Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Air Tran subsidies.

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

HoursHore

Medieval Warrior
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Posts
558
What do people think of this?

AirTran to seek no-cap subsidy


Wichita city officials appear willing to pay $2.5 million this year, but may ask local businesses to help contribute to the subsidy costs.

[size=-1]BY VAN WILLIAMS[/size]

[size=-1]The Wichita Eagle[/size]


Discount carrier AirTran Airways is seeking at least $2.5 million in taxpayer funds -- and requesting that the subsidy not be capped -- to operate for a fourth straight year in Wichita, city officials say.

To meet AirTran's no-cap demand, Wichita officials are discussing asking local businesses to contribute to the subsidy for the first time, according to city officials and business leaders.

Business leaders plan a fund-raising campaign that could begin next week and last up to six weeks, Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce president Bryan Derreberry said. The campaign, aimed at local businesses, is designed to encourage increased ridership.

"I think we'll get a very positive response," Derreberry said. "They get that $70 million has been saved in the community and that each of them has shared in that savings."

The current one-year agreement between the city and Florida-based AirTran provides $2.5 million in revenue guarantees, bringing the total to $7 million in city guarantees since AirTran arrived in 2002. The current agreement expires in May.

AirTran's spokesman could not be reached Tuesday.

The planned fund-raiser from businesses is important because there is not majority council support for a revenue guarantee beyond $2.5 million, said another elected official who requested anonymity.

"The people who benefit (from the subsidy) the most should help subsidize it," Council member Phil Lambke said. "They say they've saved hundreds of millions on ticket prices. The people who are saving the money ought to pay, not the average taxpayer, not Grandma Jones."

Council member Sharon Fearey said she favors business leaders securing increased passenger numbers rather than asking business leaders to support the public subsidy.

"The whole key is to get AirTran to be self-sustaining," Fearey said. "When we increase riders, then nobody pays."

Mayor Carlos Mayans could not be reached for comment. He has said he supports extending the subsidy for at least another year at the existing $2.5 million subsidy.

The subsidy must be approved by a majority of the seven-member City Council. In the past, most council members have been strong supporters of the revenue guarantee, which they view as an important economic development tool.

Elected officials say the revenue guarantees are a worthy investment because the airline's presence has lowered fares and led to record number of passengers at Wichita Mid-Continent Airport.

There is majority council support for extending the subsidy another year at $2.5 million, Lambke said. He added that he appeared to be the only opponent when the AirTran contract was discussed among council members last week..

Acting City Manager Cathy Holdeman, who has represented the city in recent meetings about AirTran, did not return a message seeking comment.

Neither did city economic developer Allen Bell who, according to several council members, has been meeting with elected officials regarding terms for renewing the contract.

AirTran began service in Wichita in May 2002. To lure the airliner, the city offered $4.5 million in revenue guarantees and publicly- funded advertising for the first two years. The airline exhausted those guarantees.

When AirTran's original two-year contract expired last May, the city offered an additional $2.5 million in guarantees.

The guarantees help underwrite AirTran's losses on routes. If there are no losses, the city does not pay the money.

AirTran officials have said they want to grow their business so they would no longer need public subsidies. Contributing: Dan Voorhis of The Eagle


This bothers me even though I don't fly people. Seems To go along the line of unlimited bankruptcy protection in creating a uneven playing field.
 
Wichita had very high airfares before AirTran. The city wanted consistantly low fares, since the airlines serving wichita did'nt want to lower their fares the city cut a deal with AirTran. So AirTran shows up and presto everybody matches AirTran. In order for AirTran to serve a market we have to make money, we are not a charity. The city of Wichita wants AirTran to stay, because as soon as we leave people will drive to STL for more competitive fares. I think AirTran could use the planes on more productive routes. Before you bash AirTran just remember they did'nt create the situation.
 
Who do you think funds the low fares for United and US Air right now? Its us...the taxpayers...who allow a company to operate while not paying its bills in Chapter 11.

I'm NOT saying the ATSB and other stuff is bad--just pointed out anyone throwing spears at airTran while their company underfunds pensions or doesn't pay bills is the pot calling the kettle black. Also...these cities volunteer to do this--this isn't being forced on anyone.

I wish Airtran would come back to VPS and TLH, or even PFN.
 
AlbieF15 said:
Who do you think funds the low fares for United and US Air right now? Its us...the taxpayers...who allow a company to operate while not paying its bills in Chapter 11.

I'm NOT saying the ATSB and other stuff is bad--just pointed out anyone throwing spears at airTran while their company underfunds pensions or doesn't pay bills is the pot calling the kettle black. Also...these cities volunteer to do this--this isn't being forced on anyone.


Very true, but I'm sure we'll see Joe Peeonotz show up on this thread, squawking about how awful it is that AirTran gets this guarantee . . . . yet when I said that I believe he has jumpseated on some of my flights out of Wichita, he disappeared quicker than Bernie Ebbers' summer vacation plans.

I wish Airtran would come back to VPS and TLH, or even PFN

Well, until that time, we'll leave the light on for ya at PNS.

Quick question, though, if PNS is on the "Redneck Riviera", does that mean that Gatlinburg is in the "Redneck Alps"? I am soooo confused . . . . . .
 
Last edited:
What's the Hubbub all about? Revenue guarentees, etc. are common methods for smaller markets to entice not just LCCs but regionals, etc to serve them. It has been going on for a long time. If the chamber of commerce or city fathers didn't feel it was of benefit to them, this practice would not have endured as it has. Why should an airline set up an infrastructure, pay landing costs, maint contracts, purchase gates if there was no economic incentive for it? Heck, even the St. Louis business community subsidized TWA by preferential advance ticket purchase throughout the years
 
Handouts anyone? Airtran was able to enter many of the smaller markets they have because of subsidies. Pensacola, Gulfport, and Wichita are a few cities that I know of that used a "bank" to lure Citrus over. The belief was that Airtran service (717, 737) would be provided. I know that Wichita had a beef last year when RJs from Air Wisconsin supplemented the service and I think in a small way in PNS too. But ya gotta hand it to Citrus for finding innovative ways of making quick money... Only problem that has risen is that many of these "contracts" are short term and renewable, so in the case of Wichita, many Chambers of Commerces are contimplating whether or not such a cause is worth all the "money"... It has been front page news a couple of times in Wichita about how much of an incentive is an incentive to keep Airtran...
 
I believe that Alaska Airlines has similar government-guaranteed contracts to provide service to some of the smaller cities it operates out of in Alaska. Can anyone confirm this?
 
DL gets subsides at all of the ski resort towns. At the end of the season, if we haven't broken even, then the towns pay the difference. That occurs at Jackson Hole, Steamboat Springs (Hayden), Gunnison, Vail-Eagle, etc. It attracts large airlines which atttracts rich skiers.



Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Most of these agreements, and I'm sure AirTran's as well, aren't necessarily handouts or "subsidys" they are revenue guarantees, i.e. if your airline does not make x amount of revenue from this route we will kick in the difference.
 
just think

Why not just dump all the unprofitable routes and ask for "hold up" money from all those cities who would pay? I'll bet you could find 10-20 cities that would pay AirTran. There's no excuse not to have an unprofitable airline with this type of business model.

The question is, how many other cities does AirTran serve that are unprofitable? I would bet that there are at least 5 of decent size that they don't make money in. Why don't they ask for subsidies in these cities? Because AirTran considers them strategic to their growth plan, and these cities would tell them to take a dump.

Federal subsidies for "small community service" is one thing, as these communities would have no service without it. Carriers such as AirTran, encourage communities like Wichita, to use taxpayer money or Travel Banks to keep airfares low. This breaks all the rules of free enterprise. The communities that have the money (and many don't), get the service. Those that don't, won't even rate a second look.

Mark my words, this type of behavior is going to become very prevalent in todays weak revenue market if it is not contained. Once capacity shrinks, fares will be on the rise, airplanes will be relocated to more profitable markets, and the losers will be the small town market that can't afford AirTran.
 
News Flash:

We are a business, not a charity.

If these communities were being charged reasonable fares in the first place, they sure wouldn't be putting up millions of dollars to attract us/keep us.

I know, Joe, you can't see the forest for all of those d@mn trees, but at least try to look. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Joe Peeoznotz said:
Why not just dump all the unprofitable routes and ask for "hold up" money from all those cities who would pay? I'll bet you could find 10-20 cities that would pay AirTran. There's no excuse not to have an unprofitable airline with this type of business model.

The question is, how many other cities does AirTran serve that are unprofitable? I would bet that there are at least 5 of decent size that they don't make money in. Why don't they ask for subsidies in these cities? Because AirTran considers them strategic to their growth plan, and these cities would tell them to take a dump.

Federal subsidies for "small community service" is one thing, as these communities would have no service without it. Carriers such as AirTran, encourage communities like Wichita, to use taxpayer money or Travel Banks to keep airfares low. This breaks all the rules of free enterprise. The communities that have the money (and many don't), get the service. Those that don't, won't even rate a second look.

Mark my words, this type of behavior is going to become very prevalent in todays weak revenue market if it is not contained. Once capacity shrinks, fares will be on the rise, airplanes will be relocated to more profitable markets, and the losers will be the small town market that can't afford AirTran.

Dude, that sounds like market forces or something like that. Hey, Joey, my brother from another mother, I'm confused Dude. Do you think what the Air Tranny dudes are doing is good or bad?
 
Ty Webb said:
News Flash:

We are a business, not a charity.

If these communities were being charged reasonable fares in the first place, they sure wouldn't be putting up millions of dollars to attract us/keep us.

I know, Joe, you can't see the forest for all of those d@mn trees, but at least try to look. :cool:
That's like the husband getting caught in a bordello, and telling his wife that if she were more accessable, this wouldn't have to happen. If you can't compete straight up, then move on and let the market work.
 
Actually it's nothing at all like a husband caught in a bordello by his wife. They have a moral obligation to each other. An airline and a city have a business relationship. I think this is the quintessential example of market forces at work. Talk to me when it's deemed illegal.
I love America!
 
Joe Peeoznotz said:
That's like the husband getting caught in a bordello, and telling his wife that if she were more accessable, this wouldn't have to happen. If you can't compete straight up, then move on and let the market work.

Dude, I'm diggin the comparison, cause it's like real dirty and stuff, but it doesn't make sense. I think that SWA and the other airlines buy insurance and stuff. I thought the TY guy said that the Air Tranny could be operatin more profitably elsewhere, but the peeps in Wichitaw want to lower their ticket prices and stuff. They invite the Tranny in, but the Tranny is just lookin for some insurance in case the Wichita peeps don't buy the tickets. If the dudes from ICT buy the tickets, than the Tranny makes a profit, and the city pays NADA (that's like Spanish for Zilcho).

Competeing straight up and letting the market work? Just cause the Tranny had the smarts to get some extra insurance and the factola that the SWA had the smarts to fuel hedge better than the other peeps is just plain ole good bizznitz. I think they both make a profit chargin what they do for the tickets, so it sounds like there both lettin the ole market do its thang.

Is there sometin I'm not gettin here my main man Joey? I dig the parakeet thing--Toocan Sam--Good Kharma havin a bird like that dude!
 
bestpilot,
Is that Valleyspeak/ebonics/Spanglish or what? Combination? A whole new language? I know, it's just the way you roll.
Rock on:)
 
bestpilot said:
They invite the Tranny in, but the Tranny is just lookin for some insurance in case the Wichita peeps don't buy the tickets.

Bestpilot . . . you're killing me, man. But any pah-lot who has done the "Trail of Tears" through Concourse C knows that it is pronounced "Wi-cheetah".

Now, if you get lost on your way to the Cheetah, just head for Mo' Line, and then hang a left.

As for the Peenotz Gallery- he's just bumming that we pulled his direct ride to work; he's a ICT- MDW commuter who shakes your hand and takes a seat in Business, then gets on an anonyomous message board and squawks about us. Pretty lame bird, if you ask me.
 
Phaedrus said:
bestpilot,
Is that Valleyspeak/ebonics/Spanglish or what? Combination? A whole new language? I know, it's just the way you roll.
Rock on:)

I just gots to be me, brother, peace out, good Kharma to you and yours, dude!
 
Ty Webb said:
Bestpilot . . . you're killing me, man. But any pah-lot who has done the "Trail of Tears" through Concourse C knows that it is pronounced "Wi-cheetah".

Now, if you get lost on your way to the Cheetah, just head for Mo' Line, and then hang a left.

As for the Peenotz Gallery- he's just bumming that we pulled his direct ride to work; he's a ICT- MDW commuter who shakes your hand and takes a seat in Business, then gets on an anonyomous message board and squawks about us. Pretty lame bird, if you ask me.

Ty guy, you da man. I thinkin dat the Peenutz dude just needs to be havin some cold ones before he starts a typin. That's what I'm dooin, and its helpin me share the love and keep it real.
 
I believe you are correct my good man. It is time to relax, and one beer stands clear, beer after beer. Headin' to the icebox.....
 

Latest resources

Back
Top