Direct Flights To London, Anybody?

Indianapolis has to be home to some of the most ignorant economic development planners in the world. Thanks to the ample supply of capital our corrupt politicians feed them, they stay busy scheming up ideas to spend the money that yields zero benefits for the general public but always manage to funnel public dollars into the pockets of whoever's turn it is to feed at the public trough.

The latest scheme revolves around the abysmal failure of the very costly airport terminal at Indianapolis International Airport to attract more flights. Much to their chagrin, flight traffic in and out of the airport declined after the new terminal opened, which I'm sure had nothing to do with the higher costs airline carriers had to pay to cover the costs of the new terminal.

You may recall these geniuses came up with the idea of subsidizing a direct flight from Indianapolis to San Francisco, ostensibly for the convenience of a handful of people who got very rich off the spam e-mail business known as Exact Target. Airlines were unwilling to commit to a direct flight because the numbers just weren't there to support one. State economic development officials agreed to guarantee $1.5 million in annual revenues to United just for making the direct flight option available.

Now the IBJ tells us these economic developer wonders have "their eyes laser-focused across the pond in a quest to land a new international nonstop flight across the pond." It's difficult enough to find a direct flight for a Florida vacation, but these fellows believe a direct daily flight to London would be the "boon" the airport needs to succeed. Naturally, the plan involves yet another plan to subsidize British airways to the tune of some untold sum to make daily non-stop flights to London available. "It would be incredibly beneficial," the airport's CEO tells the IBJ. "We can demonstrate a need. I think the chances are very good."

The head of the IEDC, Vic Smith, claims the idea for a subsidized, non-stop flight to London came from businesses like Eli Lilly and Rolls-Royce, as he complained from Sydney about the roundabout way he was required to fly first to Chicago and then San Francisco before flying on to Australia. Smith says his travel experience was "a perfect example of why we need international connectivity." A spokesman for Rolls-Royce says the direct flight to London would be beneficial to the company's employees as long as long as it's "competitively-priced." What's that mean? All of these companies have private corporate jets they fly around their executives all the time. Costs couldn't be a concern or they wouldn't spend so much of their shareholders' money avoiding commercial airline carriers. The IBJ should understand that. It ran a story a couple of years ago talking about how much competition there was among Indianapolis area airports to provide flight service for all of these corporate-owned jets.

I don't think this has anything to do with what local businesses are requesting; rather, it's all about these eggheads wanting more convenient flight connections for their pleasure travel and has nothing to do with business. Smith had one-stop options for his flight from Indianapolis to Sydney. He chose a 2-stop flight for personal convenience. Indianapolis is not an airport hub. You can't expect direct flights to every destination, but because the airport isn't a hub, you're probably able to get cheaper airfare when you travel, if less convenient. It's too bad that the people who populate these economic development agencies don't believe in free markets. I sometimes think they would be happier living in China based on the government command and control they insist upon in the name of economic development.