Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is FAA Grant Money Heavily Subsidizing Allegiant?  
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7052 posts, RR: 13
Posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5097 times:

I've often wondered how tiny airports afford to rebate virtually all their fees back to Allegiant AND often charge customers nothing for parking. Well, now I've seen it spelled out in this article from another thread...
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...-flights-rickenbacker-orlando.html

...Rickenbacker could break the 10,000 customer threshold it needs to secure additional federal funding, said David Whitaker, vice president of business development for the Columbus Regional Airport Authority.

Rickenbacker, which primarily handles cargo, would see its funding from the Federal Aviation Administration go from $150,000 to $1 million at the higher passenger level. The additional money would be used for capital improvements, Whitaker said.


10,000 passengers is only about 30 per day. By airports giving Allegiant free everything to fly there, the FAA gives the airports an extra $850,000/year in funding. Does this bother anybody? Essentially this money is huge part of the Allegiant business model and is essentially an ongoing federal subsidy of Allegiant and other carriers going into similar small markets.

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinealphaomega From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5068 times:

Why would it bother anyone? This is Allegiant's business model and works well - they go to the "other" airports the major's don't. If DL wanted a piece of the action, there would be nothing stopping them but they don't, so G4 reaps the benefits.

The case is very similar with the regional airlines when they operate to Middle-of-Nowhere, MO and connect to a larger hub city, like MSP. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to operate such low-yield routes.

Example, flying into MSP costs $317, however continuing to LSE (about 3hr drive away, and is an airport with 2 gates) is only $360...this translates to not even $25 ($50 round-trip) for the flight per pax, you don't think a subsidy helps out here?


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25014 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5054 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting enilria (Thread starter):
Essentially this money is huge part of the Allegiant business model and is essentially an ongoing federal subsidy of Allegiant and other carriers going into similar small markets.

I have no idea about Allegiant, but I do know this:

http://www.newsleader.com/article/20...service-Orlando?odyssey=nav%7Chead

"Frontier’s foray into the Valley will not be federally subsidized."

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinedlramp4life From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 927 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5039 times:

Some airports like AZA would not flourish without this FAA funding... I think it will only bother me if G4 (example) starts up in a small city and the airport gets the funding for the airport then G4 decides the city is not performing well and closes up shop.


PHX Ramp, hottest place on earth
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5793 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4980 times:

I believe the key words are

Quoting enilria (Thread starter):
capital improvements

The 10,000 passenger threshold increases airport funding for infrastructure projects such as runway/taxiway/ramp work, etc.

I don't see how the funding would be considered a subsidy to Allegiant (or to any airline at a small airport).

For example, this article from Pueblo explains more about the increased funding from more passengers there:

Quote:
Breaking the 10,000 passenger mark has been a long-sought goal because it means the Federal Aviation Administration will deliver that extra $850,000 that is intended to shore up runways, ramps and other infrastructure at the airport.
...
While Lovin has ambitious plans for improving the airport terminal — $800,000 worth of work enlarging ticket counters, baggage pick-up and the gate area — the FAA money isn't intended for that purpose. "The FAA wants to see those additional funds spent on concrete, ramps and runways, the real core of the airport's infrastructure," he said.
http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/...8-b41a-11e0-84a4-001cc4c03286.html



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4798 times:

Quoting enilria (Thread starter):
By airports giving Allegiant free everything to fly there, the FAA gives the airports an extra $850,000/year in funding. Does this bother anybody?

Not any more than it bothers me for any other US airline.

Quoting enilria (Thread starter):
Essentially this money is huge part of the Allegiant business model and is essentially an ongoing federal subsidy of Allegiant and other carriers going into similar small markets.

This applies to *all* airports that receive FAA funding (which is almost all of them). None of the air carriers pay the full cost of operating the airports they serve.

Tom.


User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4672 times:

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 4):
I don't see how the funding would be considered a subsidy to Allegiant (or to any airline at a small airport).

Well I guess the OP is probably arguing that these airports attract Allegiant by waiving all kinds of fees Allegiant would be paying the airport. So instead of Allegiant paying the airport to upgrade their capital equipment, the government ends up doing it when they pass the 10,000 pax threshold mark. Therefore the government is paying the airport to upgrade their equipment while Allegiant gets to fly in for free because of waived airport charges like landing fees.

I think you could make the argument that Allegiant is being subsidized in an indirect way. The airport gets to expand it's facilities due to new FAA funding because of Allegiant flying there, Allegiant doesn't have to pay normal airport charges and therefore gets the savings passed on to their bottom line.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4203 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 6):
I think you could make the argument that Allegiant is being subsidized in an indirect way. The airport gets to expand it's facilities due to new FAA funding because of Allegiant flying there, Allegiant doesn't have to pay normal airport charges and therefore gets the savings passed on to their bottom line.

That's all true, but how is that any different than what any other airline does? The OP seems to be arguing that Allegiant is somehow unfairly benefiting...this is just how domestic air travel in the US works for everybody.

Tom.


User currently offlineTVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2359 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4194 times:

Every airline is subsidized some way by some government entity.

User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5133 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

Well, the premise of the title of this thread is absolutely wrong, and the title is just plain stupid. Typical mainstream media "I can't say that something is true but I can ask whether it is" bs. "Is Sasquatch real?" "Did Jennifer Anniston have sex with a frog?"

It is NO part of Allegiant's business model to take federal subsidies along the lines the OP suggests. None. In no part of the article or any of the facts laid out there does Allegiant "depend" upon federal subsidies. Never. None. Nada. Stupid.

Localities don't bring Allegiant in IN ORDER TO get federal funding for their airport. They bring Allegiant in because it benefits the local economy in a huge variety of ways. In order to attract Allegiant, they have to offer a deal that makes it worth Allegiant's while to risk the capital involved in starting service there, which is not insignificant. In order to help make the service successul, what's wrong with free parking? Remind me what it COSTS to provide parking, anyway. Pretty much ZERO until you start fencing the parking lot and installing ticket machines and paying employees to take money from the parkers. Greedy governments CHOOSE to charge for parking to generate revenue for the government, not to defray the "costs" of providing parking. Enlightened local governments choose NOT to charge for parking in order to ameliorate the inconvenience of less-frequent-flights at their local airports and to encourage use of those airports because of the revenue it generates for the local community. Revenue in the form of jobs for local residents who buy things locally, pay property tax, pay sales tax, etc.

If additional federal funding kicks in FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS at some volume of passenger travel, so much the better for them.

But to say that they undertake all this just to get the federal funding is crap. And it's even more crap to say that Allegiant "depends" upon this. Really? Then why did they start flying to LAX instead of some local airport where they could "get federal funding". Where in their publicly-disclosed business plan (which is an actual document) do they talk about needing federal funding to airports?

Sorry, but this is just a brain-dead attack, cowardly-disguised in the form of a question.

[Edited 2012-08-17 13:03:38]

User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6713 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4081 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 9):
Localities don't bring Allegiant in IN ORDER TO get federal funding for their airport.

Actually, in some cases it appears that they do. If you read the article linked by the OP:

Quote:
If Vision returns next year and Allegiant stays on, Rickenbacker could break the 10,000 customer threshold it needs to secure additional federal funding, said David Whitaker, vice president of business development for the Columbus Regional Airport Authority.

Rickenbacker, which primarily handles cargo, would see its funding from the Federal Aviation Administration go from $150,000 to $1 million at the higher passenger level. The additional money would be used for capital improvements, Whitaker said.

So offering a slew of freebies to Allegiant would allow the CRAA to cash in on federal money for capital improvements -- funding projects which likely would have happened anyway, paid-for by local funding instead.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 9):
Greedy governments CHOOSE to charge for parking to generate revenue for the government, not to defray the "costs" of providing parking. Enlightened local governments choose NOT to charge for parking in order to ameliorate the inconvenience of less-frequent-flights at their local airports and to encourage use of those airports because of the revenue it generates for the local community. Revenue in the form of jobs for local residents who buy things locally, pay property tax, pay sales tax, etc.

Generally the fees charged for parking help to cover the costs of other parts of the airport -- like terminals, runways, etc. In many cases, it does cost money to provide parking -- parking garages don't simply spring into existence out of nowhere. And at large airports, surface lots within reasonable walking distance of the terminals are simply infeasible -- so parking fees help to defray the cost of shuttle service.

And do the handful of part-time jobs created by G4 in its spoke cities offset the amount of cash outflow from these cities; i.e. money spent on those vacations? Would $2000 spent on a family vacation to Orlando have been spent at local businesses instead (or would they have flown from somewhere else)?

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 9):
And it's even more crap to say that Allegiant "depends" upon this. Really? Then why did they start flying to LAX instead of some local airport where they could "get federal funding".

They fly to LAX because the demand to fly from North Podunk to East Jesus is non-existent, but demand to LAX/LAS/Phoenix/Orlando is good-sized from many markets. They need an anchor at one end to make the service to work. SX failed because they were trying to use CMH and GSO as "destinations."

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 4):
The 10,000 passenger threshold increases airport funding for infrastructure projects such as runway/taxiway/ramp work, etc.

I don't see how the funding would be considered a subsidy to Allegiant (or to any airline at a small airport).

It's an indirect subsidy if the infrastructure projects would have been necessary with or without the Allegiant service. Instead of spending the $850,000 from the general fund, the locality could use (hypothetically) $500,000 to subsidize the waived landing fees/rents for Allegiant and still come out ahead.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7239 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4069 times:

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 1):
Why would it bother anyone? This is Allegiant's business model and works well - they go to the "other" airports the major's don't. If DL wanted a piece of the action, there would be nothing stopping them but they don't, so G4 reaps the benefits.

Exactly, it all depends on who and where the planes go.

Quoting dlramp4life (Reply 3):
Some airports like AZA would not flourish without this FAA funding... I think it will only bother me if G4 (example) starts up in a small city and the airport gets the funding for the airport then G4 decides the city is not performing well and closes up shop.

   I actually think that ZK (Great Lakes) gets more in subsidies than G4 does.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineASFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 1168 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3971 times:

I wonder how much Allegiant saves each year in costs associated with the airports they fly to anyway? Is it a fair amount? I mean, how many of the airports that they fly to are providing free/reduced landing fees, terminal rent, etc? If it's a significant number and Allegiant generally requires these subsidies in order to begin service in a particular market then they do have a bit of an advantage over the traditional carriers. Allegiant's costs are extremely low, which is why they are able to expand so aggressively, Would they be as low if they were required to pay associated airport costs? All it would take is twice weekly service to any airport in order for that particular airport to reach the 10,000 enplanement threshold in order to bump from the $150,000 figure to 1.5 million. That might be pretty good incentive for an airport to give Allegiant whatever they wanted to begin service to their airport. Two Allegiant flights a week to a resort destination is not going to do anything to grow the economy of any community. The numbers of passengers Allegiant gets who originate travel in SFB, AZA, LAS, PIE, PGD and FLL to the small cities they fly to is almost certainly negligible. There has to be a reason that these small airports are aggressively seeking Allegiant service rather than being very aggressive in trying to secure, say, twice daily service on a major to a hub airport - which would provide a far greater service to the community and do a lot more to grow a local economy. The chances of securing Allegiant service twice weekly to a resort city are far better for most of Allegiant's airports then being able to secure, say, twice daily service to DFW, ORD, IAD, DEN, etc. Maybe the OP is on to something. Without these subsidies, Allegiant would not be nearly as profitable as they are these days.

[Edited 2012-08-17 15:05:48]

User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1012 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

AIP funds can't be used for marketing purposes, just airfield improvements.... many EAS markets are dying to maintain that 10,000 threshold, or even get it back.


xx
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5793 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3647 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 10):
So offering a slew of freebies to Allegiant would allow the CRAA to cash in on federal money for capital improvements -- funding projects which likely would have happened anyway, paid-for by local funding instead.

Or maybe the project does not happen at all, depends upon the need vs delaying the project if there is not money available locally.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 10):
It's an indirect subsidy if the infrastructure projects would have been necessary with or without the Allegiant service. Instead of spending the $850,000 from the general fund, the locality could use (hypothetically) $500,000 to subsidize the waived landing fees/rents for Allegiant and still come out ahead.

If it worked that way and all it took was 30 pax/day (10,000/365) then wouldn't small airports be using the money to offer to an express carrier connecting to a hub instead? That hypothetical $500,000 would go a long way toward a couple of daily regional flights and would be more economically valuable to an airport and region than a couple of vacation flights per week. But we aren't seeing the regional carriers showing up at these airports.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently onlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3723 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3596 times:

Here in FWA, G4 handles about 17% of passengers at an airport with about 270,000 enplanements last year, which is 27 times the FAA minimum. 75% of pax from FWA fly on business, going to hubs like ATL, DFW, DTW, MSP, and ORD that are served by UA, AA, and DL.

The end result? G4 carries a whopping 68% of the leisure passengers at FWA.

Like all airlines at FWA, G4 was offered 2 years of waived landing fees for new carriers and 1 year waived for new routes or expanded service from existing carriers, and there are other incentives available. It has been said by FWA management that without these incentives, G4 wouldn't have started service here. On the flip side of the coin (and state), G4 chose OWB over EVV because EVV management wouldn't give G4 more in incentives than they did to existing carriers. So yes, incentives are at play with G4.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17369 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3520 times:

Isn't this more or less FR's model? Would either be around if the respective governments didn't fund airports?


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinepanova98 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3406 times:

Allegiant is an interesting bird, to say the least. It would seem to make a interesting topic for some business school student. It surely would address the question posed here.

Some questions I would like to see answered and the statistics to show:

1. Of the airports Allegiant is known to have looked at, whether or not they actually started service, who initiated the contact: the airport authority or Allegiant?

2. When it came to paying for infrastructure, whether related to the terminal, baggage handling, check-in security, landing fees, etc., what did Allegiant ask for, and agree to?

3. Did Allegiant ask for anything at cost, such as fuel?

4. Did Allegiant offer to market its services or did it expect the local authority to do that on its own?

5. What did Allegiant offer as to why its service would be beneficial to the local community? Did they argue that they were simply an airline, or something beyond that, such as travel service company? Did the question discussed in this thread come up? How so?

6. Was Allegiant asked for, and did it agree to any type of guarantee of length of service? Was a fare structure offered?

7. A description of how the talks/negotiations went. Did the local authority get all of its questions answered? Was everything seemingly open, honest, and similar to other talks that the authority may have had with other airlines?

8. If service was actually begun, did actual passenger numbers match estimates? Did fares remain as orginally may have been proposed? Did service last, remain in effect, or otherwise stay as was discussed in the talks? If service ended, why?

9. What were the comments of passengers as to customer relations, and the value and quality of the service they may have received?

For what it's worth, I have nothing against Allegiant, personally, business-wise or in any regulatory matter, but it is my opinion that dealing with Allegiant is like dealing with no one else. Just interested in knowing a little more about them.


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5133 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3390 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 10):
Would $2000 spent on a family vacation to Orlando have been spent at local businesses instead (or would they have flown from somewhere else)?

They would have driven to Orlando. Much more dangerous. "Southwest Effect" actually proven, on the whole, to save a not insignificant number of lives.


User currently offlineBoeing773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 418 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 8):

Exactly, every US airline has some sort of incentive to fly to an new small/mid-sized (and even larger) airports. It may not be government subsidiary to a certain extent, but airports do offer free/reduced landing fees, help with advertisement, or cash. It just depends.

Sometimes airline's receive money from large cities to keep a hub there, or to add international flights. I believe BNA is offering European carriers incentives to open new flights.



Work Hard, Fly Right.
User currently onlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3723 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting Boeing773ER (Reply 19):
I believe BNA is offering European carriers incentives to open new flights.

IND is, too, though like BNA, they haven't been successful yet.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 18):
Quoting ScottB (Reply 10):
Would $2000 spent on a family vacation to Orlando have been spent at local businesses instead (or would they have flown from somewhere else)?

They would have driven to Orlando. Much more dangerous. "Southwest Effect" actually proven, on the whole, to save a not insignificant number of lives.

They may have driven. But in the case of FWA and many other Midwestern cities served by G4, it takes two days each way to get to Florida by car. So driving isn't an ideal option for most unless you have a megaton of time.

If G4 wasn't at FWA, people here probably would fly from somewhere else, with IND (a 2.5 hour drive from Fort Wayne) as the number one alternate pick. Which is exactly what people did prior to G4 at FWA... drive to IND. (Many still do, even with G4 at FWA, but that's a different story.)



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3796 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 15):
The end result? G4 carries a whopping 68% of the leisure passengers at FWA.
Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 15):
75% of pax from FWA fly on business

Where do those stats come from?


User currently offlineGRUIAD From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2939 times:

I am not so sure that Allegiant service to smaller communities helps those local economies. The whole Allegiant model is predicated on taking people (and their USD / CAD) from small communities to large "attraction points": Orlando, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego etc. to then spend in those regions. I am certain the capital outflows benefit the "Las Vegas" destination disproportionately compared to the "Fargo" "destination".

User currently onlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3723 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 21):

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 15):
The end result? G4 carries a whopping 68% of the leisure passengers at FWA.
Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 15):
75% of pax from FWA fly on business

Where do those stats come from?

The business/leisure travel numbers are what the airport authority here has said many times, while the G4 statistics come from looking at and splicing the monthly pax and market share figures that are posted on the airport authority's website.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11466 posts, RR: 61
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 9):
They bring Allegiant in because it benefits the local economy in a huge variety of ways.

Does it, really? I've always wondered about that rationale. To me, it would seem that giving local residents a cheap and easy way to take their money out of the local economy and spend it instead in Orlando, Las Vegas or Phoenix isn't of much local economic benefit, particularly in many of the smaller, less economically diversified markets Allegiant serves. Sure, Allegiant may generate a few marginal, incremental jobs at the outlying airports it flies to, but given its typical service pattern, I doubt it can be much in all but a few of the largest outstations.

To me, these airports would be better-served - if at all possible - trying to get air service of some sort or another to a major hub that offers connectivity to global markets, financial centers, etc.

To be clear - I'm not criticizing Allegiant (although I do have a problem with the federal subsidies it seems to benefit from) - they are simply coming in and serving markets that happily ask them to be there. I just question how much it actually benefits those markets' local economies.


User currently offlineTVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2359 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 24):

I think these small communities do this mostly because of pride. They can say, "Look we got ourselves an airline!" Economy benefit to the community is just rationalized away with the pride and warm and fuzzies of an MD80 showing up a couple of times a week. Americans love to be delusional at times.


User currently onlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3723 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2551 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 24):
To me, these airports would be better-served - if at all possible - trying to get air service of some sort or another to a major hub that offers connectivity to global markets, financial centers, etc.

Here in the Midwest, many G4 cities also see global legacy hub service. There are some that don't, like GYY, OWB, RFD, and YNG, but most do.

Here are twelve examples (all from the Midwest) from G4's 71 cities served that also have global legacy hub service:
FWA also has AA (DFW, ORD), DL (ATL, DTW, MSP), and UA (ORD)
SBN also has DL (ATL, DTW, MSP), UA (ORD), and soon F9 (DEN)
LAN (a new G4 city) also has DL (DTW, MSP) and UA (ORD), plus more G4-type service from SY
TOL also has AA (ORD)
BMI also has AA (DFW, ORD), DL (ATL, DTW, MSP), and F9 (DEN, MCO)
PIA also has AA (DFW, ORD), DL (ATL, DTW, MSP), and UA (DEN, ORD)
ATW also has DL (ATL, DTW, MSP) and UA (ORD)
LEX also has AA (DFW, ORD), DL (ATL, DTW, LGA, MSP), UA (ORD, IAH), and US (CLT)
DLH also has DL (DTW, MSP) and UA (ORD)
SGF also has AA (DFW, ORD), DL (ATL, MEM), and UA (DEN, ORD)
GRR also has AA (ORD, DFW), AC (YYZ), DL (ATL, CVG, DTW, LGA, MSP), FL/WN (BWI, MCO, RSW, TPA), F9 (DEN), and UA (CLE, DEN, EWR, IAH, ORD)
RST (another new G4 city) also has AA (ORD) and DL (MSP)



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlineMLI717fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 247 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2506 times:

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 25):

I think these small communities do this mostly because of pride. They can say, "Look we got ourselves an airline!" Economy benefit to the community is just rationalized away with the pride and warm and fuzzies of an MD80 showing up a couple of times a week. Americans love to be delusional at times.

At MLI, we have 9 hotels within a few blocks of the airport entrance. People drive in from another town, spend the night, eat dinner, and fly out the next day. This helps the local economy and the g4 focus city economy. Sure the local impact is smaller than the impact, but there is still a positive impact. Truth be told, people are always going to want to travel, so offering them the facilities to do so helps the local economy.


User currently onlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3723 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

Quoting MLI717fan (Reply 27):
At MLI, we have 9 hotels within a few blocks of the airport entrance. People drive in from another town, spend the night, eat dinner, and fly out the next day. This helps the local economy and the g4 focus city economy.

Funny you should mention hotels. The last one near FWA closed nine years ago, but there are plenty five miles away when you take Airport Expressway to I-69, and many offer shuttles to FWA.

Yet there are two other ways that haven't been mentioned where G4's presence benefits an airport. On-airport food vendors get a boost in business, as G4 has a limited BOB menu and charges for all beverages. And airports that charge for parking (like FWA) get a jolt in parking revenue.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 25):
I think these small communities do this mostly because of pride. They can say, "Look we got ourselves an airline!" Economy benefit to the community is just rationalized away with the pride and warm and fuzzies of an MD80 showing up a couple of times a week. Americans love to be delusional at times.

How about the "its about time we got an airline after spending our tax dollars building this damn airport".

I know that when I fly G4 out of SFB they are the only one there. I have never seen another airline at a gate. So, to the people in charge at SFB, it makes sense to let them fly in for free. They still get some cash flow from fuel, parking, car rentals and food. And when I fly to TRI or TYS I get a rental car and a hotel room. So I do pump $$ into the local area around the small airports.

Dan in Jupiter


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Who Of The US Airlines Is Making The Money? posted Thu Mar 10 2005 01:11:10 by FokkerVII
Is BMI Making Money? posted Wed Sep 15 2004 22:31:37 by Myk
LOT Is Still Loosing Money. posted Wed Feb 12 2003 06:59:16 by Polair
Allegiant Airways New Destination City Is? posted Wed Aug 18 2010 16:43:31 by YNGguins
Allegiant MD-80 In FLG / Is It Still There? posted Sat Jul 31 2010 08:13:47 by N9801F
FAA Safety Audit In The Philippines Is Scheduled posted Thu May 14 2009 05:33:06 by AirlineAddict
Is Your Airport Receiving Stimulus Money? posted Thu Apr 30 2009 12:10:47 by ThegreatRDU
Allegiant - New Destination Is In The West posted Wed Feb 4 2009 09:45:34 by FATFlyer
Is CO Actually Making Money Off Of Me? posted Sat Nov 29 2008 18:55:03 by Lincoln
Allegiant Is Thinking About Charging For Carry On posted Wed Oct 22 2008 15:56:54 by AWACSooner