Uh-oh. Are even more public subsidies ahead for British Airways (BA) from its Allegheny County Airport Authority almsgivers?
That’s certainly the impression we have in reading the words – if not reading between the lines — of authority CEO Christina Cassotis from a virtual appearance before the Pittsburgh Technology Council.
As reported by the Post-Gazette, Cassotis said Monday that she expects BA’s nonstop flights to resume in the spring of 2022 between Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) and London’s Heathrow Airport.
That likely is news to struggling British Airways, which isn’t commenting on Cassotis’ characterization. But it’s the same British Airways that minced no words a mere five months ago in “permanently” canceling the flights.
You’ll recall that British Airways resumed its PIT flights in April 2019 after a 15-year absence – but only, it appears, after securing a $3 million public subsidy (over two years) to come back into the fold.
By the way, BA has lost billions of dollars and laid off more than 10,000 employees (about 28,000 at one point) because of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Its lease at PIT expires at the end of this year.
While Cassotis says there had been talk of British Airways returning to PIT this year – again, given BA’s permanent PIT cancellation announced in December, that’s likely news to it – she also added:
“(W)e can’t have them come back and not succeed.”
Additionally, said Cassotis:
“We really, really need that to succeed. Because if it doesn’t, then it doesn’t bode well for us attracting other carriers.”
By paying more public subsidies to BA? Or, to make up for a BA non-return, doling out evermore public subsidies to other carriers?
As we said at the outset, “Uh-oh.”
Pardon our cynicism but the Cassotis/Airport Authority mantra to date has been “If at first you don’t succeed, subsidize, subsidize again.” Then fail, again and again.
Why should the public expect anything different when the authority really, really, really, really, really needs BA to return and succeed and serve as some kind of faux bellwether for others to pony up to the PIT subsidy bar?
Even before the pandemic struck, the Allegheny Institute expressed deep skepticism about British Airways’ propped-up return to Pittsburgh.
Policy Briefs Vol. 18, No. 31, and Vol. 19, No. 14, questioned the deal’s high-flying claims of grand economic benefits that were not sustained by the facts on the ground.
As the first Policy Brief concluded, given that “the most probable effects of the subsidy will be to damage competitors while increasing the net outflow of resources from the region, it is hard to see any upside to handing over tax dollars to the airline.”
That assessment remains unchanged.
As does our “uh-oh.”
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).