> You're required to have a certified minority partner. Even if they contribute absolutely nothing besides a physical disability, skin color, or gender. You can imagine all the corruption around this & 'buying partners.'
Anyone who has done government contracting has seen this, too. Generally, what happens is the prime contractor who the government actually hires must be underrepresented minority-owned. That contractor might just be one person who own a shell LCC, whose job is to simply "be Native Alaskan" or something. Then that prime will subcontract out to regular, name brand companies that actually do all the work. As far as I've seen, this is a pretty common and well-understood pattern, at least in mil/aerospace.
In addition, for U.S.A. defense contracting, preference is given to veterans, e.g. "veteran owned", so similar arrangements are made to have affiliations in place, or "owners" established.
Another place you might see this is cannabis dispensary licenses being preferenced towards those who've been jailed for cannabis-related crimes.
In all the cases, it's likely someone who historically hasn't been paid well, so I personally don't care, since it seems to me like the preference is achieving its desired effect in the end (said person getting paid).
Weirdly, they don't preference contracts for shell corps owned by, say, poor white trash from Middletown, Ohio -- despite these people meeting your definition of "someone who historically hasn't been paid well".
But I digress. In the biz, if the contract has to be trafficked through a shell corp where the owner takes a 20% cut, everyone simply bids a 20% higher rate.
It's the taxpayer's prerogative if they would rather their government pay an inflated contracting rate -- as opposed to using that money for education, infrastructure, social services, etc.
> since it seems to me like the preference is achieving its desired effect in the end (said person getting paid).
The desired effect is stratify the populace into more and more tribes that can fight amongst themselves. You give special treatment to some, thereby weakening political opposition and obtaining plausible deniability to say that you helped.
If you want to help someone who hasn’t been paid well historically, then you pull up the database of tax filings, sort from lowest to highest and deposit some money, or give them access to education, or blah blah. “Historically not paid well” has nothing to do with skin tone, religion, gender, or anything other than history of income.
Veteran, woman, or minority owned, more specifically. The US Department of Commerce’s minority business development agency can provide more information about the “8a” program.
For the European and Asian friends, this is because Airports in the United States are almost all still owned and operated by local governments. For the vast majority of these governments, the Airport is easily the most significant slush fund they have to monkey with. For example, the City of Denver, “owns” Denver International Airport, which is in turn both the largest employer in the state of Colorado and the third busiest Airport in the world. Did I mention that it generates all of its own cash? No tax-payer money involved.
Which is why they are opening a center for Equity and Diversity in Aviation rather then fixing the escalators (which have their cult following simply because of often they are broken) or having a reasonable rental car facility, or simply renovating bathrooms in the concourses.
How screwy any given implementation becomes is of course, fully at the hands of the local authority, and whatever slush fund silliness they have in mind. From skimming through, it seems like there's an overall very soft 10% "target" in terms of disadvantaged businesses. I think the law literally says that there is a national 10% target, but individual entity (so a single airport for example) are not allowed to take that 10% as a quota or target.
Opened in 1995, DEN currently serves 25 different airlines offering non-stop service to over 215 destinations throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia; it was the fourth airport in the U.S. to exceed 200 destinations.[11] The airport is a major hub for United Airlines and is the largest operating base for both Frontier Airlines and Southwest Airlines.[12] With over 35,000 employees, the airport is the largest employer in Colorado. The airport is located on the western edge of the Great Plains and within sight of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains.
> WHERE you go IN the airport also matters a lot. If you have a Delta terminal & a Spirit terminal...well, you can guess which one is more valuable. And you will pay for that privilege
I know what everyone is thinking. But I’m wondering if Spirit customers spend more on concessions. Of the handful of times I’ve flown spirit I’ve seen a lot of drinks/snacks/food in hands of customers purchased at the terminal.
The average Sprit customer is price-sensitive compared to a Delta customer and will have lower spend per basket (or just rely on vending) than a Delta customer might bring overall to your business.
(This is ironic, because generally every time I line a low-cost-carrier up against a mainline airline like Delta, once the baggage is added that is generally free on a mainline the ticket cost is within $50-100 of each other, and worth paying the extra few bucks to not have as much hassle.)
16 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 52.9 ms ] threadAnyone who has done government contracting has seen this, too. Generally, what happens is the prime contractor who the government actually hires must be underrepresented minority-owned. That contractor might just be one person who own a shell LCC, whose job is to simply "be Native Alaskan" or something. Then that prime will subcontract out to regular, name brand companies that actually do all the work. As far as I've seen, this is a pretty common and well-understood pattern, at least in mil/aerospace.
Another place you might see this is cannabis dispensary licenses being preferenced towards those who've been jailed for cannabis-related crimes.
In all the cases, it's likely someone who historically hasn't been paid well, so I personally don't care, since it seems to me like the preference is achieving its desired effect in the end (said person getting paid).
But I digress. In the biz, if the contract has to be trafficked through a shell corp where the owner takes a 20% cut, everyone simply bids a 20% higher rate.
It's the taxpayer's prerogative if they would rather their government pay an inflated contracting rate -- as opposed to using that money for education, infrastructure, social services, etc.
The desired effect is stratify the populace into more and more tribes that can fight amongst themselves. You give special treatment to some, thereby weakening political opposition and obtaining plausible deniability to say that you helped.
If you want to help someone who hasn’t been paid well historically, then you pull up the database of tax filings, sort from lowest to highest and deposit some money, or give them access to education, or blah blah. “Historically not paid well” has nothing to do with skin tone, religion, gender, or anything other than history of income.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20131211005139/en/Guy...
Which is why they are opening a center for Equity and Diversity in Aviation rather then fixing the escalators (which have their cult following simply because of often they are broken) or having a reasonable rental car facility, or simply renovating bathrooms in the concourses.
How screwy any given implementation becomes is of course, fully at the hands of the local authority, and whatever slush fund silliness they have in mind. From skimming through, it seems like there's an overall very soft 10% "target" in terms of disadvantaged businesses. I think the law literally says that there is a national 10% target, but individual entity (so a single airport for example) are not allowed to take that 10% as a quota or target.
Is your count perhaps including all the businesses in the airport?
from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_International_Airport
(And yes, thats many different companies and businesses - but it's also 3x the size of any company on that list)
It's a long list, and most of it seems fairly standard, a mix of "airport stuff" and "buying a concession in a popular location" stuff.
I know what everyone is thinking. But I’m wondering if Spirit customers spend more on concessions. Of the handful of times I’ve flown spirit I’ve seen a lot of drinks/snacks/food in hands of customers purchased at the terminal.
(This is ironic, because generally every time I line a low-cost-carrier up against a mainline airline like Delta, once the baggage is added that is generally free on a mainline the ticket cost is within $50-100 of each other, and worth paying the extra few bucks to not have as much hassle.)