Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5646224/

Topic: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: lke2fly
Posted 2012-12-28 21:48:03 and read 5197 times.

Since Ontario Int in CA is trying to free its self from LAWA and be independently own by the city of Ontario is it possible that more airlines will try to get a spot in Ontario? I heard that If the city of Ontario takes over the landing fees will be lowered to gain more airlines.
I don't know the process as to how an airline company needs to do to get a spot at a airport. I would like to see B6 and maybe a international carriers fly out of ONT.
Any ideas what could happen if ONT goes independent.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2012-12-28 22:00:22 and read 5161 times.

It may well be a good move to take over ONT and seperate it from LAWA, however given the issues that the Inland Empire has had over the last few years, just how much value airlines will see in the market at this time is still a questionmark.

Even with reduced fees, whether or not the demand can be found will need to be taken on as a risk by airlines.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-28 22:01:27 and read 5162 times.

If ONT can attract more carriers, I could see them maybe taking some B6 traffic from LGB, but they serve very different, albeit very close, markets. The obvious WN expansion and maybe some legacy expansion. AS could expand. I don't know what, if any, international expansion there would be. Maybe AC and maybe some leisure and Caribbean routes. I don't envision F9 adding a new airport right now, but in a few months they might add it. But that's it. GA traffic will go up.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: kgaiflyer
Posted 2012-12-28 22:02:02 and read 5163 times.

Last time I went through ONT (Oct 13th) our AA MD80 seemed to be the only aircraft on the ground and at the airport. Where would all this proposed business flying be coming from?

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-28 22:11:27 and read 5140 times.

GA traffic would go up simply because it would be cheaper to fly there, and they have one helluva runway. I think it might be a good move to privatize ONT, but the expansions I talked of are very long term. Growth will be very slow. B6 might add ONT because LGB is maced and ONT will be cheaper than LAX.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2012-12-28 22:19:00 and read 5122 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 4):
ONT will be cheaper than LAX.

Airlines fly where the demand is, not necessarily where its the cheapest.

If pax want to fly from LAX, it makes little sense to move flights to ONT. It only makes sense if the Inland Empire demand can be sustained and built upon.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-28 22:24:52 and read 5101 times.

Tell that to Ryanair. I only say ONT because they already serve LAX and LGB will be full. It could allow them to cater to a slightly different pax set.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: usflyer msp
Posted 2012-12-28 22:43:21 and read 5046 times.

There is no way fees will be lower at an independent ONT. LAWA can leverage resources across its system and jointly procure specialized goods and services at a lower cost than solely ONT could. What the City of Ontario fails to realize is that ONT's problem is not its management. It is the poor demographics of its catchment area (which was ground zero of the housing collapse and ensuing economic meltdown) and a general movement back to primary airports by LCC's due to their superior amenities and ground connectivity. Until that changes ONT will continue to lose service....

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-12-28 22:55:59 and read 5013 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 6):
Tell that to Ryanair. I only say ONT because they already serve LAX and LGB will be full. It could allow them to cater to a slightly different pax set.

Problem is no one wants to fly to ONT. People will only fly to LGB at a large discount to LAX.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2012-12-28 22:56:51 and read 5010 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 6):
Tell that to Ryanair. I only say ONT because they already serve LAX and LGB will be full. It could allow them to cater to a slightly different pax set.

Demand is ultimately the driver of that.

In Europe's case, many of these secondary airports actually service other markets also, but a few of the carriers have changed their mind over time to take on the main airports.Once LCC's commenced flying into the main airports and take away and competitive advantage that may have existed by flying from secondary airports, some ultimately move flights in limje with that threat.

ONT has done ok for itself when it was a thriving area, but that is not currently the case. It will take time for that to become a situation where a few airlines see it as a viable option for their model and where they see pax wanting to fly from.

Making it an independent airport is the first step in making the airport take on its own identity, without outside influences. Small steps.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: RWA380
Posted 2012-12-29 01:09:53 and read 4840 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 2):
international expansion there would be. Maybe AC and maybe some leisure and Caribbean routes

Think LCC European or Asian carriers that can land a 744, 767 or 330 filled with cheap seats taking people to the LA area, if fees were to drop enough vs LAX. Souther California is a big place, and at least when I lived there people often flew from whatever airport offered the lowest rates, but more people just paid the fare from the closest local airport.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: Valorien
Posted 2012-12-29 01:36:28 and read 4793 times.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 10):
Think LCC European or Asian carriers that can land a 744, 767 or 330 filled with cheap seats taking people to the LA area, if fees were to drop enough vs LAX. Souther California is a big place, and at least when I lived there people often flew from whatever airport offered the lowest rates, but more people just paid the fare from the closest local airport.

It's possible. Dutch airline ArkeFly just started flying to Oakland International Airport this year.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: RWA380
Posted 2012-12-29 01:42:29 and read 4784 times.

Quoting Valorien (Reply 12):
It's possible. Dutch airline ArkeFly just started flying to Oakland International Airport this year

And MP flew from OAK, World, TransAmerica, plus I think Oasis was looking at HKG-OAK-HKG, But look at OAK now, legacies don't even fly there any more. Same with ONT for the most part, ONT could use an Intl LCC flying 3x weekly.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: AADC10
Posted 2012-12-29 02:11:06 and read 4764 times.

Quoting lke2fly (Thread starter):
Since Ontario Int in CA is trying to free its self from LAWA and be independently own by the city of Ontario is it possible that more airlines will try to get a spot in Ontario? I heard that If the city of Ontario takes over the landing fees will be lowered to gain more airlines.

The local municipalities would have to subsidize the landing fees in order to lower them. Although LAWA operates ONT, it cannot divert resources between the airports it operates, although in the past it has twisted the arms of some airlines to serve ONT when they ask for something at LAX. If local municipalities take over, they would still have to service current debt.

The attitude seems to be that LAWA is not doing a good marketing job or something and favoring LAX. However, for the most part, if there is demand, there will be flights. Landing fees at LAX are relatively low due to the lack of capital investment there and ONT cannot undercut fees because of the bonds issued to build the mostly empty terminals. Lowering the fees will not lead to a large number of new flights because those fees are still fairly far down the list of expenses for the airlines. ONT got put into a bit of a death spiral by overbuilding or at least planning to meet projections of the late 90s. SJC has some of the same issues.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: SANFan
Posted 2012-12-29 09:58:15 and read 4460 times.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 11):
Quoting lke2fly (Thread starter):
I would like to see B6 and maybe a international carriers fly out of ONT for several years -- until the end of summer of 2008, pulling service around Labor Day of that year? That's 4 years ago and I see no reason that they would decide anytime soon to return there.
Other than that, the arguments against anything positive happening in the foreseeable future at

I guess A.net was having gas early this morning when I posted my Reply #11 and it therefore makes no sense. Just in case anyone cares, what I was trying to say, in response to the OP's statement, "I would like to see B6... fly out of Ontario", was:

B6 did serve ONT for several years, ending their service around Labor Day of 2008. That was 4 years ago and I see no reason that they should now reconsider serving the airport -- especially now that they have LAX up and running.

bb

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-29 10:01:43 and read 4452 times.

Maybe the big European and Asian LCCs and charter carriers. My random expansion ideas were only for when that part of California recovers. Years from now.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-29 10:24:14 and read 4403 times.

Quoting lke2fly (Thread starter):
I would like to see B6 and maybe a international carriers fly out of ONT.

B6 tried ONT and failed.

For international only one that has somewhat hung on is AeroMexico, but even it has large schedule swings.

Quoting lke2fly (Thread starter):
I don't know the process as to how an airline company needs to do to get a spot at a airport.

Super easy. Fill out the entry packet, have things like insurance, and pay the fees.

Quoting lke2fly (Thread starter):
Any ideas what could happen if ONT goes independent.

People forget ONT was independent to start with. LAWA ended up with it when the local cities ended up bankrupting themselves trying to run the field and defaulted turning it over to the FAA.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 4):
GA traffic would go up simply because it would be cheaper to fly there, and they have one helluva runway.

Why would GA traffic bother with ONT? Within 15 miles there are 7 specific GA fields.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 5):
Airlines fly where the demand is, not necessarily where its the cheapest.

   Airlines indeed go where the people and money is.

An airport can be the most expensive airport in the world, but if the demand is there, the airlines will be there also.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 5):
It only makes sense if the Inland Empire demand can be sustained and built upon.

   The Inland Empire is an economic mess.

Its actually one of California's most depressed economic areas. From the housing mess, to generally low per capita income, its not a very healthy market to generate robust discretionary consumer air travel demand.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 7):
There is no way fees will be lower at an independent ONT. LAWA can leverage resources across its system and jointly procure specialized goods and services at a lower cost than solely ONT could.

Yes will be interesting to see how the local cities would manage ONT on their own.

LAWA is indeed able to leverage resources across its airports such as police force, maintenance, back end admin support etc.
As a standalone facility ONT will be 100% full burden on the local agency.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 7):
What the City of Ontario fails to realize is that ONT's problem is not its management. It is the poor demographics of its catchment area (which was ground zero of the housing collapse and ensuing economic meltdown) and a general movement back to primary airports by LCC's due to their superior amenities and ground connectivity. Until that changes ONT will continue to lose service....

   Indeed as mentioned above, the problems at ONT are more economic and demographic then anything.

Also people forget there is an entire industry shift ongoing. Many secondary airports are losing traffic. In LA basin, Burbank and John Wayne also have seen declines. So ONT is not unique in seeing service reductions.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 9):
ONT has done ok for itself when it was a thriving area, but that is not currently the case. It will take time for that to become a situation where a few airlines see it as a viable option for their model and where they see pax wanting to fly from.

   Like we said prior, if the demand was there, airlines would be there also.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 14):
However, for the most part, if there is demand, there will be flights. Landing fees at LAX are relatively low due to the lack of capital investment there and ONT cannot undercut fees because of the bonds issued to build the mostly empty terminals. Lowering the fees will not lead to a large number of new flights because those fees are still fairly far down the list of expenses for the airlines.

Many might not know in the middle of lots of misinfofmation, but the 2013 fee schedule has ONT being cheaper then LAX, and LAWA has been able to beat down its cost at ONT by almost 20% in recent years even with declining enplanements.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: usflyer msp
Posted 2012-12-29 10:33:23 and read 4387 times.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 13):
And MP flew from OAK, World, TransAmerica, plus I think Oasis was looking at HKG-OAK-HKG, But look at OAK now, legacies don't even fly there any more. Same with ONT for the most part, ONT could use an Intl LCC flying 3x weekly.

Big differences between OAK and ONT.

OAK is 20 miles from downtown SF and has a decent connection to BART.
ONT is 40 miles from downtown LA and even further from Hollywood, etc...(the places tourists want to go) and has no transit connections so its not really a viable alternative to LAX.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-29 10:37:21 and read 4367 times.

About the most expensive Airports...welcome to DEN and YYZ. For GA traffic, I meant jets. I also didn't know it used to be private.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: AS739X
Posted 2012-12-29 11:31:55 and read 4262 times.

Quoting Valorien (Reply 12):
It's possible. Dutch airline ArkeFly just started flying to Oakland International Airport this year.

You familiar with the geography of the SF Bay area? OAK airport is actually just as close to downtown San Francisco as SFO. It's also in an area with a wealthy demographic.

However, ONT is located 25-30 miles inland from any LA attractions. It's in the inland empire that's been severely hit by the economy.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-29 16:45:41 and read 4043 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 2):
Maybe AC and maybe some leisure and Caribbean routes.

I think AC tried ONT daily from YYZ with a 319 a few years back, perhaps 06 or 07. When the economy was still (apparently) in good shape, and their conclusion was:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
Problem is no one wants to fly to ONT.

   Correctamundo.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-12-29 16:52:33 and read 4016 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
Airlines indeed go where the people and money is.

If fares are low enough, passengers will use some very inconvenient airports. Look at Ryanair in Europe for dozens of examples. Some of their airports are as far if not further from the city they purport to serve as ONT is from downtown LAX.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: usflyer msp
Posted 2012-12-29 16:58:01 and read 4008 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
If fares are low enough, passengers will use some very inconvenient airports. Look at Ryanair in Europe for dozens of examples. Some of their airports are as far if not further from the city they purport to serve as ONT is from downtown LAX.

Apples and Oranges

Europe has higher population density and a far superior ground transportation network that makes getting to random airports in the middle nowhere much easier.

European Airports are allowed to subsidize service and grant special privileges to carriers to attract service while US Airports have far less latitude due to federal laws.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-29 16:58:56 and read 4000 times.

The inland empire needs to recover before anything happens, and air traffic and airlines as a whole do. Otherwise, ONT will be the same old airport, just bringing in less money. As for the ryanair approach, maybe NK will come? In a while, once the area recovers.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-29 17:38:58 and read 4046 times.

Does anyone have a breakdown of flights per day by operator? I'm assuming AS and WN are the top two carriers there.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-29 18:37:37 and read 4028 times.

US Airports can still subsidize a fair amount. DEN is paying something like $20 million for DEN-NRT. But ONT won't be able to afford much like that.
I'm guessing WN is by far the top operator. Monopoly on many of the busiest routes. I don't think AS is #2. They only serve SEA and PDX. It might be UA, simply because IIRC they serve 3 destinations. AA, DL, and US I think all serve only one destination

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: lasairlinerenth
Posted 2012-12-29 21:00:46 and read 3465 times.

I grew up in the Inland Empire and, although my family didn't travel a lot by air, I can remember the days when ONT was filled with planes from American Airlines, United Airlines, Trans World Airlines, Golden West Airlines, Pacific Southwest Airlines, Hughes Airwest, Western Airlines, Air Cal/ifornia, etc. When I finally earned my driver's license when I was 15 or 16, I used to love to drive out there and spot. As I recall, ONT was home to dozens and dozens of 727s, 737s, and a few DC-9s at the time. Sigh. A bygone era to say the least!!!

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-29 21:25:16 and read 3405 times.

Its a mini STL/PIT. Carriers no longer in existence, planes no longer with airlines, and airlines and routes no longer serving the airport. Poor ONT.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: Beardown91737
Posted 2012-12-30 02:52:23 and read 3142 times.

The simple answer is that under control of Ontario International Airport Authority, expenses of operating ONT will go waaay down and a lower CPE will be the result. Although the assertions of economies of scale by having LAWA run it as a side job to LAX and VNY make sense on the surface, the reality is that LAWA is part of the city government of Los Angeles. The salaries are on a big city scale, and so are the work rules. In addition to that, LAWA charges a 15% administrative fee.

This is a list of the LAWA employee salaries from 2010. To me, it looks heavy on the IT budget for running three airports. Also I didn't know how many $75K graphic designers most airports need, but while it is true that the two of them can work on ONT projects at times, the flipside is that the work could be sent to a local graphics company or done by City of Ontario graphics designers (if such exist). Also the Airport Police seem to make a bit more than San Bernardino County Deputies make.

http://projects.latimes.com/la-city-salaries/department/airports/

The fees attached to the terminals built in 1998 were paid for by PFCs and to my understanding that has expired. The City of Ontario says LAWA has less than $80M in Ontario bond debt. That debt would be assumed in a takeover deal.

So if LAWA isn't making it cheaper to operate ONT, it would make complete sense that on its own, ONT would be able to get CPE closer to the levels at SNA, BUR, and LGB. That will make it easier for airlines or charter operators to start service. When G4 went to LAX instead of ONT, it would have cost them about $1M a year more at ONT. G4 is known for serving out of the way airports, so ONT would have made sense if the money made sense, and no matter how many of you claim no one "wants" to fly to ONT, they tend to go wherever G4 says the destination is.

To address the concern about ONT being able to make it on its own, the population has gone up double digits every census except the last one, in Ontario and all the surrounding cities. Besides, ONT has been paid for with airport revenues, not truckloads of gold coins exported from Los Angeles.

ONT competes with five other airports in SoCal, since PSP can also be a factor. Demand is less than it was, and we know that the industry is shrinking, but we need to be able to stop the leaking to the other airports.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 25):
Does anyone have a breakdown of flights per day by operator?

WN 5xPHX 2xDEN 6xLAS 5xSJC 7xOAK 8xSMF 1xMDW 1xRNO (seasonal winter)
US 5x PHX (4 mainline, 1 YV)
UA 2x DEN (1 752, 1 OO) 2x IAH (Mainline) 4xSFO (all OO CR2)
DL 4x SLC (1 mainline, 3 OO (CR2, CR7, CR9)) ATL service ending any day now
AA 4x DFW (M80,M83)
AS 2x SEA (mainline) 2x PDX (CR7)
AM 0.7xGDL (mainline)

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 26):
I don't think AS is #2.

I think it is AA with the 4x M80/83.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 18):
OAK is 20 miles from downtown SF and has a decent connection to BART.
ONT is 40 miles from downtown LA and even further from Hollywood, etc...(the places tourists want to go) and has no transit connections so its not really a viable alternative to LAX.

Has it changed since my wife and I used the BART/Bus connection in 2009? Not straight to the airport like YVR, MDW, and ORD. I also recall using the light rail from BOS in the 1970s.

ONT is only a mile or two further from Disneyland than LAX is. How many tourists have Hollywood as a main desitination?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 21):
I think AC tried ONT daily from YYZ with a 319 a few years back, perhaps 06 or 07

It was around 2000.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
Problem is no one wants to fly to ONT. People will only fly to LGB at a large discount to LAX.

I would agree that people will only drive past LAX to get to LGB if there is a large discount. As far as people from Long Beach, Orange County, or the few hundred thousand LA residents that live closer to LGB than LAX, the situation is reversed. No one says that people who live near LAX, PSP, BUR, or SNA should be driving to ONT to catch a plane when they have their own airport nearby.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-30 05:12:43 and read 3082 times.

Thanks for the breakdown, Beardown.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 29):
ONT is only a mile or two further from Disneyland than LAX is.

If you want to go to Disney, you go through SNA. Not LAX. I knew a lot if folks who made the mistake of going through LAX finding out how much further it was than SNA. It gave them a huge "D'Oh!" moment.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: EA CO AS
Posted 2012-12-30 07:56:45 and read 2959 times.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 5):
Airlines fly where the demand is, not necessarily where its the cheapest

There are precedents for cost-per-enplanement impacting route decisions, though. For example, AS went from operating SEA-MIA to SEA-FLL solely because MIA's CPE was too high.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: boilerla
Posted 2012-12-30 11:42:41 and read 2789 times.

As stated above, operating costs at ONT are not what's keeping airlines away, considering LAX has much higher operating costs and the lions share of flights. Airlines go where demand is at and more importantly these days where the yield is at. ONT is not home to the Fortune 500 companies that LAX and BUR serve. ONT is mainly VFR low yielding traffic that UA, AA, etc want to shuttle through an existing hub. P2P flying is dead and I don't see ONT becoming a hub, so I am not sure where that leaves it except as a couple of daily flights to the surrounding hubs.

If ONT has to pay all existing debt and operating costs instead if spreading out its costs over the LAWA system I am not sure if its a net gain or loss. But either way it's not going to bring tons of new service and/or carriers, and incurs additonal risk for an area that is financially unstable (not to mention an area that already had to give up control on ONT once before due to financial obligations that couldn't be met).

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: PSA53
Posted 2012-12-30 11:59:53 and read 2770 times.

Quoting lasairlinerenth (Reply 27):
I grew up in the Inland Empire and, although my family didn't travel a lot by air, I can remember the days when ONT was filled with planes from American Airlines, United Airlines, Trans World Airlines, Golden West Airlines, Pacific Southwest Airlines, Hughes Airwest, Western Airlines, Air Cal/ifornia, etc. When I finally earned my driver's license when I was 15 or 16, I used to love to drive out there and spot. As I recall, ONT was home to dozens and dozens of 727s, 737s, and a few DC-9s at the time.


Sigh. A bygone era to say the least!!!

ONT was to get to skiing resorts, the long way to Palm Springs and the old Ontario Motor Speedway,which it was ahead of it's time.I did spot there many times before the major makeovers and remember to major "C" car Haven route,before the bridge was installed,to get around the runaway.I remember Air California's 737's doing touch and go's for training before fuel was an issue.Haha,yep,those were the days.But ONT did hold it's own.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2012-12-30 20:21:31 and read 2537 times.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 31):
There are precedents for cost-per-enplanement impacting route decisions, though. For example, AS went from operating SEA-MIA to SEA-FLL solely because MIA's CPE was too high.

Yes, theres some cases, but that must be backed up with enough demand existing at the alternative. If an airline cant see the numbers adding up, it makes no sense to move.

As I and others have said, its not about the fees alone which drives these decisions.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: lasairlinerenth
Posted 2012-12-30 21:35:21 and read 2474 times.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 33):
I did spot there many times before the major makeovers and remember to major "C" car Haven route,before the bridge was installed,to get around the runaway.I remember Air California's 737's doing touch and go's for training before fuel was an issue.Haha,yep,those were the days.But ONT did hold it's own.

Driving along Haven around the runways was always a thrill -- especially if there was an arrival, or even a departure, in progress!!! And, now that you mention it, I remember the Air California 737-200s doing touch-and-gos too. I had forgotten about that.  

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: AAflyguy
Posted 2012-12-31 09:50:48 and read 2260 times.

I, for one, am very happy to see more travelers choosing PSP. It's both due to airlines reducing schedules @ ONT, making it less of a factor than in years past, combined with steadily improving air access @ PSP, both in season and year-round. This year the airport will see about 1.7 million passengers, a new record. Same can't be said for ONT. And, ONT's problems aren't going to be fixed by an increasing census population. Do these people moving to the Inland Empire have a propensity to travel by air on a regular basis? I think the answer, more often than not, is no. Airlines will continue shifting capacity to airports other than ONT if the service there isn't profitable enough. Airplanes are mobile assets, and they go where the airlines feel the most money can be made. The more the activity levels decline, the more expensive it becomes for those carriers to operate there. For what the current flight schedule is, one of those two terminals could be temporarily closed to reduce a variety of costs. It's a sliding scale that's not working in ONT's favor right now, no matter what organization is responsible for the operation & maintenance of the airport itself. It won't get any better if/when it's taken out of LAWA's list of airports, at least not for a while. It's a BIG gamble that I hope the City of Ontario is truly prepared to lose on, just in case. And, even though a much smaller airport, if things continue to improve with PSP's air service (which is highly likely), that will give travelers residing in or destined for the Coachella Valley even less reason to even consider ONT in coming years.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-31 10:37:47 and read 2189 times.

Quoting AAflyguy (Reply 35):

I don't think you can compare ONT with PSP. PSP is in a totally different market and is nowhere close to ONT, IIRC.

Apples and oranges comparison here.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: AAflyguy
Posted 2012-12-31 11:35:17 and read 2117 times.

It is absolutely NOT an apples to oranges comparison, in that ONT has long served as a major source of leaking air traffic from PSP's market area. As a resident of the Coachella Valley for nearly 10-years and working in an industry which tracked this type of data, I know for a fact that in the 90's and for most of the first decade of the 21st century, a large percentage of PSP's natural air passenger base was utilizing ONT (and other LA Basin airports) instead. This still occurs today, but I suspect to a smaller degree as options @ PSP continue to improve & increase. The distance between the two airports is 70-miles, which is well within reason for some to select as the airport to use instead of PSP. Also, PSP's population base continues to grow, and largely with residents who have the means and need/desire to travel. It's a very positive thing to sell to the airlines, with the big bonus of being a strong leisure market from which to draw additional traffic through more than half the year. Also, a higher percentage of visitors traveling to the PSP area by air are choosing PSP over ONT and other SoCal options. I'm not saying ONT & PSP are one and the same, but there is a relation, due to geography and what has historically been far better air service @ ONT than what exists today. ONT will almost certainly remain considerably larger than PSP, but PSP is an airport which is growing steadily in the shadow of ONT, and may become an even better alternative for eastern Inland Empire residents going forward.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: SANFan
Posted 2012-12-31 11:54:50 and read 2085 times.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 25):
US Airports can still subsidize a fair amount. DEN is paying something like $20 million for DEN-NRT.

Airports can NOT subsidize airline service; they can offer incentives such as reduced rent/leases, waived landing fees and marketing assistance but that's about it. (And many, many airports offer these sorts of incentive packages and the amounts are governed by the feds making it a pretty level playing field for what any airport can do.)

It's local government (city, county, state) as well as local businesses/corporations that can subsidize an airline with cash or "revenue guarantees".

bb

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-31 13:10:45 and read 2011 times.

First lets get some history in here about how LA for develop, manage, and operate the field. LA also provided Ontario a $7.9 loan to keep the city afloat. Annual passengers in 1967 was under 400,000.

Through much of the 1970s, Los Angeles managed the facility just fine. By early 1980s it became apparent the airport needed much additional work. A second runway, new terminals and support facilities were needed. Since the JPA called for parties share the cost, Ontario would need to help fund its share.

In 1985 with Ontario was unable to help fund several hundred million dollars of work, and made an offer to City of Los Angeles for the sale and transfer of the airport completely. LA agreed and paid Ontario $58million. Annual enplanements was about 3 million at the time.

Since 1985, LAWA has invested in over $560mil in airport improvements and facilities - new terminal, runway, consolidated car rental, parking lots, roadways, cargo facilities, land acquisitions etc...
Enplanements rose to a high of 7.2mil in 2007 and since have declined back to about 4.8mil.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):
The simple answer is that under control of Ontario International Airport Authority, expenses of operating
Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):
The fees attached to the terminals built in 1998 were paid for by PFCs and to my understanding that has expired. The City of Ontario says LAWA has less than $80M in Ontario bond debt. That debt would be assumed in a takeover deal.

With approval of the FAA, PFC's are proposed being suspended for 3-years.

Total bond debt on LAX activity.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):
To address the concern about CA.

Certainly not a model for robust air travel demand.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):
So if LAWA isn't making it cheaper to operate ONT would be able to get CPE closer to the levels at SNA, BUR, and LGB. That will make it easier for airlines or charter operators to start service.

But LAWA is making ONT is cheaper then LAX still. Things like landing and parking fees are almost 50% of LAX.
SNA (cheaper when PFC are excluded) No one will touch BUR cost as there is basically zero capital improvements and zero debt on the books there.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 31):

As stated above, operating costs at LAX has much higher operating costs and the lions share of flights. Airlines go where demand is at and more importantly these days where the yield is at. LAX and BUR serve. UA, AA, etc want to shuttle through an existing hub. P2P flying is dead and I don't see   So much of the BUR and SNA have seen traffic declines the last 5-years.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36):
I don't think you can compare PSP. PSP is in a totally different market and is nowhere close to PSP does certainly have some effect on PSP has grown in its own tourist and economic stature which has rightfully brought it greater service.

[Edited 2012-12-31 13:14:38]

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-12-31 13:33:04 and read 1957 times.

Wow dont know what hapened with the formatting with my post above. Anyhow it is again...


First lets get some history in here about how ONT became part of LAWA.

In 1923 the airport was formed on land leased from Union Pacific Railroad. In 1929 and 1941 the City of Ontario purchased additional 500 acres and laid out much of the current runway configuration. The field was home a military training facility, along with recreational and some cargo services. First scheduled passenger flights commenced in 1950.

By mid 1960s, Ontario airport had fallen on severe economic times. Its runway badly needed resurfacing, and the City of Ontario had no funds to cover such. A tug of war erupted between the City and FAA over conditions at the airport. Under the threat of the FAA decertifying the field, in 1967 at the request of City of Ontario, the Los Angeles Department of Airports was brought in. A joint-powers authority was created for LA to develop, manage, and operate the field. LA also provided Ontario a $7.9 loan to keep the city afloat. Annual passengers in 1967 was under 400,000.

Through much of the 1970s, Los Angeles managed the facility just fine. By early 1980s it became apparent the airport needed much additional work. A second runway, new terminals and support facilities were needed. Since the JPA called for parties share the cost, Ontario would need to help fund its share.

In 1985 with Ontario was unable to help fund several hundred million dollars of work, and made an offer to City of Los Angeles for the sale and transfer of the airport completely. LA paid Ontario $58million. Annual enplanements was about 3 million at the time.

Since 1985, LAWA has invested in over $560mil in airport improvements and facilities - new terminal, runway, consolidated car rental, parking lots, roadways, cargo facilities, land acquisitions etc...
Enplanements rose to a high of 7.2mil in 2007 and since have declined back to about 4.8mil.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):
The simple answer is that under control of Ontario International Airport Authority, expenses of operating ONT will go waaay down and a lower CPE will be the result.

Actually that is not the simple answer.

Matter of fact the consultants that Ontario brought it did not show much of a cost decline.

Ontario would have to take over or build a whole new infrasture and bureaucracy itself which has significant cost, plus do things like refinance all the debt which LAWA holds today on very favorable terms.

What Ontario gets is control of the branding and marketing of the airport, not some miraculously low cost facility overnight.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):
The fees attached to the terminals built in 1998 were paid for by PFCs and to my understanding that has expired. The City of Ontario says LAWA has less than $80M in Ontario bond debt.

With FAA approval, proposal is to suspend the PFC for 3-years.

Total bond debt on ONT is $128mil of which about $70.6mil remains for the new terminals. For the record virtually all of that $128mil debt is held on very good terms with repayment guaranteed against LAX activity.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):
To address the concern about ONT being able to make it on its own, the population has gone up double digits every census except the last one, in Ontario and all the surrounding cities.

Yes indeed Inland Empire population has certainly increased, but with the economic devastation in the region its left with one of the poorest and highest unemployed per capita population's in CA.

Certainly not a model for robust air travel demand.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 28):
So if LAWA isn't making it cheaper to operate ONT, it would make complete sense that on its own, ONT would be able to get CPE closer to the levels at SNA, BUR, and LGB.

But LAWA is making ONT cheaper - 27% decline in operating expenditures since 2007. Staffing has been cut by 43%,

Problem is traffic declined even faster - 37% over 5-years.

But at the end of the day ONT is cheaper then LAX still. Things like landing and parking fees are almost 50% of LAX.

ONT is on par with SNA (actually cheaper when PFC are excluded). No one will touch BUR cost as there is basically zero capital improvements and zero debt on the books there.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 31):
As stated above, operating costs at ONT are not what's keeping airlines away, considering LAX has much higher operating costs and the lions share of flights. Airlines go where demand is at and more importantly these days where the yield is at.

   So much of the ONT decline has nothing to do with cost, but traffic demand realities borne out by economic malaise and shift in the industry away from secondary fields. As mentioned prior, both Burbank and SNA have seen traffic declines the last 5-years.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 36):
I don't think you can compare ONT with PSP. PSP is in a totally different market and is nowhere close to ONT, IIRC.

PSP does certainly have some effect on ONT. Their catchment areas do overlap to a degree especially in the Riverside, Moreno Valley areas.

Also PSP has grown in its own tourist and economic stature which has rightfully brought it greater service.

Topic: RE: Set Ontario Intl CA Free
Username: UA787DEN
Posted 2012-12-31 16:06:19 and read 1848 times.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 38):
they can offer incentives such as reduced rent/leases

The incentives are really just a loophole. It saves the airline money rather than giving them extra money.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 40):
So much of the ONT decline has nothing to do with cost, but traffic demand

  


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/