The Hill, which reports on Congress and Capitol Hill, recently released its picks for Top 10 lobbying victories of 2013. Care to guess who logged in at #4? It was Airlines for America, for helping spur Congress to compel the FAA to keep control towers operating despite mandated sequestration cuts — a move that diverted vital funds from the Airport Improvement Program.
In December, the same group focused on the new two-year budget deal and mounted a campaign to eliminate increases in passenger fees for security enhancements. One of the tactics it used was distributing air sickness bags printed with the message “Are high taxes on air travel making you sick?”. Brilliant! The campaign hit a home run by using an attention-grabbing medium to convey a simple, clever message.
Sadly, the group’s point has nothing to do with the facts. Airlines for America contends that increased fees — which it refers to as “higher taxes” — will adversely impact demand, jobs and our economy. Yet, recent statistics indicate that the industry’s rise toward greater profitability continues. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. airlines netted $3.2 billion of profits during the third quarter of 2013 — more than twice their net profits during the same period the previous year.
The true double-whammy is that those profits were pumped up by $879 million in bag fees and $735 million for reservation change fees. And because such fees are not included in the ticket price, the airlines don’t pay tax on them — and therefore also don’t provide associated funds to the FAA for crucial airport infrastructure improvements.
The exponential rise in airline fees has done little to dampen the appetite of air travel, yet Airlines for America argues that an increase in existing passenger facility charges would deliver a debilitating blow to the industry.
Sadly, great lobbying and clever marketing are trumping the truth and what’s good for the wellbeing of our industry. Arguing louder and smarter, however, has proven effective at getting the airlines what they want while denying airports similar fee adjustments, such as needed changes to the PFC program.
On the airport side of the house, our logic is sound; but our marketing simply hasn’t been as effective.
Cheers,
Paul
