Monday, 30 January 2006
Government subsidies to airlines
There's a discussion on Dave Farber's Interesting-People mailing list about the ways that governments subsidize commercial passenger airlines.
Airlines whine about "regulations" and "freedom of the skies", but it in fact they receive a wide range of subsidies, tax preferences, and other forms of special treatment from Federal, state, and local governments in the USA. (The phenomenon is widespread elsewhere in the world, even if the details vary from country to country.)
How? Let me count the ways (in no particular order):
- Airports and air trafffic control infrastructure are built and operated by tax-exempt government entities (consider the real estate and other taxes that would be paid by privately owned airports on huge tracts of land in prime urban and suburban locations) with below-market capital costs (tax-exempt government bonds).
- Employee training for pilots, mechanics, etc. is provided by the military at no cost to airlines. (Ex-military pilots and mechanics may require additional training and certification for specific civilian aircraft types, but they've already logged thousands of very expensive hours of jet aircraft experience.)
- Air traffic control and other services to airlines are provided by the government. (Airlines will claim that they pay for this in user fees, but that ignores the taxes that would be paid on private ATC infrastructure, and the artificially depressed labor costs: As government employees, air traffic controllers and many other civil aviation workers are forbidden to strike, enabling the government unilaterally to impose below-market wages.)
- Airlines are paid all the time, even when their aircraft aren't being used, for agreeing to make their planes available on demand to the government as part of the Reserve Air Fleet . But the times when they are needed -- times of war -- are generally times of reduced civilian air travel, when they would otherwise be idle. And when the "Reserve Air Fleet" is used, airlines are paid market rates for government charters.
- Government funding for military aircraft subsidizes production and operation of civilian aircraft: Manufacturers of aircraft and associated equipment pay nothing for knowledge transfers from government-funded military aircraft research and development, prototyping, testing, maintenance experience, etc. to civilian aircraft. Military aviation provides critical support for economies of scale and continuity of operations for manufacturers of aircraft, support equipment, and related services during cyclical declines in civilian aircraft demand. Many civilian aircraft types are sold directly to the military, and these sales are often essential to enlarging production runs to the break-even point.
- Airlines have a statutory exemption from Federal anti-trust law to allow them to participate in IATA "traffic conferences" to fix standard "industry fares".
- Under the preemption clause of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, airlines are exempt from state and local truth-in-advertising and other consumer protection laws. (This wouldn't matter if the Federal government enforced similar rules, But, as state Attorneys General have pointed out , the Feds allow many practices that enhance airline profits but would be forbidden under state and local fraud laws.)
- Airlines based in the USA are protected by Federal law from all foreign competition: No airline based anywhere else in the world is allowed to carry passengers between points in the USA, and no foreign entity is allowed to own more than 25% of the voting stock in any airline based in the USA. This applies even to US colonies: It's illegal to buy a through ticket on a foreign airline between Guam and the mainland USA via e.g. Seoul, Taipei, or Tokyo (even though travel agents occasionally issue such tickets by mistake), no matter how much cheaper that would be than a ticket on Continental Micronesia, the only USA airline with service between those places. You have to buy 2 separate tickets, and claim and re-check your luggage at the transfer point. Under "Buy American" rules, all travel funded, even in part, by the US government must be on a US-flag airline, no matter how much more it costs than a foreign-flag competitor. Where, as is often the case, there is often only one US-flag airline serving a given destination, this gives them a de facto monopoloy on government-funded travel, a large and often high-revenue (last minute business travel by government contractors, etc.) portion of the traffic on some routes.
If airlines really want to be free of government regulation and oversight, they first should have to agree to give up their government subsidies and special privileges and protections.
Link | Posted by Edward on Monday, 30 January 2006, 08:28 ( 8:28 AM) | TrackBack (0)A very well-written viewpoint. Mr. Hasbrouck's article includes often-forgotten factors when discussing so-called "successful" coorporate (private industry)results of the Deregulation Act of 1978.
The blog begs two overall questions:
1. How "successful" would the private airline industry be if it were not subsidized by the government?
2. When will Mr. Hasbrouck buckledown and get a long-overdue, military-style haircut and shave?
Posted by: CMSgt Joel Coppolino, USAF, 7 May 2006, 09:24 ( 9:24 AM)I found you article interesting as I am a retired railroad conductor. I worked both freight and retired off Amtrak. I have alwys argued that Amtrak gets a bum rap from those who don't realize the cost saving to other modes of transportation. Thank you for your comments
Charles w. Bassett
Posted by: Charles W. Bassett, 2 November 2007, 04:58 ( 4:58 AM)I'm not sure how valid your #2 point is. Most airline pilots paid their own way to a commercial pilots license. The airlines do pick up the tab once the pilots are hired, but it's not military training. The airlines have their own training facilities for continuing education.
I attend a flight school here in Dallas and know a lot of pilots that have been hired and a lot of "soon to be" pilots. Also, I have a friend who works at the Southwest Airlines training center.
Posted by: , 9 May 2008, 16:37 ( 4:37 PM)#1 and #3 are *good* things. These absolutely should not be privatized. They are infrastructure, and were they private certain airlines would likely be 'preferred' based on under the table bribery and the like. Bad, bad.
The rest, I agree with you on.
Posted by: JamesB, 9 May 2008, 19:19 ( 7:19 PM)Your point 2 is waaay off the mark. It's true that a number of Military personnel (Myself included) find their way to the Civilian job market. But the Military doesn't come even close to providing enough pilots for the 6000+ commercial aircraft that ply the skies on a daily basis. Remember that many, many military pilots are helicopter pilots as well - and rotary wing flight time counts for virtually nothing when you are applying for an airline job.
Posted by: Justin, 9 May 2008, 20:24 ( 8:24 PM)You left out all of the hundreds of millions of dollars the state of Minnesota tax payers forked over to keep Northwest's hub and maintenance facilities, and their associated jobs, in MN.
Posted by: mnesotan, 9 May 2008, 21:06 ( 9:06 PM)so what is your estimated total amount of all these subsidies (perhaps with the exception of number 2)?
we need electric high speed (400+mph) rail.
Posted by: mwelinder, 9 May 2008, 21:31 ( 9:31 PM)








