KarlB737
Topic Author
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:15 am

I don't agree with all the charges printed in this article linked below.

"They hope the study will convince airlines to provide more flights to more destinations"

"It all goes back to the fact that we're truly underserved."

Huh, tell that to MKG & MBL. Maybe they will shed some tears.

GRR currently has flights to:

Atlanta
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Dallas
Denver
Detroit
Houston
Memphis
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New York
Washington, DC

I do agree that GRR is crippled with high costs without the existence of a low fare carrier. That they need without a doubt. But I don't see how additional flights to more destinations at high prices will help that much.

Courtesy: Grand Rapids Press

Airport Aiming To Keep Travelers Close To Home

http://www.mlive.com/grandrapids/sto...ews-38/1188474906288970.xml&coll=6
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:26 am

Quoting KarlB737 (Thread starter):
GRR currently has flights to:

Atlanta
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Dallas
Denver
Detroit
Houston
Memphis
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New York
Washington, DC

It would be nice if DL could come in and add an SLC flight to GRR. While it might not help the costs until WN or B6 see fit to give it a try, at least DL could give west Michigan some more west coast options than DEN on UA, and end the back-track to CVG or ATL.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6118
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:56 am

Just a standard leakage study that all small & mid-size airports perform on a regular basis to show that the local airport administration is doing their job. There is nothing that stands out in making this something out of the ordinary.

Granted, GRR actually ends up being a beneficiary of leakage from other airports - primarily MKG, AZO, & LAN; and to a lesser extent TVC & SBN. So they really shouldn't complain too much about leakage to DTW, ORD, and to a lesser extent FNT.

True the missing piece is a low fare carrier primarily for the leisure markets. They pretty much have a generous amount of service from the network carriers.

DL SLC-GRR - I would highly doubt it as that seems like a rather low & thin route, even too thin for a 70 seater on a regular basis.

As for the LCC's -
WN - very doubt as the proximity is too close for MDW & the market is too small to concentrate a number of frequent short haul routes. Additionally WN is not in the business of opening a station just for Florida junk-fare/low yield service.

B6 - a year or two ago I would've said possible, now under the new leadership and business plan I would say doubtful. B6 is now looking for sure-thing, easy entry, easy revenue / big markets. For the time being, GRR seems like it would require too much effort at this point to make it a success.

FL - possible at some point, but they don't want to risk canabalizing FNT & DTW stations. Plus ATL is essentially max-ed out.

Its not so much that GRR wouldn't work in some of these instances, it is just their are higher priorities & other markets that are more of a sure-thing that trump GRR.

Its very often the same story from the same types of airports ---- "We are underserved!"
 
access-air
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:06 pm

The biggest problem with that list is that most of thise cities are just MEGA Hubs for the airlines....Not a lot of O&D routes to popular Leisure destinations. maybe if Alleginat popped in there with flights to FLL PHX LAS or SFB they might bring some passengers in that might ordinarily fiunnel thru those hubs....
And like the philosophy of Allegiant, you dont fly everyday so you maximize the passenger loads. That philosophy is starting to makemore sense to me especially when it concerns the leisure traffic market.
Leisure trafiic is more fickle and inconsistant that Busniess travel whioch for the most part is steadier.
Inmy Opinion ALL airlines should look to changing their route maps to become more linear and stop relying on all htis HUB Crap for all their services. With all the problems with needing more and more miles to redem frequent flyer space, people are apt to fly on another carrier if it will save them a few dollars...Customer loyalty may be a wasy of life for some but, I will tell you that if its cheaper some place else they will go with cheaper...

Just what I thought that I would add....If its all wrong well so be it. I just thought I waould add a comment to two...

Access-Air
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airp

Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:38 pm

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 2):
WN - very doubt as the proximity is too close for MDW & the market is too small to concentrate a number of frequent short haul routes. Additionally WN is not in the business of opening a station just for Florida junk-fare/low yield service.

There are over 2.5 million people within a one hour drive of GRR. MDW is not too close. For most of those people MDW is 2.5-3.5 hours away in good traffic. WN will add a non-Detroit area Michigan destination in the next five years. The question is, will it be GRR. (Believe it or not, 3.5 million people live within one hour of LAN). Southwest's model is evolving. I think you are going to see them entering more markets with less of a resource commitment over then next 10 years. So instead of coming with 3-4 gates and 20 departures off the bat, they may to 1-2 gates with 6-12 flights per day. They need to get into some smaller, higher yielding markets as their costs rise. Plus they need to get a foothold in new markets before the other LCC's get too firmly established in them.

I think we've all been conditioned to believe that GRR is a small market that can't support LCC service to multiple destinations. The truth is that GRR is potentially a large market that LCC's have either been too preoccupied to enter or too afraid of NW. Across all demographics, GRR (and West Michigan) is larger, wealthier and more economically diverse than dozens of markets that get low fare service today. Plus, it is more isolated than many other locations. The ONLY reason people in West Michigan drive to MDW or DTW for low fare is because they have no choice. The day that and LCC shows up in GRR, you will hear a big sucking sound of traffic returning.

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 2):
FL - possible at some point, but they don't want to risk canabalizing FNT & DTW stations. Plus ATL is essentially max-ed out.

FL has avoided GRR thus far out of concern for NW's over-the-top reaction. GRR is NW's #1 connecting market through DTW. NW will fight vigorously to maintain its presence in the market. That combined with Delta's certain reaction and FL looks at a great potential market that could have a lot of bloodshed in the beginning. Thus far, FL has chosen to enter markets with slightly less competitive risk. That will change as it picks through the other low-hanging fruit. Plus the NW buy-in of YX may put FL in a feisty mood. GRR would be a strong retaliatory move.

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 3):
Inmy Opinion ALL airlines should look to changing their route maps to become more linear and stop relying on all htis HUB Crap for all their services.



Quoting Access-Air (Reply 3):
Just what I thought that I would add....If its all wrong well so be it. I just thought I waould add a comment to two...

It is all wrong.

Seriously, you may have noticed that during the bad times legacy carriers were experimenting with a lot more point-to-point flying. Over the past couple of years , most have rededicated themselves to their hubs. The result has been a return to profitability. It's not the only reason, but don't kid yourself, it's a big part of it.

[Edited 2007-09-06 15:55:57]
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6118
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:50 pm

NW does fly to Orlando MCO seasonally. Operates weekend-only during the shoulder season, daily during peak season, and does not operate during the summer.

The only real p2p routes out of GRR are to: LGA, DCA, MCO - as you mention everything else is to another airline's hub.

I agree the issue with a market like GRR for leisure desinations is the sporadic & inconsistent demand. It is not a huge market to begin with so its as if a flight to MCO, LAS, TPA, FLL, RSW, etc. could be filled every day, year-round. Even during peak season, the demand is heavily tilted to a specific 3-4 weeks during the year and even then specific days of the week.

Additionally, leisure demand to the traditional Florida markets drops to near nothing in the off-season. People in Michigan love to vacation in Michigan during the summer months, as with the Great Lakes and the nice summer temperatures its a nice place to be. Again, making it more difficult for FL to make GRR where they heavily rely on demand to leisure destinations in the Southeast.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6118
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:04 pm

Actually I agree with you even though we are sort of saying different things. I'm taking the short term perspective where you are looking for at the long term as the LCC's continue to evolve.

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 4):
There are over 2.5 million people within a one hour drive of GRR. MDW is not too close. For most of those people MDW is 2.5-3.5 hours away in good traffic

I agree, its a nasty drive, but people will do it to save a buck. For a weekend trip its not really feasible, but for 1-2 week trips and several hundred dollar savings, its worth it.

The proximity to MDW meant, that WN flying MDW-GRR is possble, however probably not going to attract a ton of O&D as that is more of a driving route. AA/UA operate GRR-ORD more or less to offer worldwide connections.

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 4):
I think you are going to see them entering more markets with less of a resource commitment over then next 10 years. So instead of coming with 3-4 gates and 20 departures off the bat, they may to 1-2 gates with 6-12 flights per day. They need to get into some smaller, higher yielding markets as their costs rise.

Under their current plan, I don't see GRR happening. If they are willing to open a station with 6-8 flights sure, but there is no way they could come in with 20+ flights and not lose money hand over fist. Something like 2-3x MDW, 1x BWI, 1x MCO, 1x TPA would be about all they could initially make work. (Which actually looks more like an FL route structure)

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 4):
That will change as it picks through the other low-hanging fruit.

Agree. Its not so much that GRR isn't bad, its more or less how it compares to larger more robust markets. As we've seen the LCC's have backed off from going into the GRR's or the MDT's for now to duke it out for marketshare in the Mega O&D markets like DEN, PHL, CLT, BWI, etc.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:07 pm

i like what the UM grad said......."if i can save $151 dollars, I'll drive 3 1/2 hours to ORD/MDW/DTW".

Lets use ORD as an example.........

So, you start saving with $151 dollars minus $50 dollars for gas, $8 for the r/t turnpike to avoid the traffic, then anywhere from $13-$26/day for parking, we'll say $13 b/c he likes to take the train in and watch the planes. For a 3 day business trip thats another $39 dollars. So now we are down to $54 saved. But of course with a driving time of almost 7 hours, he most likely will stop at Burger King in Benton Harbor on the way down for breakfast and Taco Bell in Portage, IN to have something to eat on the way home. Figure 6 dollars each meal, now he has only saved $42 dollars by driving to/from GRR to Chicago. I think saving the time spent on traveling is worth $42.
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:35 pm

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 6):
Under their current plan, I don't see GRR happening. If they are willing to open a station with 6-8 flights sure, but there is no way they could come in with 20+ flights and not lose money hand over fist. Something like 2-3x MDW, 1x BWI, 1x MCO, 1x TPA would be about all they could initially make work. (Which actually looks more like an FL route structure)

The thing is, they've pretty much only opened really large stations lately. But they have many smaller stations, and they will eventually open more. There are only so many IAD's, DEN's, SFO's and PHL's to open.

GRR is the 38th largest DMA (Designated Market Area) in the U.S. There are 1.975 million people who's PRIMARY "market" is Grand Rapids, meaning G.R. is where they shop, go to the hospital, etc... This area does not include Lansing or the Northern L.P., both of which would likely use GRR more heavily if a LCC was there. There are plenty of WN markets that are much smaller that support a lot more flying than what you are talking about.

My point is that everybody has been conditioned into thinking that GRR can't support the same degree of service that a place like Norfolk/Newport News can (which, by the way, has a DMA of 1.884 million). Now that region has a lot of Navy related traffic, to be sure..but it is supporting TWO airports with significant legacy and LCC air service. West Michigan can absolutely support one, if any LCC gets the balls to try it.

I've actually had this conversation with airline planners from all types of carriers many times. They all agree that it is an opportunity, but no one seems to want to try it first and no on seems to want to get in NW's cross hairs. Those barriers are falling though. It's only a matter of time.
 
EXAAUADL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:48 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:41 pm

GRR desperatly needs to expand then attract FL. Right now I guarantee you FNT is capturing some GRR traffic
 
access-air
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:41 pm

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 4):
Quoting Access-Air (Reply 3):
Just what I thought that I would add....If its all wrong well so be it. I just thought I waould add a comment to two...

It is all wrong.

Well gee thanks....I guess next time I'll just keep my trap shut and let everyone else micro analize it all themselves....

Access-Air
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:51 pm

so GRR loses pax to FNT, but we gain pax from AZO, so its a wash.
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 10):

Well gee thanks....I guess next time I'll just keep my trap shut and let everyone else micro analize it all themselves....

Access-Air

Aww, come on now. I put the smiley face there for a reason!

I respect your ideas, I was just giving you a more-informed point of view. There is nothing wrong with your views per se, I just don't think they are based on a complete understanding of industry and airline network dynamics. The only way you'd have that sort of understanding is if you had spent time working in the network planning areas of the industry. Anyone who hasn't had that kind of experience simply doesn't have all the tools. It's not a personal attack...just trying to add some context to the discussions.
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:51 am

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 4):
Plus the NW buy-in of YX may put FL in a feisty mood. GRR would be a strong retaliatory move.



Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 6):
The proximity to MDW meant, that WN flying MDW-GRR is possble, however probably not going to attract a ton of O&D as that is more of a driving route. AA/UA operate GRR-ORD more or less to offer worldwide connections.

Under their current plan, I don't see GRR happening. If they are willing to open a station with 6-8 flights sure, but there is no way they could come in with 20+ flights and not lose money hand over fist. Something like 2-3x MDW, 1x BWI, 1x MCO, 1x TPA would be about all they could initially make work. (Which actually looks more like an FL route structure)

If and when GRR sees an LCC, I see FL doing it. 2-3x ATL, 1x BWI, 1x MCO, perhaps seasonal to TPA, and RSW.

What about Skybus expanding into the upper Midwest? Weren't there rumors at one time? Us cheap Dutch folks in W. Michigan would just LOVE those low fares......
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
paladin87
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:41 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:41 am

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 8):
GRR is the 38th largest DMA (Designated Market Area) in the U.S. There are 1.975 million people who's PRIMARY "market" is Grand Rapids, meaning G.R. is where they shop, go to the hospital, etc... This area does not include Lansing or the Northern L.P., both of which would likely use GRR more heavily if a LCC was there. There are plenty of WN markets that are much smaller that support a lot more flying than what you are talking about.

Where did you get 1.975 million? The entire area including Holland and MKG only totals 1.088 million(with another airport in there as well. DTW is almost as close to LAN as GRR and there is no direct route from the Northern L.P. to GRR but there is an interstate to DTW and FNT as well as MBS. AZO is to the south, so you can't count that area. The area directly north is sparsely populated until you get to TVC. Maybe we had a population boom?

Quoting Tjwgrr (Reply 13):
If and when GRR sees an LCC, I see FL doing it. 2-3x ATL, 1x BWI, 1x MCO, perhaps seasonal to TPA, and RSW.

Big IF> DL can only manage 4x all CRJs, BWI has some traffic but varies drastically, MCO is good but fares are really low( I could book one right now for $248 RT). The most consistant markets, without nonstops, are CLT and PHL.
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:46 am

Quoting Paladin87 (Reply 14):
The most consistant markets, without nonstops, are CLT and PHL.

I remember seeing BOS and LAS were above CLT and PHL for total pax out of GRR.
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:05 am

i'm still surprised that we dont have service from GRR-BOS.

I believe most population numbers include AZO. Basically the same distnace as some of MKG, and with the South Beltline available, that makes it even easier for those pax coming from teh south. No longer need to travel down 44th street.
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:39 am

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 2):
DL SLC-GRR - I would highly doubt it as that seems like a rather low & thin route, even too thin for a 70 seater on a regular basis.

Keep in mind that DL has had positive results as they've tried similar sized markets (IND, CMH, BNA, MKE) in the greater region with SLC flights. CMH, BNA have even gone mainline or at least for a period of time. Don't bet against it.

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 4):
The truth is that GRR is potentially a large market that LCC's have either been too preoccupied to enter or too afraid of NW. Across all demographics, GRR (and West Michigan) is larger, wealthier and more economically diverse than dozens of markets that get low fare service today. Plus, it is more isolated than many other locations. The ONLY reason people in West Michigan drive to MDW or DTW for low fare is because they have no choice. The day that and LCC shows up in GRR, you will hear a big sucking sound of traffic returning.

 checkmark  Not everything in Michigan revolves around DTW or nearby FNT. While the northwest part of the L.P. is more sparsely populated, it does continue to grow, and GRR is an under-served airport.

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 8):
There are plenty of WN markets that are much smaller that support a lot more flying than what you are talking about.

 checkmark  GEG and BOI out here in my neck of the woods come to mind. WN is very big in both. If WN were to march into GRR and call NWs bluff, they could in all likelihood successfully serve: MDW, STL, IND, PIT, BWI, PVD, as well as MCO. If WN did seasonal service (something they WILL NOT DO) they could throw in TPA, RSW, FLL and PBI.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting Paladin87 (Reply 14):

Where did you get 1.975 million? The entire area including Holland and MKG only totals 1.088 million(with another airport in there as well. DTW is almost as close to LAN as GRR and there is no direct route from the Northern L.P. to GRR but there is an interstate to DTW and FNT as well as MBS. AZO is to the south, so you can't count that area. The area directly north is sparsely populated until you get to TVC. Maybe we had a population boom?

1.95 million is the U.S Census Bureau DMA population. It is a broader definition than a MSA in that it shows other areas "under the market influence" of the main market (Grand Rapids, in this case). Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Holland, Muskegon and many of the smaller communities in and around the region are all part of the G.R. DMA. Think of it this way...if they share TV stations, they are probably in the same DMA.

DMA's work in this context because they show where people would likely shop, eat, travel from if given appropriate options. A Kalamazoo resident is more likely to drive to GRR IF the options are superior to AZO and competitive with MDW. Grand Rapids becomes much bigger under this context, and since this is how passengers would likely respond, it is very relevant here.
 
paladin87
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:41 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:18 am

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 18):
DMA's work in this context because they show where people would likely shop, eat, travel from if given appropriate options. A Kalamazoo resident is more likely to drive to GRR IF the options are superior to AZO and competitive with MDW. Grand Rapids becomes much bigger under this context, and since this is how passengers would likely respond, it is very relevant here.

Kalamazoo and Battle creek Area are comparable in size to Grand Rapids and 50 miles away and have all the same amenities, hospitals,restaurants malls theaters and performing art complexes. There is no need to travel back and forth. They even have their own airport, with the same airlines.NWA,UAL,DAL.,AA and others (6 flights to DTW, 8, to ORD,3 to CVG1 to MSP 1 to ATL and so forth). A 50 mile drive would hardly be worth it unless the savings were sizable. The options are not superior. I use AZO as a back up only, because hassle isn't worth it.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6118
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:35 am

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 17):
Keep in mind that DL has had positive results as they've tried similar sized markets (IND, CMH, BNA, MKE) in the greater region with SLC flights

All of those markets are much larger than GRR, and also do have as many other airports inside the same general vicinitythat offer service to hub locations (LAN, AZO, MKG)

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 17):
GEG and BOI out here in my neck of the woods come to mind. WN is very big in both. If WN were to march into GRR and call NWs bluff, they could in all likelihood successfully serve: MDW, STL, IND, PIT, BWI, PVD, as well as MCO. If WN did seasonal service (something they WILL NOT DO) they could throw in TPA, RSW, FLL and PBI.

No way could WN successfully service all of those destinations. Heck, they don't even serve IND, PIT, PVD, TPA, RSW, FLL, or PBI from DTW!
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:01 pm

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 20):
No way could WN successfully service all of those destinations. Heck, they don't even serve IND, PIT, PVD, TPA, RSW, FLL, or PBI from DTW!

WN has just steered clear of Michigan in general since they steer clear of NW. Look at MSP and MEM for example. WN has just had bigger fish to fry with UA hubs for the plucking over the last couple of years and it has been a feast for them. Give them time, they'll figure out how to do combat with NW on their turf, and as Jetlanta has eluded to, "there will be a sucking sound sooner or later" since GRR is the best spot for an LCC to invade the territory.  twocents 
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
EXAAUADL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:48 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:11 pm

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 17):
GEG and BOI out here in my neck of the woods come to mind. WN is very big in both. If WN were to march into GRR and call NWs bluff, they could in all likelihood successfully serve: MDW, STL, IND, PIT, BWI, PVD, as well as MCO. If WN did seasonal service (something they WILL NOT DO) they could throw in TPA, RSW, FLL and PBI.

well i doubt WN would fly a 73G 110 miles to MDW.

If WN served GRR< they would fly to the usual suspects: MCO, BWI, PHX, LAS and they would probably want something in the middle to gice pax acces to the midwest. Tht would be tricky...BNA, STL MCI would all be a stretch.
 
airbusaddict
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:31 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:22 pm

Quote:
I don't agree with all the charges printed in this article linked below.

"They hope the study will convince airlines to provide more flights to more destinations"

"It all goes back to the fact that we're truly underserved."

Huh, tell that to MKG & MBL. Maybe they will shed some tears.

GRR currently has flights to:

Atlanta
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Dallas
Denver
Detroit
Houston
Memphis
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New York
Washington, DC

I do agree that GRR is crippled with high costs without the existence of a low fare carrier. That they need without a doubt. But I don't see how additional flights to more destinations at high prices will help that much.


If they think Grand Rapids is under served even for its size, i wouldnt be crying, look at my homeland of FSD!!!
Service:
Minneapolis
Salt Lake
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Chicago
Mesa/Phoenix
Las Vegas
Orlando

That is only maybe 28 flights a day for a population of 230,000 people.
Yes, Nine Cities, but with how much traffic we lose to WN, or any of the other airlines down at Omaha, its pretty sad...
Finally F9! FSD-DEN 7-4-2011
 
kcrwflyer
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 11:57 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:47 pm

Quoting Airbusaddict (Reply 23):
If they think Grand Rapids is under served even for its size, i wouldnt be crying, look at my homeland of FSD!!!
Service:
Minneapolis
Salt Lake
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Chicago
Mesa/Phoenix
Las Vegas
Orlando

That is only maybe 28 flights a day for a population of 230,000 people.

The metro population of FSD is 230,000 people.
The metro population of GRR is 770,000 people.



You've got 9 cities; some of which have mainline flights. A 733 is comparable to 2x crj and 1x e135. That makes an impact on your amount of daily flights. FSD is doing just fine for its population.

Of course you loose some to WN at OMA. Who isnt loosing some traffic to a LCC at another airport these days?
 
airbusaddict
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:31 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:07 pm

Mainline is: Northwest Airbus' and United 737's to Denver.

Quote:
Who isnt loosing some traffic to a LCC at another airport these days?

Uh, MSP, ATL, LAS. (of course those are major, but nothing said i was limited!)

United wants to add a possible 1 to 2 more daily flights to ORD, or else changing them to mainline from FSD-ORD, but yet, United cant add more frequencies because ORD is getting to much traffic, and it is hard for them to get slots. That means that if ORD is doing very well for FSD, they might have to do a plan B hub, and maybe give passengers a better way to get to the east coast.
Finally F9! FSD-DEN 7-4-2011
 
User avatar
tjwgrr
Posts: 2010
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2000 4:09 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:14 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 22):
well i doubt WN would fly a 73G 110 miles to MDW.

Highway miles from GRR to MDW is almost 190 and is 3+ hours road time depending on traffic.

WN flies IND-MDW which is roughly the same land distance in miles.

In the past, I've flown C8, Midway Connection, Midstate GRR-MDW for business on numerous occasions. For typically less than $200.00 r/t, driving wasn't worth the hassle. ORD isn't convenient to my business contacts, plus UA and AA have never really offered low same day fares.
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:06 pm

Quoting Paladin87 (Reply 19):

Kalamazoo and Battle creek Area are comparable in size to Grand Rapids and 50 miles away and have all the same amenities, hospitals,restaurants malls theaters and performing art complexes. There is no need to travel back and forth. They even have their own airport, with the same airlines.NWA,UAL,DAL.,AA and others (6 flights to DTW, 8, to ORD,3 to CVG1 to MSP 1 to ATL and so forth). A 50 mile drive would hardly be worth it unless the savings were sizable. The options are not superior. I use AZO as a back up only, because hassle isn't worth it.

The Kalamazoo/Battle Creek MSA is half the size of the Grand Rapids/Holland/Muskegon MSA. That is hardly "comparable". While I don't disagree that people in K'zoo and B.C. don't have to go to G.R. to eat and shop, they often do go to G.R. for those reasons and others. G.R. has more of everything to offer, better dining options, better entertainment options, better shopping options.

Regardless, the whole point I was making is that if an LCC entered GRR, the savings would be "sizable" and people would start driving from K'zoo and B.C. on a daily basis. 50 miles is nothing in this sense. In Atlanta, the commute from the northside suburbs to ATL takes longer and is less predictable than the drive from K'zoo to GRR.

I'm not saying there is much reason for people in K'zoo and B.C. to use GRR today (though they do), I'm saying that an LCC at GRR changes the game. You might be interested to know, for example, that a significant portion of the Allegiant customer base at LAN comes from west of LAN. Low fares in a low-fare starved region will have a very dramatic effect on travel patterns.
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airp

Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:18 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 22):

well i doubt WN would fly a 73G 110 miles to MDW.

If WN served GRR< they would fly to the usual suspects: MCO, BWI, PHX, LAS and they would probably want something in the middle to gice pax acces to the midwest. Tht would be tricky...BNA, STL MCI would all be a stretch.



Quoting Tjwgrr (Reply 26):
Highway miles from GRR to MDW is almost 190 and is 3+ hours road time depending on traffic.

WN flies IND-MDW which is roughly the same land distance in miles.

In the past, I've flown C8, Midway Connection, Midstate GRR-MDW for business on numerous occasions. For typically less than $200.00 r/t, driving wasn't worth the hassle. ORD isn't convenient to my business contacts, plus UA and AA have never really offered low same day fares.

I completely agree with Tjwgrr on this point. The drive is a complete pain in the a**. There is huge untapped O&D demand in this market as Chicago is G.R.'s big sister city. My conversations with WN folks of late indicate that they are performing much stronger in short and medium haul markets and will be focusing more on those routes for the foreseeable future. I think MDW-GRR is the first market they fly if they end up at GRR.

I do agree that those other usual suspects will be on the short list as well. MCO, BWI, PHX and LAS would all be very strong markets for WN. All are among the region's top booked O&D's, even without low-fare service. It will be fascinating to see what sort of stimulation occurs in the outstate MI market when an LCC shows up. Remember what happened when Indy Air went to LAN? That sort of stimulation was the tip of the iceberg because NW will throw down the gauntlet in GRR.
 
CitrusCritter
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:36 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:39 pm

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 28):

FL could open it up in PWM style. Say MDW, BWI, and MCO. That would offer 1 stop connections to most major destinations in the system. I'm imagining the O&D between GRR and MLI is probably not worrying about. And gradually if the market performs, open the Usual Suspects.
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:51 pm

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 29):
FL could open it up in PWM style. Say MDW, BWI, and MCO. That would offer 1 stop connections to most major destinations in the system. I'm imagining the O&D between GRR and MLI is probably not worrying about. And gradually if the market performs, open the Usual Suspects.

Oh I think if FL comes to GRR, ATL is definitely first. But there is no reason to think that they couldn't replicate the CAK sort of network at GRR.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6118
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:00 pm

I agree that if an LCC were to come to GRR, based on how they are running their businesses today, FL would make the most logical sense. Until WN changes how they approach mid-sized communities in an area outside of their strongholds, the ability to make GRR work is limited.

FL has demonstrated how they can make markets work with 4-8 daily flights that focus on the primary leisure routes.

WN has not shown that recently as they have been reluncant to come into any market recently with less than 10 dailies or without a plan to get to near 20 fligths in short order. Plus, they have backed off of their tendancy to fly cyclical leisure routes from mid-sized northern destinations to Florida. Hourly MDW-GRR service is not in the cards.

I think its only a matter of time until FL shows up at GRR. I just don't think that GRR is going to be some massive LCC focus city. Again 4-8 flights per day is about what the city could handle right now. Right now FL is in a holding pattern it seems, no real expansion, and they have been cutting back on their non-ATL or non-Florida flights.
 
KarlB737
Topic Author
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:19 pm

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 28):
That sort of stimulation was the tip of the iceberg because NW will throw down the gauntlet in GRR.

As they have at FNT but AirTran has for the most part remained firm.
 
FWAERJ
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:23 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:41 pm

Couldn't Allegiant add 2-4x weekly service to leisure destinations out of GRR? Or is GRR "too big" of a city for them?
"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airp

Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:53 pm

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 31):
I think its only a matter of time until FL shows up at GRR. I just don't think that GRR is going to be some massive LCC focus city. Again 4-8 flights per day is about what the city could handle right now. Right now FL is in a holding pattern it seems, no real expansion, and they have been cutting back on their non-ATL or non-Florida flights.

I agree that FL will show up eventually. I disagree that the city can only handle 4-8 flights today. Granted that is what they would start with, as is prudent. But there is latent demand in GRR for significantly more LCC service than 4-8 flights.

Here is some perspective...OKC which has a slightly smaller MSA at about 1.1 million (and doesn't have the nearby 500K LAN and 500K AZO MSA's) supports over 22 daily flights from WN and F9.

Plus, West Michigan actually has the potential to attract seasonal leisure travel. With the right product and price, Michigan's "West Coast" could become an attractive inbound destination. OKC doesn't have anything like that.

So i clearly think that GRR could someday be nice size LCC market. You can't grow it without the appropriate product, though.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6118
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:45 am

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 34):
Here is some perspective...OKC which has a slightly smaller MSA at about 1.1 million (and doesn't have the nearby 500K LAN and 500K AZO MSA's) supports over 22 daily flights from WN and F9.

True.

Although OKC has a much more defined catchment area with one single airport. GRR is a lot less more defined with GRR, AZO, MKG, LAN and to a lesser extent SBN all going after a piece of the pie, not to mention those who will continue to drive to DTW & ORD/MDW.

Plus OKC is right in the middle of WN's sweet spot and they also have been in the market for a long time.

It just seems like the southern half of Michigan's lower penisula has several mid-sized airports all with in a relatively close proximity of each other. More so than many other states.
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:59 am

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 35):
It just seems like the southern half of Michigan's lower penisula has several mid-sized airports all with in a relatively close proximity of each other. More so than many other states.

Many of these cities in Michigan have been large since prior to the advent of the interstate highway system in the mid-late 1950s, so hence the development of airports previously. Ohio has similar issues with the proximity of CVG, DAY, CMH with IND being nearby etc..., but the LCC's have come in there and have figured out how to play the population.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:04 am

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 35):
It just seems like the southern half of Michigan's lower penisula has several mid-sized airports all with in a relatively close proximity of each other. More so than many other states.

And, several other airports in the same area have had airline service in the past. Benton Harbor and Battle Creek were served by regional airlines after deregulation. These two airports, plus Jackson, Pontiac, and Port Huron, were also served by North Central before deregulation.

In the late 1960's, there was a plan to replace both AZO and Battle Creek with a new airport between the two cities. I believe voters refused to approve the planned "Western Michigan Regional Airport", so it was never built. I still think air service in that part of the state would be better if the airport had been built, because a lot of the passengers from Battle Creek, Marshall, Albion, etc who are driving to DTW would have been enough closer to the new airport than they are to AZO that they would have used it instead of DTW.
Seaholm Maples are #1!
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:04 am

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 35):
It just seems like the southern half of Michigan's lower penisula has several mid-sized airports all with in a relatively close proximity of each other. More so than many other states.

And, several other airports in the same area have had airline service in the past. Benton Harbor and Battle Creek were served by regional airlines after deregulation. These two airports, plus Jackson, Pontiac, and Port Huron, were also served by North Central before deregulation.

In the late 1960's, there was a plan to replace both AZO and Battle Creek with a new airport between the two cities. I believe voters refused to approve the planned "Western Michigan Regional Airport", so it was never built. I still think air service in that part of the state would be better if the airport had been built, because a lot of the passengers from Battle Creek, Marshall, Albion, etc who are driving to DTW would have been enough closer to the new airport than they are to AZO that they would have used it instead of DTW.
Seaholm Maples are #1!
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3407
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:20 am

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 38):
In the late 1960's, there was a plan to replace both AZO and Battle Creek with a new airport between the two cities. I believe voters refused to approve the planned "Western Michigan Regional Airport", so it was never built. I still think air service in that part of the state would be better if the airport had been built, because a lot of the passengers from Battle Creek, Marshall, Albion, etc who are driving to DTW would have been enough closer to the new airport than they are to AZO that they would have used it instead of DTW.

That was also at the same time that GRR (then known as Kent County International airport) was approved and the south central city airport was replaced (now an industrial park). They have since added a second north/south runway to GRR. If I recall correctly Battle Creek didn't like the plan since it was too close to Kalamazoo.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6118
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:23 am

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 37):
Western Michigan Regional Airport", so it was never built. I still think air service in that part of the state would be better if the airport had been built, because a lot of the passengers from Battle Creek, Marshall, Albion, etc who are driving to DTW would have been enough closer to the new airport than they are to AZO that they would have used it instead of DTW.

I agree. In reality, a "Western Michigan Regional" would arguably have more draw and more service by consolidating some of the service into a single, more centrally located facility. Possibly more attractive to additional / LCC service.
Same could be said for a "Mid-Michigan Regional" for FNT-MBS-LAN. Although FNT is in a prime location to steal traffic from the northern suburbs of Detroit, a perfect sweet spot at the junction of I-75/I-69/US-23. MBS is increasingly finding in more difficult to maintain & attract service due to the huge amount of leakage to FNT & the stagnant regional economy. LAN is more or less necessary due to the state capital, MSU, and local industry, but struggles again with leisure / low fare leakage to FNT - for LCC service, GRR - for additional service offerings, and DTW - for nonstops & cheap fares.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 36):
Many of these cities in Michigan have been large since prior to the advent of the interstate highway system in the mid-late 1950s, so hence the development of airports previously. Ohio has similar issues with the proximity of CVG, DAY, CMH with IND being nearby etc..., but the LCC's have come in there and have figured out how to play the population.

True, the Michigan cities had service prior to deregulation and also when many of those town were a lot more prosperous than they are today (Jackson, Benton Harbor, Battle Creek). Michigan is truly in a one-state recession right now. Granted the GRR area has fared better than most of the state, but economic growth in the state right now is minimal, which stinks.

DAY & CVG have a similar relationship like DTW & FNT. Although DTW has LCC service wheras CVG does not. CMH & IND are all larger and farther apart that the cities in the West side & middle of Michigan's lower peninsula.
 
EXAAUADL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:48 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:26 am

Quoting Tjwgrr (Reply 26):
Highway miles from GRR to MDW is almost 190 and is 3+ hours road time depending on traffic.

Didnt WN drop ISP-PVD? How many road miles is that?
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:30 am

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 35):

It just seems like the southern half of Michigan's lower penisula has several mid-sized airports all with in a relatively close proximity of each other. More so than many other states.

True, but the dynamic clearly changes if an LCC moves in. AZO and LAN will likely suffer further degradation of their leisure business.
 
KarlB737
Topic Author
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 31):
Until WN changes how they approach mid-sized communities in an area outside of their strongholds, the ability to make GRR work is limited.

PSU.DTW.SCE I have a question for you. If and I mean if in a hypothetical scenario WN came into GRR and offered a "limited" (using your word) service to ascertain demand, profitability etc., and that service was ONLY GRR to MDW with return flights how could that lose in this specific market?

1. This could be a good start at dealing with the low-fare issue.
2. It would deal with the concern of passenger leakage.
3. How much would it really cost Southwest for this limited service when you WEIGH the fact that the population clearly wants those low fares and the demand for the flights would probably exceed the costs encountered.
4. No other low-fare carrier at GRR.

Agree or disagree if you wish...........
 
CitrusCritter
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:36 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:37 am

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 40):
Michigan is truly in a one-state recession right now.

Michigan is also bleeding population. It's not unique to Michigan as several northern states are, but it's also a consideration and perhaps restraining an economic turnaround.
 
DTWAGENT
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:16 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:54 am

GRR is growing at a slow pace. But, remember GRR did have flights to DEN on UA before 9/11. Also let us not forget that NWA also has flights to MSP. And in the winter months they are or where flying to RSW, FLL, MCO, TPA. Now I don't know if that will happen again this winter or not. GRR also has Charter flights for tour companies too. So I would not worry about any leakage. Everyone is right, they need a LLC to come in to help reduce the prices. I have many clients in West Michigan and they fly out of GRR all the time.

Chuck
 
paladin87
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:41 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:09 am

GRR to MDW is a very short route only 136miles, you could drive it in less time considering all the hassles of flying these days, Even with gas as high as it is thats only about $18 each way.
Also Increased flying out of GRR would need to come from existing Airlines because they have all the facilities. It is a small terminal with only 8 jetways, only NWA has more than one. Everybody else crams 2 or three planes into one gate area, On a good day security has both lanes open. The airport is building a multi million dollar steel and glass parking garage for some so called pent-up demand with airlines dropping routes. AA just stop GRR-LGA this week, CO has reduced EWR and IAH to 2 flts a day. The airport is just making noise and trying to justify building news facilities.
 
acvitale
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 8:25 am

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:56 am

If GRR is truly serious about wanting new service and additional markets it is easy to get.

All the political powers, airport authority and citizens need to do is place a revenue guarentee offer in place.

Traditionally, LCCs like FL respond well to the revenue guarantee model.

Unlike my recent comments on BNA which I think is ideally supported. I think GRR is underserved.

GRR could use addl service seasonally in the winter to the SE and Florida markets.

GRR could use addl service seasonally in the summer to the NE, Mid-Atlantic, Mid South, and Southwest.

Ideally a carrier like FL could offer service to ATL, FLL, TPA, MCO and possibly PBI, RSW. Of course I think that one step at a time would be 2-3x daily FL to ATL and 1x daily to TPA or MCO would make a lot of sense
 
jkarp2112
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:20 pm

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airp

Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:56 am

If WN started GRR-MDW I'd name my first born "Southwest"...AA and UA to ORD are priced waaay too high to ORD. TZ used to service GRR-MDW but no more. I'm sure some LCC would be there already if it was a great market. So someone has to get the "grapes" to take on NW/AA/UA.

And flying from GRR to MDW/ORD is far, far better then the unpredictable drive. Even Amtrak has bad days and takes 5+ hours to Chicago.

And come on GRR - quit holding your prices so high and make things attractive !!
 
KarlB737
Topic Author
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: GRR Looking At Passenger Leakage To Other Airports

Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:09 am

Quoting Paladin87 (Reply 46):
GRR to MDW is a very short route only 136miles, you could drive it in less time

However these gentlemen disagree:

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 7):
So, you start saving with $151 dollars minus $50 dollars for gas, $8 for the r/t turnpike to avoid the traffic, then anywhere from $13-$26/day for parking, we'll say $13 b/c he likes to take the train in and watch the planes. For a 3 day business trip thats another $39 dollars. So now we are down to $54 saved. But of course with a driving time of almost 7 hours, he most likely will stop at Burger King in Benton Harbor on the way down for breakfast and Taco Bell in Portage, IN to have something to eat on the way home. Figure 6 dollars each meal, now he has only saved $42 dollars by driving to/from GRR to Chicago. I think saving the time spent on traveling is worth $42.



Quoting Tjwgrr (Reply 26):
In the past, I've flown C8, Midway Connection, Midstate GRR-MDW for business on numerous occasions. For typically less than $200.00 r/t, driving wasn't worth the hassle.



Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 28):
The drive is a complete pain in the a**.

Again it seems that the missing element initially could be a low-fare flight to MDW from GRR. As far as the automobile drive to Chicago goes has anybody taken into consideration Michigan winter driving and "lake effect" snow?

Tywgrr could enlighten us all as to the loads on Chicago Express when this very flight existed. Ty how was the demand for that specific service?