Phxtravelboy From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 290 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12349 times:
Hi everyone, I have a theory that some of the airports out there really don't get as much service as they could do to the fact they are "in the shadow" of a larger airport close by. I'm not talking about airports within one large metro area such as LA with Ont, Sna, etc.
I'm thinking of Mke and it's proximity to Ord; only 1 hour drive away. Mke has been expanding as of late with a new extension to a concourse, and record pax numbers, but only NW and DL of the "big 6" fly mainline equipment there. Several people from WI drive to Ord for more convenient schedules and these people could be kept in WI if Mke had more service. I think the airlines don't add more service to Mke due to it's proximity to Ord.
I think that to an extent Pdx is in the shadow of Sea, Tus to Phx (where I live), San to Lax. Any others? Agree or disagree?
Zudnic From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12334 times:
Well, PVD and MHT are so close they market themselves as Boston airports. They serve people located in Boston's south and north suburbs (as well as local city populations) - it seems to me that they both court liesure travelers.
Maybe to a small extent but I believe that MKE is adequately served for a city its size. I will however give you that the case for MKE is certainly not helped by having UA and AA both hubbed at ORD and WN having a sizable focus at MDW.
JBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2444 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12110 times:
On a smaller scale, there's MKG (Muskegon, MI) and GRR (Grand Rapids, MI)
For years, there was a more significant disparity between the service at GRR and at MKG. GRR had more mainline aircraft and MKG was always regional. The airports themselves are roughly 50 miles apart.
For years, MKG had the service of three (sometimes four) airlines ... usually to Chicago, Milwaukee, and Detroit. Around 1995 or 1996, American downgraded their operations in GRR from mainline to all-Eagle, and subsequently deemed the Eagle service to MKG redundant and pulled out. Eagle was replaced by Great Lakes, which initially flew their independent operation into MDW, but was quickly changed over to United Express service back into ORD.
Great Lakes lasted until the fall of 2002 when they pulled out of the market (and ultimately the entire region).
Since then MKG has had only the other two airlines - Skyway into MKE and Mesaba into DTW - and has not yet landed a third carrier. In the meantime, GRR has become an increasingly regional market, with more carriers operating RJs rather than mainline, the major exceptions being NW and a handful of UA mainline flights (I also believe DL still has their lone mainline flight into GRR as well).
This is quite possibly an excellent example of the "regionalization" of the industry as far as aircraft utilization goes, and how it can affect smaller airports.
MKG has been sustaining itself well with YX and NW, and many travelers prefer MKG as a smaller airport and easier to get in and out fo than GRR. The downside, though, to MKG is the lack of travel options. However, with Skyway upgrading gradually to the 328JETs, it will only be a matter of time before they replace the BE1s into here and help capacity a fair bit. And with Northwest and Mesaba both on shaky ground as reorganization moves along, if the worst were to happen, MKG would be stuck with one lone carrier, unless they act on getting a third carrier lined up. [Most likely to me would be CO out of CLE since they do offer smaller aircraft - such as CommutAir's 1900s and future Dash-8s] that could get a route started with less dependency on higher numbers than larger aircraft. Another great, though unlikely, coup would be landing US since they left GRR.
It's really anyone's guess as to what the growth of these airports will be as time comes. GRR will always be the larger airport, but whether MKG gets any more service (or any less) is anyone's guess.
I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
CentPIT From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 990 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11997 times:
Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 9): I guess PIT isn't suffering from the close proximity of those larger markets... It's solely a "decaying money hole" of a market...
PIT isn't in the shadows of another airport. I think PIT is in the shadows of US at PHL though. I am by no means saying PIT should be like PHL, I am just saying PIT is no longer in its glory days of being a larger operation than PHL.
PIT is fine...
Pittsburgh International: US Airways---160 daily departures! (52 destinations)
Jano From Slovakia, joined Jan 2004, 832 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11947 times:
BTS and VIE. Only about 40km close to each other. BTS - close to 2 mil pax per year. VIE, I guess 15+mil paseengers per year.
There many Slovakians flying via VIE because there are very few network carriers flying to BTS: OK and LH only. Yet, there is a starting stream of Austrians flying from BTS due to NE and FR operating from there.
No. SJC is in a class of its own with it's own breed of travelers. San Jose to San Francisco is a long drive and with the high-tech industry next door, domestic, and even international, service works fine on it's own. While AA has/will close SJC-NRT, it has been a route that has proved well for AA and one that they wouldn't even try at SFO, let alone their one flight a day at LAX.
SCK is an entirely different breed of airport compared to the two. SFO handles both domestic and international. High Asian routes and trans-pacific with it's handful of European flights. Domestic to about everywhere in the country with CO, F9, UA, AA, and US.
OAK is very much a domestic airport for LLC's. WN and JetBlue find hubs here due to the cheaper cost to fly into OAK over SFO. You will also find Federal Express and UPS hubs here. Shipping is a major traffic form for OAK. Lastly, OAK caters to business travelers. They have two separate runways that, when the weather provides, can be used by all business jets with the ramp just one taxiway over. They also allow ease for cessna's (and other's alike) and also have flight schools in the FBOs. If the price to land at SFO doesn't drive you away, the traffic and airspace factors don't allow this that often. In regards to SCK, AA has service and if I'm correct so will Mexicana.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13470 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11759 times:
EWR is an airport that was originally the airport for the NY City area (until about 1940 with LGA) then Idlewild/JFK, then EWR came back as a major airport in the early 1990's offering a broad range of international and more USA domestic service than JFK even into today.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11563 times:
MCI - MKC
MKC was once the main airport for KC but it has shorter runways and a large river on two sides. It does get a lot of business traffic because of it's proximity to downtown, but taking off in a 172 to the south can be a little strange on hot day (tall buildings).
MCI is a much larger and nicer airport, but it's location isn't all that convenient.
Bdl2dca From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 11413 times:
Quoting Zudnic (Reply 1): Well, PVD and MHT are so close they market themselves as Boston airports.
Don't forget ORH, which an hour from each PVD, BOS and BDL so therefore, nobody in Central MA will fly out of there. My parents grew up in Auburn, and my grandparents used to fly out of BDL because it was easier to get to BDL than ORH because of the road connections even though it is like 10-15 times the distance.
And I would also add that BDL is in the shadow of BOS and JFK for trans-atlantic service. BDL could easily warrant one or two nonstops to Europe based on the cachement area and the industry in western New England, but because there are no nonstops to Europe, a lot of travelers go to either BOS or JFK to catch a flight rather than making a connection out of BDL.