November 28, 2008 10:58 AM
- Text
More on the Benefits of Building an Airport Without Government Money
(MoneyWatch) Yesterday, I wrote about the efforts in Branson to build the first commercial airport in the US that won't take government money. This is an exciting prospect, because it could end up being an alternative model for airport development going forward. We'll need to see how things go when this opens, but foregoing government money does allow for a lot of creative moves.
When airports take federal funds, they're bound to operate in a certain way. I'm not talking about safety and security - those rules would apply regardless of who pays for the airport. But airports that take federal funds can only charge airlines for construction projects once they're complete, and all airport profits have to be reinvested back into the airport. There also has to be equal access for all carriers. Not taking funds opens up a variety of new possibilities.
First of all, Branson has indicated that it will set its usage charges with a flat $7 fee per enplanement. There's no justification for the cost required or anything like that. They can set their rates. Of course, since they set their rates, they can alter them as much as they like. If there's one airline that they really want to get to fly to the airport, they can charge them a different rate than they would charge another airline.
Another interesting option is the ability to offer exclusivity. Let's say one airline wants to fly to Branson from Denver. The airport has the ability to promise them exclusivity on that route so that nobody else can compete. The problem here? The monopoly would clearly encourage higher fares, though Branson insists that it has a clause in its contracts that requires charging reasonable rates. Don't ask me how that's determined, but it's likely to look at market averages.
Airlines will likely cry foul if a popular location started to play favorites, and that's why we'll never see anything like this running a single airport in a major area. But if someone wants to construct a secondary airport in a major market (Atlanta, anyone?), it could provide an interesting alternative.
When airports take federal funds, they're bound to operate in a certain way. I'm not talking about safety and security - those rules would apply regardless of who pays for the airport. But airports that take federal funds can only charge airlines for construction projects once they're complete, and all airport profits have to be reinvested back into the airport. There also has to be equal access for all carriers. Not taking funds opens up a variety of new possibilities.
First of all, Branson has indicated that it will set its usage charges with a flat $7 fee per enplanement. There's no justification for the cost required or anything like that. They can set their rates. Of course, since they set their rates, they can alter them as much as they like. If there's one airline that they really want to get to fly to the airport, they can charge them a different rate than they would charge another airline.
Another interesting option is the ability to offer exclusivity. Let's say one airline wants to fly to Branson from Denver. The airport has the ability to promise them exclusivity on that route so that nobody else can compete. The problem here? The monopoly would clearly encourage higher fares, though Branson insists that it has a clause in its contracts that requires charging reasonable rates. Don't ask me how that's determined, but it's likely to look at market averages.
Airlines will likely cry foul if a popular location started to play favorites, and that's why we'll never see anything like this running a single airport in a major area. But if someone wants to construct a secondary airport in a major market (Atlanta, anyone?), it could provide an interesting alternative.
Latest Now in MoneyWatch
- Market cap, schmarket cap, Apple still gets no respect
- Philip Morris Int'l income up nearly 8 percent
- Survey: Small biz plans big hires in 2012
- Freddie Mac: Mortgages inch higher but stay low
- Will the European debt crisis sink Obama's re-election?
- Banks in $25B deal to settle foreclosure abuses
- Joe Coffee: Scaling up without selling your soul
- Greek agreement accomplishes nothing
- 401K plans: New rules make costs clearer
- Are women leaders selling themselves short?
- Ask the Experts: New 401(k) rules
- Mortgage lenders strike a deal
- $25B foreclosure-abuse settlement reached
- Wholesale inventories rose 1 percent in December
- States, Feds to announce new mortgage settlement
- Management changes at Ford
- Unemployment aid applications near a 4-year low
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook
on CBS News
- Mexico City modern metro meets ancient Aztec life
- NRC approves first new nuclear plant in 3 decades
- VP Biden touts US economic resiliency at Ohio stop
- Emergency exercise preceded Ind. fair disaster
on Facebook
- Adele opens up about vocal cord surgery
- Mo. teen gets life in prison for murder of 9-year-old girl
- "American Idol": Jim Carrey's daughter out, and then disaster
on CBS News






