Kansas airports and their economic impact


Last week’s release by the Kansas Department of Transportation of a study of the economic impact of Kansas airports caused quite a stir, with newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times (at least its online version) carrying the Associated Press coverage.

Perhaps the reason so many distant newspapers were interested in the story is the sensationally large economic impact figures reported. The number of jobs purported to airports is large, by any standard.

But there’s a problem with these numbers. They’re similar to sensational claims made a few years ago when the case for subsidizing airlines in Wichita was made. Those figures were bogus. So are these.

The staggeringly large figures come from two aspects of the study. First, the study counts the economic activity from businesses near the airport as attributable to the airport. In the case of the Wichita airport, this means that the employees of Cessna and Bombardier Learjet, and all the economic activity these companies produce, is credited as economic impact of the airport.

This economic sleight-of-hand allows the study to attribute 22,313 jobs to the Wichita airport. The total economic impact of the Wichita airport is reported as $4.7 billion.

All these employees don’t work for the airport. Almost all of them work at business firms located near the airport. But the study doesn’t really make that distinction. And when you do things like this, you can really pump up some inflated figures.

It is a convenient circumstance that these two manufacturers happen to be located near the airport. To credit the airport with the economic impact of these companies — as though the airport was involved in the actual manufacture of airplanes instead of providing an incidental (but important) service — is to grossly overstate the airport’s role and its economic importance.

A second problem is the study’s use of economic impact multipliers to pump up the figures. A multiplier reflects the fact that money spent at, say an airport, get spent again. Proponents of multipliers forget that money spent elsewhere get multiplied too. In fact, money that is saved and invested get multiplied, too.

These two factors inspired the Associated Press reporter to lead off a story with “Airports in Kansas support more than 47,000 jobs, generate $2.3 billion in payroll and have an annual economic impact of $10.4 billion …” With numbers so big, you can see why news editors in far-away cities might run the story.

There’s another problem: these studies usually assume that all the activity is the responsibility of the entity being promoted, that none of it would have happened without the celebrated entity, and that since (usually) the promoted entities are government-owned, all this is evidence of the goodness of government.

Another problem is that these economic impact figures get used several times to support various government subsidies to business. Here we have the airport claiming two aircraft manufacturing companies’ employees and their economic impact as the product of the airport.

But when these companies want corporate welfare from the Kansas state government, the economic impact of the companies and their employees will be cited as justification. Politicians, bureaucrats, and the public will believe their case.

Then, the same numbers might be cited again at Wichita city hall, and maybe before the Sedgwick County Commission as the company makes its case for industrial revenue bonds, tax abatements, forgivable loans, and other forms of local corporate welfare.

But this economic impact can’t be recycled like this. It exists only once. If the Wichita airport claims it, then it can’t be used again to justify some other program or request.

Another way the study leaps beyond credibility is its inclusion of the Beech Factory Airport in east Wichita. This is an airport without commercial air service. It exists solely for the convenience of Hawker Beechcraft, and is undoubtedly a necessary component of the capital plant needed to manufacture airplanes.

The study, however, mixes this airport in with all other Kansas airports, so this airport’s claimed $1.8 billion in economic impact is treated the same as any other Kansas airport. But regular people can’t catch a flight at this airport.

When government officials use stretched and inflated figures like these, they diminish their credibility. The Kansas Department of Transportation already snowed the Kansas public earlier this year with their claims of the need for huge spending on Kansas roads and highways.

Now they’re at it again, with claims that simply make no economic sense at all. The fact that news media laps up these figures without any skepticism or critical thought doesn’t help.

Does this mean that Kansas and its local government shouldn’t offer airports and businesses like aircraft manufacturers help from the public treasury? That’s a different question for a different day.

Today, however, we need to realize that accurate, reasonable, and believable information about Kansas airports and other transportation infrastructure isn’t available from the Kansas Department of Transportation.


4 responses to “Kansas airports and their economic impact”

  1. Anonymous

    Your blog seems to lack basic accuracy. There are 142 public use airport in Kansas, as defined by the FAA and FAR Part 77. Wichita Beech is a public use airport, meaning that prior permission is not required to land. It is the same as Jabara, the home of the national aviation training center and Independence Municipal, the home of Cessna’s single engine and light jet production. Following your logic, the manufacturers would exist without the airport and the airport is not necessary for the level of activity created by the manufacturer’s traffic.

  2. I have a slight problem with your analysis too. The businesses located on or near most airposrt wouldn’t exist except for the airports. An example si CEssna, Bombarier, Flight Safety, etc. These companies would be nowhere else. They require an airport to exist. Likewise out in the wilderness, the agreaero businesses (aerial spraying) are necessary and requires the airports where they are located. Also every FBO (airplane gas station) is necesary for the airport and the flying business there. I completely disagree that these reports are bogus or even questionable. The idea of using such ideas to subsidize airlines, however, is just silly. See my aviation blog at http://www.lionelalford.com, http://www.ldalford.com, or http://www.wingsoverkansas.com for more on flying in Kansas and the USA.

  3. Anonymous

    “Today, however, we need to realize that accurate, reasonable, and believable information about Kansas airports and other transportation infrastructure isn’t available from the Kansas Department of Transportation.”

    Don’t expect it from this blog either…………

  4. Anonymous Mike

    Hi, I agree with Weeks on this one. I’m not sure that you understand what he’s calling inaccurate and why he dislikes the thrust of their arguments.

    Cessna, Boeing, Bombardier, and Beech are aircraft manufacturers, aluminum shows up at one end of the plant and airplanes roll out another door onto the runway, and take off to be delivered. These businesses are located on an airport, BUT (a large one) they could be at ANY airport. The economic boon to Wichita is NOT Mid-Continent airport / Jabara / Beech airport etc, it’s Beech, Cessna, Bombardier, Flight Safety, Spirit, and Boeing. These businesses ARE near OUR airport, BUT there is only one Cessna, one Beech, one Bombardier etc in the country, so only one (or two max) airports in the country get this windfall for each company.

    “Following your logic, the manufacturers would exist without the airport and the airport is not necessary for the level of activity..” is the truth, but not the whole truth. These manufacturers need an airport, and an airport is necessary. It doesn’t have to be this one.


    Wichita KS

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.