A local newspaper reported last week that “no taxpayer money is being used” to build the new $1.4 billion ticketing, baggage and security terminal at Pittsburgh International Airport.
We’re sure the Allegheny County Airport Authority loved that contention.
Fact of the matter is, between federal grants and slickly diverted gambling money, there are tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money in this project. And there’s millions more in public money from proceeds from natural gas wells on the Pittsburgh International Airport property.
By the way, how are those gas wells performing? Inquiring minds want to know.
And do remember, this is a public authority, not a private enterprise. Public authority, public money.
But the bottom line is this:
Five Pinocchios for the assertion that “no taxpayer money is being used.”
One of the brainiacs at VisitPittsburgh, the tourism promotion outfit, likened the “impacts” of recent climate and manufacturing confabs at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center to that of 2009’s G20 economic summit there.
Given how the G20 summit led to a massive security state that put large swaths of the Golden Triangle business district out of business for a week, the VisitPittsburgh official must have been born just yesterday.
Back to the airport:
As we noted last week, a contingent of Pittsburgh movers and shakers will be in London this week, hoping to convince British Airways (BA) to expand its current four-flights-a-week schedule to and from PIT to flights seven days a week.
You’ll recall that in order to convince BA to return to PIT after a 10-year hiatus, the Airport Authority agreed to pay the carrier $3 million in two installments. The flights went on a pandemic hiatus but resumed this past spring. That last payment will be disbursed this year.
The Airport Authority CEO says the plan is to convince BA that’s there’s enough business, corporate and leisure, for the schedule expansion.
Which brings us to some thoughts, from Jake Haulk, the president-emeritus of the Allegheny Institute:
“The junket to London sounds more like a plea for help with possible promises of even larger subsidies for BA,” the Ph.D. economist says. “They must think people running BA are as feeble-minded about reality as the junket participants are.”
Haulk reminds that the “economic climate in the Pittsburgh metro is awful and getting worse with the City of Pittsburgh actually more retrograde than ever.”
“What happens to tourism when vagrants are fouling the streets and parks?” he asks.
“But, more importantly, BA knows what the current passenger count is and how many are foreigners coming to the United States and how many Pittsburgh area residents are traveling to England.
“It is interesting that PIT does not reveal that information,” Haulk continues, adding that subsidizing area residents to leave the country is “worse than stupid.”
“BA might be greedy and willing to accept handouts but they are not silly enough to fly half empty planes at a loss for an extended period,” Haulk stresses.
“It must be looking really bad to prompt this apparent desperation sales junket,” concludes Haulk. “The July international travelers count at PIT was still 41 percent below July 2019.
“Why would anyone increase flights with that in mind?”
Indeed, why?
Stay tuned later this week for Haulk’s fresh analysis of the international flight situation at PIT.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
