GSP International

[mallguy]

The legislation is designed to eliminate any business losses. Tax elimination would not do that.

The legislation is mis-designed and will lead to market distortion and inefficiencies.

If the goal (however the legislation is drafted or designed) is to increase the number of flights to GSP and other SC airports and to lower ticket prices, there are plenty of ways of accomplishing that goal through legislation. Taking taxpayers' money to subsidize airlines that have business losses isn't the best way. Just cut taxes across the board so all airlines and passengers can benefit, rather than just some of them.

[vicupstate]

In theory, you are right, but unless our competitors do the same, it is useless. The FL panhandle did it and soon it will be the norm. We need a carrier not a theory. A marginal decrease in expenses would not bring a carrier here.

[mallguy]

In theory, you are right, but unless our competitors do the same, it is useless. The FL panhandle did it and soon it will be the norm. We need a carrier not a theory. A marginal decrease in expenses would not bring a carrier here.

There was a recent story (in the NY Times or some national paper) about federal, state and local (including dedicated) taxes now accounting for almost 20% of an average ticket price. Get rid of all airport and ticket-related taxes that South Carolina state government can get rid of for now (maybe for a year or two), and give tax credits or something to make up for the airport and ticket-related taxes that SC state government doesn't control. That would be a pretty big chunk of change, and let it apply to ALL airlines and ALL passengers. Maybe even make those tax incentives contingent on expanding service at SC airports.

That would be a pretty good shot in the arm, I'd think.

As someone who would never fly Southwest, I just don't think that it's equitable or good economics to tax me and the airlines I take and then to hand my and their money over to an airline that I wouldn't take. That's market distortion and it's bad economics, since it'd lead to distorted economic outcomes.

[vicupstate]

What exactly is your problem with Southwest?

[mallguy]

What exactly is your problem with Southwest?

I fly a few times a month- and in the past have flown a few times per week, for years on end.

For that, on Southwest, I'd get treated like cattle.

On a legacy carrier, I get some benefits that make the experience tolerable, given how much I do it- miles that can be redeemed to go most anywhere in the world; upgrades; fast check-in and airport ID check lines; priority for standby; etc.

But regardless of the airline, government should not be using your money and mine to throw at certain companies that government likes, in general, at the expense of others. (Gov't shouldn't single out Delta and Continental, for example, to support, at the expense of Southwest, either, if that were to happen.)

[vicupstate]

I had enough miles to fly cross-country until they 'expired''. Thanks USAir !

BTW, didn't our tax dollars go to every airline except SW after 9/11?

Edited March 5, 2010 by vicupstate

[darw10]

I fly a few times a month- and in the past have flown a few times per week, for years on end.

For that, on Southwest, I'd get treated like cattle.

On a legacy carrier, I get some benefits that make the experience tolerable, given how much I do it- miles that can be redeemed to go most anywhere in the world; upgrades; fast check-in and airport ID check lines; priority for standby; etc.

But regardless of the airline, government should not be using your money and mine to throw at certain companies that government likes, in general, at the expense of others. (Gov't shouldn't single out Delta and Continental, for example, to support, at the expense of Southwest, either, if that were to happen.)

Just because Southwest comes to GSP (if they do) does not mean you have to fly them. A huge part of their presence is that other carriers will have to lower rates from the competition. By lowering the rates, GSP's numbers should go up which means equipment upgrades (i.e., larger aircraft). With lower rates, more traffic and hopefully more destinations since GSP can recapture a significant portion of the 50-60% that go to Charlotte or Atlanta, the ability to attract corporate & divisional headquarters becomes much easier. More headquarters simply mean more higher paying jobs, economic development and tax revenues. Whether you like Southwest or not as a service provider is not the point. The mere presence in our market extrapolates to better opportunities for many.

[gman430]

I don't know if some you know this or not but there are several companies looking to move their headquarters to Greenville and it's all dependent on whether we land Southwest Airlines or not. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to land a low-cost carrier that would not only lower airfares in this area and add destinations direct from GSP but also help economic development. The $15 million that would go to Southwest to provide service here would pay for itself over the years with the new jobs and economic development that would be created.

Edited March 6, 2010 by citylife

[mallguy]

I don't know if some you know this or not but there are several companies looking to move their headquarters to Greenville and it's all dependent on whether we land Southwest Airlines or not. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to land a low-cost carrier that would not only lower airfares in this area and add destinations direct from GSP but also help economic development. The $15 million that would go to Southwest to provide service here would pay for itself over the years with the new jobs and economic development that would be created.

Those companies have specifically identified Southwest as the airline that they have to have before they will move their HQ to Greenville?

The arguments in the previous two posts are good ones, but I'm still not convinced that giving benefits ONLY to Southwest is the best way. I still think that if companies are to get tax or other financial benefits, ALL companies in the relevant sector could get them.

If I had a corporation that I would move to Greenville if airfares were lowered, I'd prefer to have airfares for ALL airlines serving GSP, to ALL destinations, lowered--not just one low-cost carrier that would serve only a range of destinations. Having lower airfares to ALL destinations would be a much better deal for any corporation-- how many people have to travel only to destinations that Southwest would serve from GSP? Not many.

And look what happpened to the cash that New York State used to bring JetBlue to upstate New York- it didn't do much of anything for the economy there, and the result was that US Airways, which used to gouge the market, is basically pulling out, leaving JetBlue as nearly the only game in town, with the ability to have high fares, as US Airways did.

Edited March 6, 2010 by mallguy

[vicupstate]

Mallguy, I agree with you in theory, but unless ALL competitors (airports) play by those rules(ie pay no incentives but have a level playing field), we will get the short end of the stick.

I'm sure SW has already been offered 'discounts' of some sort, yet it wasn't enough.

Competition will bring lower fares from the other carriers as well.

At some point, I think the Feds may need to insure competition exists in the marketplace, in order for Airline deregulation to continue. Too much economic vitality is tied to air travel and the current system is producing a few big 'winners' and a lot of 'losers'.

Edited March 6, 2010 by vicupstate

[mallguy]

Mallguy, I agree with you in theory, but unless ALL competitors (airports) play by those rules(ie pay no incentives but have a level playing field), we will get the short end of the stick.

I'm sure SW has already been offered 'discounts' of some sort, yet it wasn't enough.

Competition will bring lower fares from the other carriers as well.

At some point, I think the Feds may need to insure competition exists in the marketplace, in order for Airline deregulation to continue. Too much economic vitality is tied to air travel and the current system is producing a few big 'winners' and a lot of 'losers'.

Thanks. You make some very good points.

Governments make agreements with companies re: what the companies have to do with tax incentives all the time- such as requiring companies to create X jobs and keep them at site Y for a minimum of Z years. Shouldn't be a problem to offer to ALL airlines serving GSP- "add X number of seats and Y number of new destinations and at fares Z% lower than your average GSP fare last year, and in exchange we'll give you rebates for all airport-related taxes you pay."

Fortunately there are enough investors who are willing to keep throwing their money down the black hole called the airline industry so there should be frequent new entrants into the industry in the future, even though airlines have I think overall lost money since their creation.

Also- if Southwest serves a few cities with flights from GSP, I'd agree that existing airlines will lower fares on those routes- say, to BWI and Houston. I don't see that existing airlines will lower fares on routes on which they have no competition from Southwest. That's another reason why I'd want any tax incentives to apply to ALL airlines and ALL routes.

Edited March 6, 2010 by mallguy

[gs3]

As Delta continues to rapidly dismantle the once vibrant Cincinnati hub, the next round of cuts will happen in May and Greenville will be included, with all Cincy flights discontinued. I really hate what Delta has done to Cincy as it was a great hub (and the only Delta hub where you could get Peet's).

[jarvismj]

As Delta continues to rapidly dismantle the once vibrant Cincinnati hub, the next round of cuts will happen in May and Greenville will be included, with all Cincy flights discontinued. I really hate what Delta has done to Cincy as it was a great hub (and the only Delta hub where you could get Peet's).

I've already read that they closed Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 is close to being on the chopping block. Question is, will DL be using DTW as it is essentially "ready made" for the RJ's that DL uses now on almost all routes in and out of GSP? I know DL is growing the Boston area as a major focus city, we even have international routes (BOS-AMS, BOS-CDG) now.

It's interesting that 10-12 years ago we, or at least I would think that GSP would have at least one or two international destinations; Ten years later, it is really sad.

Slightly off topic here, but has anyone noticed that the amenities at the airport aren't even nation chains, with the one exception being the bookstore? Are they all simply owned and operated by the airport commission?

[gs3]

I've already read that they closed Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 is close to being on the chopping block. Question is, will DL be using DTW as it is essentially "ready made" for the RJ's that DL uses now on almost all routes in and out of GSP? I know DL is growing the Boston area as a major focus city, we even have international routes (BOS-AMS, BOS-CDG) now.

It's interesting that 10-12 years ago we, or at least I would think that GSP would have at least one or two international destinations; Ten years later, it is really sad.

Slightly off topic here, but has anyone noticed that the amenities at the airport aren't even nation chains, with the one exception being the bookstore? Are they all simply owned and operated by the airport commission?

With three a day to DTW now, makes sense that they would add a fourth. Most cutbacks in CVG have resulted in more traffic for DTW. Next on the chopping block (and it has already started with reductions)....Memphis.

[jarvismj]

With three a day to DTW now, makes sense that they would add a fourth. Most cutbacks in CVG have resulted in more traffic for DTW. Next on the chopping block (and it has already started with reductions)....Memphis.

I only flew out of MEM a few times, and it ranks right up there with Philadelphia Intl in my books... I can see MEM being used as a RJ hub, but the thing that screws that up is that the time difference (Central time), which is where CVG was perfect for the most part.

[gs3]

Study about to get underway for new control tower at GSP. Paving of all access roads about to get underway as well.

http://www.thestate.com/2010/03/15/1201651/airport-road-repaving-project.html

[gman430]

The SC House approved their final budget with the S.C. Air Service Incentive and Development Fund included. A senate panel did the same. News article here: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100318/BUSINESS06/303180014/1003/BUSINESS/Senate-panel-OKs-incentives-to-lower-air-fares

[goodbye]

Anyone know what this potential 400,000 square-foot facility on GSP Intl property would be used for?

[vicupstate]

The Journal said 700,000 sq. ft. I thought.

[gman430]

GSP Airport is indeed competing for a 700,000 square foot center that is said to be aerospace related. Heard it could be a UPS Airhub. Take that with a big grain of salt though. I haven't picked up the latest issue of the Greenville Journal yet. Can anybody with a copy tell me what the story or TBA says regarding this? Does it shed any light about our chances of landing it or what it might consist of?

Edited March 21, 2010 by citylife

[goodbye]

TBA (not "with John Boyanoski" this week):

Greenville Spartanburg International Airport is competing for a 700,000-square-foot facility to be built on their land...

[gman430]

Thanks for that Skyliner. Too bad it doesn't shed any new light. Oh and I don't think John Boyanoski is longer with the Journal sadly. I believe he got a new job.

[goodbye]

Mr. Boyanoski did write the cover story in this week's edition and his title says, "Staff Writer".

[gman430]

From Food For Thought Conference press release issued today: http://www.earthtime...erence-offering,1219393.shtml

GREENVILLE, SC -- 03/24/10 -- Entering its third year, Food For Thought -- a catalytic event celebrating the intersection of food, creative thinking, entrepreneurialism and social responsibility -- is embarking on what is believed to be a first among innovation conferences: providing full scholarships for up to 20 percent of the participants at this year's event, set for April 27-29 in Greenville, S.C.

Event organizers also announced two additions to this year's lineup of presenters: renowned chef and Food Network host Alexandra Guarnaschelli, and Southwest Airlines Senior Vice President of Marketing and Revenue Management Dave Ridley.

Edited March 24, 2010 by citylife

[adrockc2]

Southwest Airlines Senior Vice President of Marketing and Revenue Management Dave Ridley.

hmmm...