news
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced late Thursday it had “tentatively selected” Mesaba Airlines – a subsidiary of Delta that provides service now from Tupelo – to continue that service through 2012.
In its order, the DOT said it would provide Mesaba/Delta a subsidy for 15 round-trips a week from Tupelo Regional.
That’s not quite the 21 round-trips the city wanted, but DOT has control of the purse strings.
The subsidy is paid via the Essential Air Service program, a $170 million program which the DOT administers.
The federal agency said it is willing to pay Delta $921,878 starting June 10 through May 31, 2012, as long as the airline provides 15 flights a week from Tupelo Regional.
The subsidy equals $681 per flight, based on a DOT formula.
Tupelo Mayor Jack Reed Jr. said he would begin negotiations immediately with Mesaba.
“We’re making progress, and we’ll continue to indicate our desire for three daily flights in our conversation,” he said.
Last July, Mesaba said it could no longer fly out of Tupelo and eight other cities because it was not profitable for the airline. That set off a chain of events, including DOT ordering Mesaba to continue service for at least 90 days. After that, DOT ordered 30-day extensions as it reviewed bids from Mesaba and other air carriers seeking to provide service via EAS. Bids were due in November.
Several options
For Tupelo, Mesaba originally offered several options, including 19 weekly flights for $1.66 million, 21 weekly flights for $1.98 million and 14 weekly flights for a little more than $1 million.
Mesaba later agreed to provide 19 flights for $1.4 million, but DOT rejected the proposal, saying it exceeded the minimum level of service it thought Tupelo needed.
However, DOT noted Mesaba had already reduced its level of service before its announced plans last July.
The airline had reduced its schedule from Tupelo to only one flight to Memphis and one to Atlanta.
“This type of service limits connecting opportunities for passengers,” DOT said in its order, signed by Susan Kurland, assistant secretary for aviation and international affairs. “Furthermore, the community has a strong preference for service to the Memphis hub, with an evening flight from Memphis into Tupelo.”
But in subsidizing 15 flights, the DOT said it would “not prescribe the number of flights” to Memphis and Atlanta or the mix of flights on weekdays or weekends. That’s up to Mesaba, its parent Delta, and city and airport officials to see what that mix will be.
“It’s out of our hands,” said Bill Mosley, a spokesman for the EAS program. “They’ll let us know what they decide and we’ll go from there.”
Mosley said the subsidy the EAS program is willing to pay Mesaba/Delta is less than what the airline had requested, but was deemed acceptable by the EAS staff.
In fact, in the DOT’s order, Kurland wrote “we believe this is a very fair offer to Mesaba ... we encourage the community to work close with Mesaba to craft a schedule that is in their mutual best interests.”
Mosley conceded Mesaba could reject the offer and “we’d have to start all over.”
But if a schedule is worked out between the city and the airline by May 23, the subsidy would be effective from June 10 through May 31, 2012.
As for the time that Mesaba has been flying from Tupelo under orders from DOT, dating back to last July, DOT said it has agreed to pay the airline $974,131.
There is no such thing as "journalistic integrity" or unbiased reporting when it comes to Journal Inc.
But, I hear that some online competition for them is coming and maybe that "media outlet" will not have such close ties to those involved in the things that a legitimate media operation would be looking into in our area.
Yes, like most places business travelers are the mainstay of the airlines. There obviously arent' enough of those here either that would use the airport. If there were the airport would probably be commercially viable and we wouldn't have to beg for "airport welfare" from the federal government to use to pay the airlines to fly in/out of Tupelo.
Trust me, airlines are looking for any way to make money that they can find and if there was a viable market here, they'd be trying to service this airport rather than having to be begged and bribed with subsidies to do so.
What smart product provider wouldn't want the opportunity to SUPPLY their product to a market where there's DEMAND for their product with limited competition? The key missing element in this scenario is the DEMAND for the the product.
It's as simple as SUPPLY and DEMAND. If there was a viable DEMAND for air service in/out of Tupelo, you can bet that there would be an airline eager to SUPPLY that service.
I've lived in large cities with suburbs larger than Tupelo where it took me 90 minutes, or longer, to get to the airport from where I lived. Those suburbs, with much more sophisticated populations 4X to 5X the size of the population of Tupelo didn't have their own airports. Why? Because they weren't needed/commercially viable.
And this airport is not needed and is obviously not commercially viable as airlines won't service it without the EAS subsidy.
It's a waste of money!!
And I'm going to be watching sandlot and the next time he/she bitches about wasteful government spending, I'm going to call BS and remind him/her of their position on this airport! ;)
How does continuing to waste taxpayer money keeping such an airport open when half, if not more of the city streets that people actually use are in desparate need of repair contribute to a functioning community?
How does getting "airport welfare" from a Federal government that is borrowing 50 cents of every dollar it spends from countries like China contributing to a functioning community?
How is having an empty airport with a nice terminal and longer runway that no one uses contributing to a functioning community?
How is having a service that most won't use and the provider doesn't want to provide contribute to a functioning community?
If you want to know the ONLY people that this airport really "serves", look at who's getting paid for it being there because they are the only citizens who are, or will, get any real benefit from this airport, while the rest of us foot the bill for it.
When the potential customer base of a product says they won't use it and the provider of that product says they don't want to provide it, what sense does it make to force that product to exist?
How much more ridiculous can it get?
Hopefully Terry Anderson will not be distracted and drag out the skeletons so all can see just what is going on.
In general, politicians, and Mississippi politicians in particular, are very hypocritical when it comes to "pork." They're against it for everyone else, but all for it when it comes to their district and can help them politically.
But then, that attitude seems to not be limited to politicians or even to politics in Mississippi. :)
This EAS subsidy is just throwing away good taxpayer money after bad. People still won't use that airport, because it's not convenient for most people.
If the airline agrees to the flight schedule, we'll find ourselves right back at this same point in 2012, again having to beg for another Federal handout to sustain an airport that is not commercially viable on its own.
I also find it ironic that so many of the people involved with this airport will tell you that it's better to "let the market decide" on everything but this airport.
Well, guess what? The "market" has decided! Neither the potential customers nor the airlines that would service those potential customers want that airport!
But that's not the answer that those who "get their bread buttered" by keeping open that airport that most will not use and neither side of the "free market equation" want. So now they have to run to the Federal government to get what is really "airport welfare" in order to keep it going.
What a bunch of idiotic hypocrites!!