Just checked it out at. I know I have said this a 1000 times, but these guys are in fact profitable, are not charlatans and know how to run an airline, versus a public charter.
As far as I can tell we spent 23,615 of the DOT grant on Allegiant when they were here, but now we intend to spend 300,000 on Direct Air. I hindsight is 20/20, but we should have spent the monies on Allegiant when we had them.
Since they left ORH, they have now added Fort Laurderdale and St Pete's, which is much much better then Punta Gorda.
5 comments:
I was talking to a travel agent last night about Allegiant. She is convinced that Allegiant left due to some disagreement with the City of Worcester.
I wonder if someone can make a Freedom of Information request for all documents and correspondence between the City Manager and Allegiant.
The line that their planes were old and fuel inefficient, although maybe true, does not hold up when there are routes that they are flying now that are longer then ORH-SAN.
One reason for sure that they left was the City tax on the sale of fuel at Swissport. Does anyone know if this still exists?
Bottom line is that if they spent the $300,000 on Allegiant, versus Direct Air, it would have made them stay longer.
Bill
I agree old & feul inefficient is a 1/2 truth..........the flip side of the coin is they dont have the huge monthly nut that comes with buying a newer, more efficient plane. I can buy a Prius and save a littel something on gas, but I also pick up a $400 monthly nut with it ....but the old 1981 Buick Banana boat, Uncle Buck-Mobile uses less gas, costs less to insure, & I own free & clear and no one is going to steal it ( except for scrap metal)
i was waiting for my red eye to leave McCarron in Las Vegas 2 years ago and couldnt believe all of the Allegiant movements in the hour i watched from the waiting area. I remember thinking it would be great to fly straight to Worc. Oh well. Jahnfan
Maybe the REAL charlatan is sitting in the Lt. Governor's office in Boston ???????
Post a Comment