According to The Economist, the EU has regulations limiting/forbidding subsidies to airports from local/national governments. You have to wonder why. If cities/provinces/countries want to spend taxpayer money on airports, why not? What business is this of the EU?
The urge to get an airport is understandable. No business is going to locate in a place without air service. You need air service to get your salesman out to customers, your customers in to your plant, your servicemen out to customer sites, and overnight air parcel delivery for crucial spare parts. Manchester Regional Airport NH is a good example, a vast network of businesses in New Hampshire depend upon flying out of Manchester. In fact the place had the chutzpah to re name itself Manchester-Boston Regional a little while ago. I don't know just how much taxpayer money went into that airport, but that new exit for the airport we put on I93 last year wasn't cheap.
Anyhow, the urge to get airports is understandable. And I don't see any reason to regulate it.
But, read on. The subsidized airports have lower landing fees, which attracts low cost carriers like RyanAir. The European legacy carriers mostly fly the big airports, and they see the low cost carriers eating into their business, "stealing passengers" from them.
So, the EU regulations are really crony capitalism, the big boys attempting to squash the upstart newcomers.
I'm sure the Obama administration is watching this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment