyou to Columbia Mayor Bob McDavid, he states, “While we welcome competition in the marketplace, this revenue guarantee puts Delta at a severe disadvantage by subsidizing American Airlines at Delta’s expense. This is unacceptable.”

Cortelyou emphasizes an important point. If Columbia gives a subsidy to one airline, it creates unfair competition and puts the other companies in that market (Delta and Frontier) at a disadvantage.

Delta officials did state that the airline will exit the Columbia market if they are not offered a similar package. Their threat exemplifies why cities like Columbia should not provide benefits to some companies and exclude others in the first place. If Columbia meets their demands, the city will waste even more scarce public dollars. There is no reason to bribe airlines to serve Columbia.  If there is passenger demand to warrant increased service to the airport, companies will provide it without subsidies, just as Delta has been doing. Doling out subsidies to these companies takes money and resources away from other actions that could be better investments for the city.

However, at this point, Columbia has dug itself a hole and the only option may be to provide similar incentives to Delta, if the deal with American goes through. The good news is that it would only be a two-year commitment. If city officials act prudently, they will prevent it from extending beyond two years.

The post Columbia: You Can’t Dance At Two Weddings appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“You should do everything, including underwriting flights, to get as many highways in the sky as you can,” said John D. Kasarda, director of the University of North Carolina’s Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise and author of “Aerotropolis: The Way We’ll Live Next.”

Sounds a lot like Saint Louis so far. But (emphasis added):

There doesn’t appear to be support for the idea if it involves public money.

“I don’t agree with subsidizing flights or subsidizing certain airlines. We should work to lower the costs of all of the airlines at the airport,” said Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato. He said the county doesn’t have money to provide such backing.

Pennsylvania and the Allegheny Conference on Community Development agreed to provide up to $9 million if Delta Air Lines’ flight between Pittsburgh and Paris missed revenue targets. They paid the maximum $5 million after the first year of service, but it’s unknown whether they will owe money for the second, which ended June 1.

Onorato appears to be taking the principled stance of not letting the government pick winners and losers at the airport. As to the airport, at least, Allegheny County taxpayers can be proud of its executive’s fiscal prudence.

The post Kudos, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato 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.