Piedmont Publius is, perhaps, as confused as we are at the rationale behind central planners like Henry Isaacson o’er there in the Triad. Here’s Isaacson – quoted by the PP – opining about the market dynamics:
I want people in the Triad to understand that Allegiant is an altogether different airline than Skybus,” Isaacson said. “They’ve been around for awhile; they’ve been making money; they’re established. I think the only reason they were leaving us is that Skybus was sort of permeating the low-fare territory. They don’t compete at the point of origin with another low-fare carrier.”
Is this 20/20 hindsight or something Isaacson could have sussed beforehand? Seriously, a company that hasn’t been around for awhile, isn’t making money and isn’t established in an industry plagued by multiple factors like unstable inputs (jet fuel)… Why are these bureaucrats throwing our cash at such poor investments? This attempt to pick winners and losers is just wacky. Isaacson, et al, couldn’t possibly have had the prescience to predict what Allegiant called the "destablizing" factor of Skybus — never mind that these subsidies contributed to the destabilization. Nor does 20/20 hindsight help matters once everything goes haywire.
Excuse me, Mr. Isaacson, I think I’d like to invest my own resources. I’m pretty sure Vanguard or I could do a heckuva lot better than you.