Indy wrote:Is expansion really necessary in the next 5 years? 10 years? Yes and no. If you went by the way the airport looks at 7am you would say absolutely. The terminal is at capacity when it comes to morning operations. So naturally that means it is at capacity at night. But that leaves a lot of open space. Being a spoke means you face some of the same problems a banked hub faces. You have periods where your airport is a zoo and periods where your airport is dead. Can IND justify expansion to allow more room for service during those banks while the rest of the time the place is quiet? How do you fill that dead space to allow passenger numbers to climb without having to invest in expansion?
One thing worth remembering is that IND was designed for six smaller legacies, which generally needed more counter space and gates than the three large legacies we have now. Changes in corporate structure and technology have changed space needs.
Indy wrote:Jshank83 wrote:BNA's incentives are capped at 2 mil for the LHR flight. I don't know if that is a per year number or over multi years number.
If that is the case then it really makes no sense that they get the service ahead of IND. Unless of course the announcement is still coming and they happened to announce that one first for whatever reason. Maybe because of the leak? I still think IND is going to get AMS but just based on the numbers IND should have gotten LHR ahead of BNA.
The BNA cash subsidy is $1 million this year and $500,000 in announced cash next year. None of that renews automatically. There's also a separate $500,000 loss guarantee and $500,000 in marketing and landing fee assistance that, for the moment, will end after two years.