Voice For Liberty

Kansas airports’ economic impact

Bob Weeks

on

Last year the Kansas Department of Transportation released a study of the economic impact of Kansas airports. The accompanying news release is Kansas airports generate billions in economic impact.

The report 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 distant newspapers were interested in the story is the sensationally large economic impact figures reported. The number of jobs attributed 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 last year with their claims of the need for huge spending on Kansas roads and highways.

Here they’ve done 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.

Posted

in

by

Bob Weeks

Tags:

, ,

Comments

One response to “Kansas airports’ economic impact”

  1. Tim

    Mr. Weeks,
    I like most of what you research and publish, but you’ve got this one wrong. Frankly, I’m surprised you don’t see it. A word of disclosure or perhaps one that gives me standing to comment: until getting laid off about 2 years ago, I worked for a Kansas aviation manufacturer; and I now work as a pilot for a charter company based near Detroit, MI.

    You discount that businesses near the airport can attribute their economic impact to the airport. But it is impossible to manufacture an airplane without an airport to be used for flight testing and for customers to depart with their new purchase. It’s also impossible to service, maintain, or upgrade an airplane without an airport for the activity to base at. Either the business uses a public airport like Cessna and Learjet, or they use their own like Hawker Beechcraft, or they may even share a military airport like Spirit/Boeing with McConnell AFB. Without an airport those businesses, aren’t there. Consequently, many of their suppliers are located nearby as a matter of efficiency and convenience. Although these suppliers could be elsewhere and ship their products, there is a direct impact from the airport.

    Your second argument about all of the activity being wrongly attributed to the airport because some of it would surely be there regardless is also incorrect. Let me give an anecdotal example. FlightSafety International is a company that gives professional aviation training including flight training to pilots in realistic simulators. They often locate their training centers near aircraft manufacturers because customers buying new airplanes need to be trained on how operate them. My new Detroit-based employer operates Learjets. Shortly after I was hired, my employer brought me and several other company pilots to FlightSafety in Wichita for training. We stayed in hotel rooms, we ate in restaraunts, we rented cars, we used FlightSafety simulators maintained by their employees; we had an economic impact for a week of training. My employer has never bought a new jet; they buy used ones, but the flight simulator training is still required. We went to Wichita because that’s where FlightSafety’s Learjet simulators are. Those simulators are there because Learjet is there; and Learjet is there because the AIRPORT is there.

    This happens over and over every week. Think of all the new and old models from all the Wichita based manufacturers. Flight crews from all over the world come to get a new airplane or to get refresher training on their old one. They might bring their airplane for maintenance or an upgrade which creates jobs for mechanics, technicians, flight instructors, and all of their support people. Hotels, car rentals, restaraunts, caterers for on-board food, and fuelers are all supported by this economic activity from the AIRPORT.

    If those AIRPORT associated industries aren’t there, the reason for that economic activity doesn’t exist. Take away the AIRPORT, and no one is landing their jet in the parking lot to get service, training, and pick up some catering. Get it?

Leave a Reply

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