Poll - Should Gov. Bill Richardson continue subsidizing Albuquerque-Chihuahua flights? (how much, construction)

[Pink Jazz]

I have been thinking of this lately, and have read that Gov. Bill Richardson is using taxpayer money to pay for empty seats on Aeromexico's Albuquerque-Chihuahua flights. The flights have performed poorly since inception, yet Bill Richardson is using taxpayer money to keep Aeromexico in Albuquerque.

So, what is your thought on this?

I personally think these subsidies should end. It isn't like Chihuahua is a very important Mexican destination; I don't see what is really the point of the flights other than the fact that Albuquerque and Chihuahua are listed as sister cities by Sister Cities International. I think Gov. Richardson just wants to have bragging rights for service to Mexico. Now if we had service to Mexico City or to Cancun, then that would be something to brag about.

[jiminnm]

Actually, the Governor isn't subsidizing these flights - we are.

[karmathecat]

Whether it's federal or local, a lot of flights are subsidized. The ABQ-CUU began with a pledge from the state to subsidize them from Feb-Aug. Since they've been operating that way for five months and have less than a month to go, why the debate/shock/call for a stop now?

[Pink Jazz]

Originally Posted by karmathecat

Whether it's federal or local, a lot of flights are subsidized. The ABQ-CUU began with a pledge from the state to subsidize them from Feb-Aug. Since they've been operating that way for five months and have less than a month to go, why the debate/shock/call for a stop now?

I don't support the Essential Air Service (EAS) program either, which subsidizes these useless flights to remote areas that nobody uses due to ridiculously high fares. I don't see why is there a need to have an Albuquerque-Chihuahua flight if loads are clearly showing there is very little demand for those flights.

[karmathecat]

I think the idea is that once the H1N1 panic and the fear of violence in Mexico subsides, there will be a demand. Frankly, if the state of Chihuahua did more to promote tourism to the Copper Canyon, it might. The CC is bigger and far more beautiful than the Grand Canyon and the train ride is amazing. We did this trip several years ago and I was amazed at the number of people who were completely in the dark about it.

[abqsunport]

As much of a conservative as I am, I have never been too offended by subsidized flights and EAS service. By your thoughts, we shouldn't subsidize highways (which we do), which would mean toll roads with less access. Besides, this is a temporary subsidy for a new airline to establish a new route to new cities... no different than letting a new business have tax breaks for the first year. Its not like its a lot of money being wasted (unlike the bail out bill, the socialized healthcare transformation (aka current health reform), etc.).

[ABQSunseeker]

I don't object to the subsidization either. The timing was unfortunate, however. Swine flu, drug cartel violence, recession. Tourism has plummeted to Mexico from the U.S.

I wonder though if the Chihuahua-ABQ connection would ever be successful. It would seem that Guadalajara or Mexico City or even Monterrey might be better alternatives.

[Poncho_NM]

We really don't know all the facts. How much is it really costing, how much is being gained. It is very easy to take a complex problem/situation and criticize with just a scant piece of info, usually info designed to sway public opinion. What has the ridership (and cargo advanatges) been? I think saying "Bill Richardson is using taxpayer money to pay for empty seats on Aeromexico's Albuquerque-Chihuahua flights." is a little misleading. I think Amtrak just made a profit last year for the first time in over 30 years. It has been subsidized for that same period. We, US Taxpayers, have been paying to support Amtrak all that time, how many of you have ridden it? Has your tax dollars been wasted?

Since the Albuquerque-Chihuahua flights were a test program which ends soon, I would rather see the final results first, before deciding which way it should go.


Rich

[Merlander]

I agree with Rich; we don't know all the facts, so it might be good to withhold judgement. Besides, not everything has to be "run like a business." Sometimes gov't just offers a service, per se. Like the interstate hwy system, or the construction of a county courthouse.

[EnjoyEP]

Originally Posted by Tim Rankin

Besides, not everything has to be "run like a business." Sometimes gov't just offers a service, per se. Like the interstate hwy system, or the construction of a county courthouse.

I hear where you are going here, Rank, although I would also state that there are many *principles* of "running something like a business" (or at least a good, thriving business), that *should* be applicable to government in most anything that it does - including services, highways, courthouse construction - although of course almost never does.

Principles such as treating precious fiscal resources with care, consideration, and careful reverence, being actual good stewards of the peoples' money (eg: not *their* money, the peoples'), working to contract on projects with the most fruitful / tangibly beneficial contractors (eg: not getting super saddled up in bureaucracy and "good ol boy" stuff), being smart managers making smart decisions, not competing with the private sector but enhancing it, etc.

Professionally, for years I have witnessed massive government waste of my precious taxpayer dollars - enough to cause daily nausea and utter disgust. If only people could see some of the things that I have seen - and were able to connect that waste to their wallets...

So I am with you, and I am not even saying it is bad to subsidize something like this. I have no real opinion due to a lack of background info on this. And I agree not everything needs to be business-like from gov't. But gov't could sure use a massive dose of principles from the private sector in so, so many facets.