Here are the number of passengers, number of seats, and load factors out of CVG in February 2021 (broken down by airline):
AA mainline - 10547 passengers, 14550 seats, 72.49% load factor
MQ - 31819 passengers, 48712 seats, 65.32% load factor
OH - 30535 passengers, 51384 seats, 59.43% load factor
PT - 167 passengers, 500 seats, 33.40% load factor
AA mainline/MQ/OH/PT - 73068 passengers, 115146 seats, 63.46% load factor

DL mainline - 127831 passengers, 294061 seats, 43.47% load factor
9E - 45136 passengers, 97656 seats, 46.22% load factor
DL mainline/9E - 172967 passengers, 391717 seats, 44.16% load factor

UA mainline - 4498 passengers, 6132 seats, 73.35% load factor
G7 - 9576 passengers, 13350 seats, 71.73% load factor
YV (as United Express) - 11175 passengers, 18900 seats, 59.13% load factor
ZW - 2407 passengers, 2950 seats, 81.59% load factor
UA mainline/G7/YV/ZW - 27656 passengers, 33607 seats, 82.29% load factor

OO - 18214 passengers, 27860 seats, 65.38% load factor
YX - 9772 passengers, 15320 seats, 63.79% load factor

F9 - 71770 passengers, 107064 seats, 67.03% load factor
G4 - 94360 passengers, 174654 seats, 54.03% load factor
WN - 38265 passengers, 94694 seats, 40.41% load factor

Here are the number of passengers, number of seats, and load factors out of CMH/LCK in February 2021 (broken down by airline):
AA mainline - 34945 passengers, 75924 seats, 46.03% load factor
MQ - 23116 passengers, 34800 seats, 66.43% load factor
OH - 5052 passengers, 8504 seats, 59.41% load factor
PT - 939 passengers, 1500 seats, 62.60% load factor
AA mainline/MQ/OH/PT - 64052 passengers, 115146 seats, 55.63% load factor

DL mainline - 45656 passengers, 95258 seats, 47.93% load factor
9E - 11487 passengers, 26705 seats, 43.01% load factor
DL mainline/9E - 57143 passengers, 121963 seats, 46.85% load factor

UA mainline - 4363 passengers, 8412 seats, 51.87% load factor
C5 - 84 passengers, 100 seats, 84.00% load factor
G7 - 8156 passengers, 10500 seats, 77.68% load factor
YV (as United Express) - 8431 passengers, 13790 seats, 61.14% load factor
ZW - 426 passengers, 600 seats, 71.00% load factor
UA mainline/C5/G7/YV/ZW - 21460 passengers, 33402 seats, 64.25% load factor

OO - 10912 passengers, 16364 seats, 66.68% load factor
YX - 69597 passengers, 134604 seats, 51.71% load factor

AS - 3401 passengers, 8220 seats, 41.37% load factor
F9 - 7228 passengers, 11244 seats, 64.28% load factor
G4 - 24702 passengers, 35472 seats, 69.64% load factor
NK - 44418 passengers, 59403 seats, 74.77% load factor
WN - 143413 passengers, 222314 seats, 64.51% load factor

Does anyone know if Delta intends to return to CAK, now that a higher percentage of travelers are returning?

Amazon started a second route out of TOL. AFW-TOL-AFW is the new route

Delta28L wrote:

Amazon started a second route out of TOL. AFW-TOL-AFW is the new route

Good for TOL. It pales it comparison to the freight peak a decade or so ago, but I'm happy to hear of any gains made by what I consider my hometown airport.

tys777 wrote:

Delta28L wrote:

Amazon started a second route out of TOL. AFW-TOL-AFW is the new route

Good for TOL. It pales it comparison to the freight peak a decade or so ago, but I'm happy to hear of any gains made by what I consider my hometown airport.

Agreed. Really nice to see incremental increases in flight activity at TOL.

In other Ohio airport cargo news, looks like Trinity Logistics has brought another new entrant into LCK - this time Turkish Airlines:

https://aircargoworld.com/news/carriers ... r-service/

The domestic 767-300 out of CVG runs CVG-ATL from July 7-September 7th and then CDG comes back on the 8th and domestic 76 service stops. Glad to have the 76 back!

Let’s talk trains for a moment, specifically the planned Amtrak “3C” expansion. If you haven’t seen the plans, here they are: https://twitter.com/tomwsyx6/status/139 ... 21344?s=21

IMO this is welcome and long overdue, but I raise it here because it is interesting to consider potential impact on Ohio airports if it comes to fruition. You’ll note that trains are planned 3x/day and there is currently a CLE stop planned.

The impact on domestic travel, I believe is likely to be negligible. CLE and CMH have pretty similar route coverage and no one is taking a two hour train journey to Cleveland for a nonstop they could catch at CMH, even for a better fare. There may be a few passengers from midway points (like Mansfield) who might opt for the convenience of parking for free at their local Amtrak station and taking the train to CLE rather than driving and paying for parking at CMH, but this will probably be a tiny number in the grand scheme of things.

However, if I’m CRAA, I’m pushing HARD for a CMH stop to be added to the plan if I’m thinking about future international service. I would never take the train to CLE for domestic service, but I could absolutely be lured if CLE gains European flights again in the future, at the expense of a more lengthy connecting flight from CMH (where I will have to pay for parking). I would think CMH would want to be able to lure passengers from CLE or CVG if they found themselves gaining TATL service. There are existing tracks running just south of CMH into the arena district and this tiny detour seems absolutely worth it from a CMH perspective, before the train heads north. I wonder if these conversations are occurring?

Similarly, I’d be interested in hearing from DAY folks whether they think an Amtrak stop at their airport would be feasible/worthwhile along the corridor.

CMHtraveler, I agree wholeheartedly, I would gladly take a train a long way for the right flight, but the speed would have to be in the ballpark-- I don't think it was when this was proposed when Kasich first took office. If the CCC corridor is a 6 hour affair, forget about it. Even 6 hours may be an optimistic dream-- CLE to DC Amtrak route-- a 6 hour drive at most, takes 12 hours on Amtrak. And by the way this ain't Switzerland-- amtrak has to compete with freight for track space so it does not have a good record of reliability-- that's a deal breaker too.

And yeah negligible impact on air travel. Granted Ohio isn't a large state area wise, but Ohio has to be the largest population state with the least amount of in state commercial flying there is. So no competition there between air and rail that is for sure.

CMH gets 5 Breeze routes, just announced. CAK gets 3.

CMH-MSY/TPA/CHS/ORF/BDL
CAK-TPA/MSY/CHS

Flights begin June 26 at CAK and July 3 at CMH. Did not see that coming.

That's pretty awesome! Glad to have another airline at CMH!

CMHtraveler wrote:

CMH gets 5 Breeze routes, just announced. CAK gets 3.

CMH-MSY/TPA/CHS/ORF/BDL
CAK-TPA/MSY/CHS

Flights begin June 26 at CAK and July 3 at CMH. Did not see that coming.

Count me in that crowd. I figured CAK and would have thought DAY over CMH...

CMHtraveler wrote:

CMH gets 5 Breeze routes, just announced. CAK gets 3.

CMH-MSY/TPA/CHS/ORF/BDL
CAK-TPA/MSY/CHS

Flights begin June 26 at CAK and July 3 at CMH. Did not see that coming.

Count me pretty surprised as well... I would think they are going out of the lower C Gates (47?).... Any word on this?

brooklynchris13 wrote:

CMHtraveler wrote:

CMH gets 5 Breeze routes, just announced. CAK gets 3.

CMH-MSY/TPA/CHS/ORF/BDL
CAK-TPA/MSY/CHS

Flights begin June 26 at CAK and July 3 at CMH. Did not see that coming.

Count me pretty surprised as well... I would think they are going out of the lower C Gates (47?).... Any word on this?

Yeah, wow, I didn't see CMH coming, either. I figured CAK, DAY, and maybe TOL as a longshot. Still, given they're serving CAK and PIT, maybe CMH and DAY can work later. CMH-BDL could be a diamond in the rough. The old insurance shuttle bus returns (and at least one of Neeleman's creations realizes CMH exists!).

Start dates from CMH:
-MSY- 7/16
-TPA- 7/3
-CHS- 7/8
-ORF- 7/22
-BDL- 7/22

As for gate speculation, C47 has F9 signage. B36, C48, and C50 are city gates which could be ones to watch. I'll be at CMH next week and see if I can see anything on C (say that five times fast).

edit- Seems Breeze did well by CMH- most of their "spokes" (given CHS, TPA, and MSY are their focus cities) got 2-3 routes a piece, but CMH gets 5.

BZ adding CVG-BDL/SAT nonstop service might be a possibility if BZ enters the CVG market with BDL and SAT being two of the top domestic destinations that are no longer served nonstop from CVG.

BZ can also operate CVG-BDL/SAT with 108-seat E190 planes, whereas WN would need to use 143-seat 737-700's or larger planes, G4 would need to use 156-seat A319's or larger planes, and F9 would need to use 180-seat A320's or larger planes to serve BDL and SAT nonstop from CVG.

The average load factors of F9 CVG-SAT nonstop service was 74.44% in 2018, but BZ might be able to get better load factors on CVG-SAT than F9 did once demand recovers if BZ adds CVG-SAT nonstop service with BZ being able to use smaller planes to serve SAT nonstop from CVG.

jplatts wrote:

BZ adding CVG-BDL/SAT nonstop service might be a possibility if BZ enters the CVG market with BDL and SAT being two of the top domestic destinations that are no longer served nonstop from CVG.

BZ can also operate CVG-BDL/SAT with 108-seat E190 planes, whereas WN would need to use 143-seat 737-700's or larger planes, G4 would need to use 156-seat A319's or larger planes, and F9 would need to use 180-seat A320's or larger planes to serve BDL and SAT nonstop from CVG.

The average load factors of F9 CVG-SAT nonstop service was 74.44% in 2018, but BZ might be able to get better load factors on CVG-SAT than F9 did once demand recovers if BZ adds CVG-SAT nonstop service with BZ being able to use smaller planes to serve SAT nonstop from CVG.

Might be better to pull numbers for DAY as, given they're starting CAK presumably to serve Cleveland, I'm guessing they'll serve Cincinnati through DAY and SDF.

DeltaRules wrote:

brooklynchris13 wrote:

CMHtraveler wrote:

CMH gets 5 Breeze routes, just announced. CAK gets 3.

CMH-MSY/TPA/CHS/ORF/BDL
CAK-TPA/MSY/CHS

Flights begin June 26 at CAK and July 3 at CMH. Did not see that coming.

Count me pretty surprised as well... I would think they are going out of the lower C Gates (47?).... Any word on this?

Yeah, wow, I didn't see CMH coming, either. I figured CAK, DAY, and maybe TOL as a longshot. Still, given they're serving CAK and PIT, maybe CMH and DAY can work later. CMH-BDL could be a diamond in the rough. The old insurance shuttle bus returns (and at least one of Neeleman's creations realizes CMH exists!).

Start dates from CMH:
-MSY- 7/16
-TPA- 7/3
-CHS- 7/8
-ORF- 7/22
-BDL- 7/22

As for gate speculation, C47 has F9 signage. B36, C48, and C50 are city gates which could be ones to watch. I'll be at CMH next week and see if I can see anything on C (say that five times fast).

edit- Seems Breeze did well by CMH- most of their "spokes" (given CHS, TPA, and MSY are their focus cities) got 2-3 routes a piece, but CMH gets 5.

Thanks Delta Rules, I guess B36 is a possible, but with that gate already used by NK and, occasionally, AA and UA I think one more might be a stretch. I guess the big clue will be where their counter space ends up being. My guess there is that they take some of F9s ticket counter area. Good point on the old insurance company shuttle-- but BDL is so well positioned to serve much of New England it may grab some tourist stuff as well. I will be interested to see if BZ captures any corporate travel (when it returns) or if that is even a goal of theirs.

DeltaRules wrote:

Might be better to pull numbers for DAY as, given they're starting CAK presumably to serve Cleveland, I'm guessing they'll serve Cincinnati through DAY and SDF.

While SAT has never been served nonstop from DAY (at least in recent years), DAY-SAT demand was at its peak in Q3 2013 (at least in the last 25 years) with the PDEW of DAY-SAT being 68 passengers/day in Q2 2013.

While the PDEW of DAY-BDL has never exceeded 28 passengers/day in the last 25 years, the PDEW of CVG-BDL was 78 passengers/day 15 years ago, but that was back when DL had a hub at CVG. The PDEW's of CVG-BDL were higher in 2017, 2018, and 2019 than in 2016 with some passengers connecting to BWI from CVG on WN subsequent to WN's entry into CVG in 2017. DL also still had nonstop service to BDL from CVG until the COVID-19 pandemic hit last year.

While DAY doesn't have any nonstop service to TPA, G4 already has less-than-daily nonstop service to PIE in the Tampa Bay Area from DAY.

BOS, IAH, LAS, LAX, PHX, SAN, SFO, and SEA are top destinations traveled to from DAY in 2019 that don't currently have any nonstop service from DAY, but DAY-BOS nonstop service could be added by AA or DL, DAY-IAH nonstop service could be re-added by UA, and DAY-PHX nonstop service could be added by AA.

I can understand LAS, LAX, SAN, SFO, and SEA not having nonstop service from DAY with the limited amount of O&D demand that is there to these destinations from DAY, along with the fact that DAY-LAS/LAX/SAN/SFO/SEA nonstop service would require mainline aircraft. On the other hand, DAY-BOS/IAH are both within the range of regional jets and DAY-PHX is likely within the range of E-175 regional jets. There is also daily nonstop service to LAS, LAX, and SEA from both CVG and CMH.

The PDEW of DAY-CHS was only 12 passengers/day in 2019, but DAY is near CVG and LCK that already have less-than-daily nonstop service to CHS on G4. CVG also has much stronger demand to CHS than DAY does.

The PDEW of DAY-MSY was only 15 passengers/day in 2019, but DAY is near CVG and CMH that already have nonstop service to MSY.

brooklynchris13 wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

brooklynchris13 wrote:

Count me pretty surprised as well... I would think they are going out of the lower C Gates (47?).... Any word on this?

Yeah, wow, I didn't see CMH coming, either. I figured CAK, DAY, and maybe TOL as a longshot. Still, given they're serving CAK and PIT, maybe CMH and DAY can work later. CMH-BDL could be a diamond in the rough. The old insurance shuttle bus returns (and at least one of Neeleman's creations realizes CMH exists!).

Start dates from CMH:
-MSY- 7/16
-TPA- 7/3
-CHS- 7/8
-ORF- 7/22
-BDL- 7/22

As for gate speculation, C47 has F9 signage. B36, C48, and C50 are city gates which could be ones to watch. I'll be at CMH next week and see if I can see anything on C (say that five times fast).

edit- Seems Breeze did well by CMH- most of their "spokes" (given CHS, TPA, and MSY are their focus cities) got 2-3 routes a piece, but CMH gets 5.

Thanks Delta Rules, I guess B36 is a possible, but with that gate already used by NK and, occasionally, AA and UA I think one more might be a stretch. I guess the big clue will be where their counter space ends up being. My guess there is that they take some of F9s ticket counter area. Good point on the old insurance company shuttle-- but BDL is so well positioned to serve much of New England it may grab some tourist stuff as well. I will be interested to see if BZ captures any corporate travel (when it returns) or if that is even a goal of theirs.

I'm not sure how it works with airlines co-locating at a gate where one airline has priority/signatory/whatever term you want to use access. I know pre-COVID, DL would use C49 for RONs even though it had AS signage, though that might've been feasible because AS only has one flight a day in/out. (There's a monitor on the other side of the gate which had the standard "Thank You For Flying Delta" screen one night when I came in.)

Do we know the frequency yet to each destination? I highly doubt TOL would ever get this kind of service. They bleed way too many people up to DTW and TOL barely even advertises they have an airport.

DeltaRules wrote:

brooklynchris13 wrote:

CMHtraveler wrote:

CMH gets 5 Breeze routes, just announced. CAK gets 3.

CMH-MSY/TPA/CHS/ORF/BDL
CAK-TPA/MSY/CHS

Flights begin June 26 at CAK and July 3 at CMH. Did not see that coming.

Count me pretty surprised as well... I would think they are going out of the lower C Gates (47?).... Any word on this?

Yeah, wow, I didn't see CMH coming, either. I figured CAK, DAY, and maybe TOL as a longshot. Still, given they're serving CAK and PIT, maybe CMH and DAY can work later. CMH-BDL could be a diamond in the rough. The old insurance shuttle bus returns (and at least one of Neeleman's creations realizes CMH exists!).

Start dates from CMH:
-MSY- 7/16
-TPA- 7/3
-CHS- 7/8
-ORF- 7/22
-BDL- 7/22

As for gate speculation, C47 has F9 signage. B36, C48, and C50 are city gates which could be ones to watch. I'll be at CMH next week and see if I can see anything on C (say that five times fast).

edit- Seems Breeze did well by CMH- most of their "spokes" (given CHS, TPA, and MSY are their focus cities) got 2-3 routes a piece, but CMH gets 5.

CMHARJ wrote:

Do we know the frequency yet to each destination? I highly doubt TOL would ever get this kind of service. They bleed way too many people up to DTW and TOL barely even advertises they have an airport.

DeltaRules wrote:

brooklynchris13 wrote:

Count me pretty surprised as well... I would think they are going out of the lower C Gates (47?).... Any word on this?

Yeah, wow, I didn't see CMH coming, either. I figured CAK, DAY, and maybe TOL as a longshot. Still, given they're serving CAK and PIT, maybe CMH and DAY can work later. CMH-BDL could be a diamond in the rough. The old insurance shuttle bus returns (and at least one of Neeleman's creations realizes CMH exists!).

Start dates from CMH:
-MSY- 7/16
-TPA- 7/3
-CHS- 7/8
-ORF- 7/22
-BDL- 7/22

As for gate speculation, C47 has F9 signage. B36, C48, and C50 are city gates which could be ones to watch. I'll be at CMH next week and see if I can see anything on C (say that five times fast).

edit- Seems Breeze did well by CMH- most of their "spokes" (given CHS, TPA, and MSY are their focus cities) got 2-3 routes a piece, but CMH gets 5.

I've looked into the CMH-CHS inaugural and it's 4x/week for the next few months.

Looks like Breeze might've been at least partly tied into the JobsOhio air service fund:

https://twitter.com/GovMikeDeWine/statu ... -launch%2F

Another poster mentiond TOL should offer free parking. I agree. An LCC can pitch TOL as Toledo/Detroit and draw lots of traffic from DTW.
Also, MFD is only an hour drive from CLE, CAK, and CMH. Somebody could print money there if they have low fares and free parking.

DeltaRules wrote:

Looks like Breeze might've been at least partly tied into the JobsOhio air service fund:

https://twitter.com/GovMikeDeWine/statu ... -launch%2F

This may be a controversial opinion but I really hope a bunch of the JobsOhio money wasn’t spent on Breeze at CMH. While it’s neat another airline is coming, 4 of the 5 routes are already served in some capacity from Columbus (TPA - NK,WN, ORF - G4, MSY - NK, and CHS - G4/UA). Is it worth subsidizing a risky startup for 2x weekly service to BDL?

I would rather the money be spent making some of these existing routes year-round, or better yet, restarting LAX on AA, SLC on DL, or SFO on UA. Just my 2 cents.

Echoing the sentiment of most, I didn't anticipate CMH to be on the list of initial Breeze destinations. Hopeful yes, but not expecting. I'm certainly glad BZ chose CMH and is starting off with so many cities. It looks flights will be scheduled as follows:

BDL: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 0900/Arriving CMH at 1240
CHS: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 2120/Arriving CMH at 2050
ORF: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 1310/Arriving CMH at 0830
MSY: Mon/Fri - Departing CMH at 1125/ Arriving CMH at 1055
TPA: Sun - Departing CMH at 12:15/ Arriving CMH at 1145

This airline is giving me some Skybus nightmare premonitions: highly touted by the city and state with subsidies thrown at them, no connections, no customer service phone line, bare bones operation. But there are some redeeming factors in it being a Neeleman creation, starting with reasonable fares (no $10 one-ways!), smaller aircraft and more varied destinations and bases. I'm anxious to see if they can pull it off and if they can react nimbly enough to the market's reaction to their service to stay viable.

CMH and CAK with Breeze are definitely 2 of the 5 deals that the Ohio Commercial Air Service Restoration program alluded to be pursuing. The article mentioned only 4 airports, which leaves CLE, CVG, DAY, and TOL as the remaining potential beneficiaries of this $10 mil revenue guarantee - though 1 airport will get it twice. My thought for the 3rd grant is that it will be used to fast-track the return of CVG-CDG on DL. However, that route is already on schedule to return and will certainly be commercially viable with or without support from the state. If not CVG, I would hope one of the grants goes to CLE to bring in Alaska to SEA. I have no idea what's holding them back from starting it already, but maybe the financial incentive could be the motivation needed to get it on their route map. My guess is the 4th grant will be used to support a new nonstop out of DAY (such as BOS, LAS, or PHX) with the 5th being a toss-up among CLE, CMH, CAK, CVG, or DAY; though I really hope some level of support goes to an air service initiative out of TOL. I really think now is the time to invest in that facility and build on their slow but steady growth post-pandemic.

DeltaRules wrote:

jplatts wrote:

BZ adding CVG-BDL/SAT nonstop service might be a possibility if BZ enters the CVG market with BDL and SAT being two of the top domestic destinations that are no longer served nonstop from CVG.

BZ can also operate CVG-BDL/SAT with 108-seat E190 planes, whereas WN would need to use 143-seat 737-700's or larger planes, G4 would need to use 156-seat A319's or larger planes, and F9 would need to use 180-seat A320's or larger planes to serve BDL and SAT nonstop from CVG.

The average load factors of F9 CVG-SAT nonstop service was 74.44% in 2018, but BZ might be able to get better load factors on CVG-SAT than F9 did once demand recovers if BZ adds CVG-SAT nonstop service with BZ being able to use smaller planes to serve SAT nonstop from CVG.

Might be better to pull numbers for DAY as, given they're starting CAK presumably to serve Cleveland, I'm guessing they'll serve Cincinnati through DAY and SDF.

Why? They’re serving Columbus through CMH and Pittsburg through PIT. Obviously the secondary airport notion hasn’t not proven to be the case with them. Not saying they won’t fly to DAY to serve the Dayton market in its own right, but evidently if they want to serve a market they have no qualms about flying to the primary airport.

The May CRAA Board agenda has been posted. Leisure demand continues to drive increased passenger numbers, and CMH has now passed 60% of the 2019 baseline. Nardone points out that June will see 108 daily flights vs. 152 pre-pandemic (I believe this is CMH/LCK combined?).

What’s even better is the trend line for load factor - 79% in April even with significant upguaging and additional flights, which is only 2% lower than 2017/2018/2019! This is by far the highest load factor since the pandemic. capacity/demand seem to be pretty close to rebalanced which is a great sign.

Also of note- NK has now pulled even with DL in share of passengers from CMH, with both at 13%. Wow.

https://columbusairports.com/storage/pr ... 5-2021.pdf

CMHtraveler wrote:

The May CRAA Board agenda has been posted. Leisure demand continues to drive increased passenger numbers, and CMH has now passed 60% of the 2019 baseline. Nardone points out that June will see 108 daily flights vs. 152 pre-pandemic (I believe this is CMH/LCK combined?).

What’s even better is the trend line for load factor - 79% in April even with significant upguaging and additional flights, which is only 2% lower than 2017/2018/2019! This is by far the highest load factor since the pandemic. capacity/demand seem to be pretty close to rebalanced which is a great sign.

Also of note- NK has now pulled even with DL in share of passengers from CMH, with both at 13%. Wow.

https://columbusairports.com/storage/pr ... 5-2021.pdf

I have to figure DL's (and AS') numbers will go up now that they're selling flights to full capacity again, but NK has really done well for themselves here.

DeltaRules wrote:

CMHtraveler wrote:

The May CRAA Board agenda has been posted. Leisure demand continues to drive increased passenger numbers, and CMH has now passed 60% of the 2019 baseline. Nardone points out that June will see 108 daily flights vs. 152 pre-pandemic (I believe this is CMH/LCK combined?).

What’s even better is the trend line for load factor - 79% in April even with significant upguaging and additional flights, which is only 2% lower than 2017/2018/2019! This is by far the highest load factor since the pandemic. capacity/demand seem to be pretty close to rebalanced which is a great sign.

Also of note- NK has now pulled even with DL in share of passengers from CMH, with both at 13%. Wow.

https://columbusairports.com/storage/pr ... 5-2021.pdf

I have to figure DL's (and AS') numbers will go up now that they're selling flights to full capacity again, but NK has really done well for themselves here.

They have, and still have LAX and PNS on deck for June! You’re right though, AS and DL April numbers are still artificially depressed by seat blocking.

DL reloaded CVG-SFO as 6x/week effective April 1, 2022. Still could be a glitch, but it's one route I can't see them abandoning. I'd assume multiple of the "cut" routes may resume in the Spring/Summer 2022 timeline.

flyCMH wrote:

Echoing the sentiment of most, I didn't anticipate CMH to be on the list of initial Breeze destinations. Hopeful yes, but not expecting. I'm certainly glad BZ chose CMH and is starting off with so many cities. It looks flights will be scheduled as follows:

BDL: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 0900/Arriving CMH at 1240
CHS: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 2120/Arriving CMH at 2050
ORF: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 1310/Arriving CMH at 0830
MSY: Mon/Fri - Departing CMH at 1125/ Arriving CMH at 1055
TPA: Sun - Departing CMH at 12:15/ Arriving CMH at 1145

This airline is giving me some Skybus nightmare premonitions: highly touted by the city and state with subsidies thrown at them, no connections, no customer service phone line, bare bones operation. But there are some redeeming factors in it being a Neeleman creation, starting with reasonable fares (no $10 one-ways!), smaller aircraft and more varied destinations and bases. I'm anxious to see if they can pull it off and if they can react nimbly enough to the market's reaction to their service to stay viable.

CMH and CAK with Breeze are definitely 2 of the 5 deals that the Ohio Commercial Air Service Restoration program alluded to be pursuing. The article mentioned only 4 airports, which leaves CLE, CVG, DAY, and TOL as the remaining potential beneficiaries of this $10 mil revenue guarantee - though 1 airport will get it twice. My thought for the 3rd grant is that it will be used to fast-track the return of CVG-CDG on DL. However, that route is already on schedule to return and will certainly be commercially viable with or without support from the state. If not CVG, I would hope one of the grants goes to CLE to bring in Alaska to SEA. I have no idea what's holding them back from starting it already, but maybe the financial incentive could be the motivation needed to get it on their route map. My guess is the 4th grant will be used to support a new nonstop out of DAY (such as BOS, LAS, or PHX) with the 5th being a toss-up among CLE, CMH, CAK, CVG, or DAY; though I really hope some level of support goes to an air service initiative out of TOL. I really think now is the time to invest in that facility and build on their slow but steady growth post-pandemic.

Given how much hype CRAA's video had (from both Columbus dignitaries and DeWine), I'm wondering if there isn't more to this and they think BZ might have some sort of bigger presence at/influence on CMH.

DeltaRules wrote:

flyCMH wrote:

Echoing the sentiment of most, I didn't anticipate CMH to be on the list of initial Breeze destinations. Hopeful yes, but not expecting. I'm certainly glad BZ chose CMH and is starting off with so many cities. It looks flights will be scheduled as follows:

BDL: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 0900/Arriving CMH at 1240
CHS: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 2120/Arriving CMH at 2050
ORF: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 1310/Arriving CMH at 0830
MSY: Mon/Fri - Departing CMH at 1125/ Arriving CMH at 1055
TPA: Sun - Departing CMH at 12:15/ Arriving CMH at 1145

This airline is giving me some Skybus nightmare premonitions: highly touted by the city and state with subsidies thrown at them, no connections, no customer service phone line, bare bones operation. But there are some redeeming factors in it being a Neeleman creation, starting with reasonable fares (no $10 one-ways!), smaller aircraft and more varied destinations and bases. I'm anxious to see if they can pull it off and if they can react nimbly enough to the market's reaction to their service to stay viable.

CMH and CAK with Breeze are definitely 2 of the 5 deals that the Ohio Commercial Air Service Restoration program alluded to be pursuing. The article mentioned only 4 airports, which leaves CLE, CVG, DAY, and TOL as the remaining potential beneficiaries of this $10 mil revenue guarantee - though 1 airport will get it twice. My thought for the 3rd grant is that it will be used to fast-track the return of CVG-CDG on DL. However, that route is already on schedule to return and will certainly be commercially viable with or without support from the state. If not CVG, I would hope one of the grants goes to CLE to bring in Alaska to SEA. I have no idea what's holding them back from starting it already, but maybe the financial incentive could be the motivation needed to get it on their route map. My guess is the 4th grant will be used to support a new nonstop out of DAY (such as BOS, LAS, or PHX) with the 5th being a toss-up among CLE, CMH, CAK, CVG, or DAY; though I really hope some level of support goes to an air service initiative out of TOL. I really think now is the time to invest in that facility and build on their slow but steady growth post-pandemic.

Given how much hype CRAA's video had (from both Columbus dignitaries and DeWine), I'm wondering if there isn't more to this and they think BZ might have some sort of bigger presence at/influence on CMH.

Agreed. That seemed like the sort of video you’d expect if you landed a flight to Europe, not a G4-style handful of flights a week with 4/5 destinations already served. I don’t recall anything like that when NK launched with 7 destinations a few years back. Then again, if there is JobsOhio money tied in, it may just be a case of everyone wanting their slice of the credit.

On a separate note someone edited the CMH Wikipedia to state that UA CMH-SFO returns August 1. Is this real or is that just a date where the placeholder schedule is still in place and cuts haven’t rolled through yet?

Citrus1492 wrote:

Another poster mentiond TOL should offer free parking. I agree. An LCC can pitch TOL as Toledo/Detroit and draw lots of traffic from DTW.
Also, MFD is only an hour drive from CLE, CAK, and CMH. Somebody could print money there if they have low fares and free parking.

I'm going to disagree here. In fact, I would like to see them increase the daily parking to $10/day and make it a maximum of $60 per week . Parking is the airports largest revenue generator which helps keep the passenger fees very low. Even at $10, it's right on par with the offsite parking at DTW. Parking isn't the problem at TOL.

flyCMH wrote:

CMH and CAK with Breeze are definitely 2 of the 5 deals that the Ohio Commercial Air Service Restoration program alluded to be pursuing. The article mentioned only 4 airports, which leaves CLE, CVG, DAY, and TOL as the remaining potential beneficiaries of this $10 mil revenue guarantee - though 1 airport will get it twice. My thought for the 3rd grant is that it will be used to fast-track the return of CVG-CDG on DL. However, that route is already on schedule to return and will certainly be commercially viable with or without support from the state. If not CVG, I would hope one of the grants goes to CLE to bring in Alaska to SEA. I have no idea what's holding them back from starting it already, but maybe the financial incentive could be the motivation needed to get it on their route map. My guess is the 4th grant will be used to support a new nonstop out of DAY (such as BOS, LAS, or PHX) with the 5th being a toss-up among CLE, CMH, CAK, CVG, or DAY; though I really hope some level of support goes to an air service initiative out of TOL. I really think now is the time to invest in that facility and build on their slow but steady growth post-pandemic.

Off the top of my head, I think the Port is trying to tie JobsOhio money into the SCASD grant for DFW. It's nice to see the state competing with other states in offering up some cash to guarantee flights. I agree with you that it's time the state kicks in a little money into the facility as it was built in 1955 and needs to be replaced. It's just time...

It is a disgrace to use development money for an airline to have leisure market to trash destinations. This is the good old boy system. Capitalism at its worst. If you could make money on these non-stops without a subsidy it would have been done. Other airlines should stop flying all routes out of Ohio and threaten no flights if not subsidized.

Trk1 wrote:

It is a disgrace to use development money for an airline to have leisure market to trash destinations. This is the good old boy system. Capitalism at its worst. If you could make money on these non-stops without a subsidy it would have been done. Other airlines should stop flying all routes out of Ohio and threaten no flights if not subsidized.

That's not necessarily true. Especially for new city pairs, it takes time for the demand to grow to profitable levels. Subsidies help bridge the gap until the route turns profitable, allowing carriers to try routes they wouldn't have otherwise.

Trk1 wrote:

It is a disgrace to use development money for an airline to have leisure market to trash destinations. This is the good old boy system. Capitalism at its worst. If you could make money on these non-stops without a subsidy it would have been done. Other airlines should stop flying all routes out of Ohio and threaten no flights if not subsidized.

While I sort of agree with you in principle, this is a weird argument to make at a time when the entire industry is being kept alive by massive federal subsidies. IMO, we should all just stop pretending the “free market” is real. Markets exist of course, but they are rarely if ever truly driven by supply and demand. All kinds of interventions are needed, usually for good reason. This is especially true for our transportation system. After the deregulation of trucking, companies still completely rely on taxpayer-funded highway infrastructure right? In the end, we should just have a real discussion about what is in the public interest to subsidize (and for that matter, what profits can be returned to the public as ROI) instead of cherry-picking when we decide the “free market” should be relied upon.

CMHtraveler wrote:

Trk1 wrote:

It is a disgrace to use development money for an airline to have leisure market to trash destinations. This is the good old boy system. Capitalism at its worst. If you could make money on these non-stops without a subsidy it would have been done. Other airlines should stop flying all routes out of Ohio and threaten no flights if not subsidized.

While I sort of agree with you in principle, this is a weird argument to make at a time when the entire industry is being kept alive by massive federal subsidies. IMO, we should all just stop pretending the “free market” is real. Markets exist of course, but they are rarely if ever truly driven by supply and demand. All kinds of interventions are needed, usually for good reason. This is especially true for our transportation system. After the deregulation of trucking, companies still completely rely on taxpayer-funded highway infrastructure right? In the end, we should just have a real discussion about what is in the public interest to subsidize (and for that matter, what profits can be returned to the public as ROI) instead of cherry-picking when we decide the “free market” should be relied upon.

Wonderful point! One of the challenges of our economy is that no one really gets a true sense of the cost of anything, not just in the transportation sector. Because wages can be kept lower than the cost of living due to government subsidies for housing, food, and other essential services, we have an artificially low cost of many products, such as a combo meal at Wendy's. Its all just a bit out of whack from reality. However, bringing it back to airports, it also leads to crazy circumstances such as Allegiant flying out of LCK instead of CMH. I am pretty certain that the LCK approach was just to get enough traffic through that airport to help justify its existence (and to qualify for.... federal grants (subsidies)… while they have building up cargo there. Apparently, if you have more than 10,000 passengers a year it opens up some major door of qualification for FAA funds. However, it makes my head hurt to think of all of the other expenses-- extra TSA, facilities, etc. To be honest, it even drives me a little crazy that CMH has (3) security checkpoints, even though I know why of course. I think if we had a truer sense of what these things cost, it would lead to better decisions about resources. That having been said, however, it is not realistic to expect government support, grants, and related programs to go away overnight or even long term. (Look at the Essential Air service Grants as an example...)

One other item, I can relate to the Skybus flashbacks with Breeze, but hopefully the management (of both the airline and the airport) is much better this time. Interesting though that Columbus has not given as much love to Spirit or to Southwest either at the start or now. I think the posters before are onto something with the political folks wanting credit for the State grant funding program.

a320flyer wrote:

Trk1 wrote:

It is a disgrace to use development money for an airline to have leisure market to trash destinations. This is the good old boy system. Capitalism at its worst. If you could make money on these non-stops without a subsidy it would have been done. Other airlines should stop flying all routes out of Ohio and threaten no flights if not subsidized.

That's not necessarily true. Especially for new city pairs, it takes time for the demand to grow to profitable levels. Subsidies help bridge the gap until the route turns profitable, allowing carriers to try routes they wouldn't have otherwise.

Only BDL is a new city pair though, right? I mean Tampa is already serviced by 3 airlines from Columbus, CHS is serviced by 2, & MSY + ORF by 1 airline. Why would you use incentives like this on leisure routes, and routes with existing carriers on them? If the goal of the incentive $ is to bring additional jobs to the state through additional air service this doesn't really encourage that, and it doesn't send a good message to the carriers who are already serving these routes without incentives.

BDL makes sense, but other than BDL, shouldn't money be used to backstop business routes or routes that are longer stage length like SAN/PDX/SJC/e.t.c. For now there is a finite amount of cash to be dispatched across CAK, CLE, CVG, CMH, DAY, TOL, and any other smaller airport, probably doesn't provide good bang for your buck to use it on leisure destinations that already have service.

Midwestindy wrote:

Only BDL is a new city pair though, right? I mean Tampa is already serviced by 3 airlines from Columbus, CHS is serviced by 2, & MSY + ORF by 1 airline. Why would you use incentives like this on leisure routes, and routes with existing carriers on them? If the goal of the incentive $ is to bring additional jobs to the state through additional air service this doesn't really encourage that, and it doesn't send a good message to the carriers who are already serving these routes without incentives.

BDL makes sense, but other than BDL, shouldn't money be used to backstop business routes or routes that are longer stage length like SAN/PDX/SJC/e.t.c. For now there is a finite amount of cash to be dispatched across CAK, CLE, CVG, CMH, DAY, TOL, and any other smaller airport, probably doesn't provide good bang for your buck to use it on leisure destinations that already have service.

Agreed. I know people suggested an SDF focus city for Breeze could make sense, so I'm wondering if Ohio is trying to get on the inside track for a potential Midwest focus city at CMH by throwing them some extra jingle now in exchange for more unserved dots to be connected later.

CMHtraveler wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

flyCMH wrote:

Echoing the sentiment of most, I didn't anticipate CMH to be on the list of initial Breeze destinations. Hopeful yes, but not expecting. I'm certainly glad BZ chose CMH and is starting off with so many cities. It looks flights will be scheduled as follows:

BDL: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 0900/Arriving CMH at 1240
CHS: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 2120/Arriving CMH at 2050
ORF: Sun/Mon/Thu/Fri - Departing CMH at 1310/Arriving CMH at 0830
MSY: Mon/Fri - Departing CMH at 1125/ Arriving CMH at 1055
TPA: Sun - Departing CMH at 12:15/ Arriving CMH at 1145

This airline is giving me some Skybus nightmare premonitions: highly touted by the city and state with subsidies thrown at them, no connections, no customer service phone line, bare bones operation. But there are some redeeming factors in it being a Neeleman creation, starting with reasonable fares (no $10 one-ways!), smaller aircraft and more varied destinations and bases. I'm anxious to see if they can pull it off and if they can react nimbly enough to the market's reaction to their service to stay viable.

CMH and CAK with Breeze are definitely 2 of the 5 deals that the Ohio Commercial Air Service Restoration program alluded to be pursuing. The article mentioned only 4 airports, which leaves CLE, CVG, DAY, and TOL as the remaining potential beneficiaries of this $10 mil revenue guarantee - though 1 airport will get it twice. My thought for the 3rd grant is that it will be used to fast-track the return of CVG-CDG on DL. However, that route is already on schedule to return and will certainly be commercially viable with or without support from the state. If not CVG, I would hope one of the grants goes to CLE to bring in Alaska to SEA. I have no idea what's holding them back from starting it already, but maybe the financial incentive could be the motivation needed to get it on their route map. My guess is the 4th grant will be used to support a new nonstop out of DAY (such as BOS, LAS, or PHX) with the 5th being a toss-up among CLE, CMH, CAK, CVG, or DAY; though I really hope some level of support goes to an air service initiative out of TOL. I really think now is the time to invest in that facility and build on their slow but steady growth post-pandemic.

Given how much hype CRAA's video had (from both Columbus dignitaries and DeWine), I'm wondering if there isn't more to this and they think BZ might have some sort of bigger presence at/influence on CMH.

Agreed. That seemed like the sort of video you’d expect if you landed a flight to Europe, not a G4-style handful of flights a week with 4/5 destinations already served. I don’t recall anything like that when NK launched with 7 destinations a few years back. Then again, if there is JobsOhio money tied in, it may just be a case of everyone wanting their slice of the credit.

There were in-person media events in the lobby at CMH for both NK and AS' announcements. I think NK's was one of Elaine Roberts' last events before Nardone took over.

CMHtraveler wrote:

Trk1 wrote:

It is a disgrace to use development money for an airline to have leisure market to trash destinations. This is the good old boy system. Capitalism at its worst. If you could make money on these non-stops without a subsidy it would have been done. Other airlines should stop flying all routes out of Ohio and threaten no flights if not subsidized.

While I sort of agree with you in principle, this is a weird argument to make at a time when the entire industry is being kept alive by massive federal subsidies. IMO, we should all just stop pretending the “free market” is real. Markets exist of course, but they are rarely if ever truly driven by supply and demand. All kinds of interventions are needed, usually for good reason. This is especially true for our transportation system. After the deregulation of trucking, companies still completely rely on taxpayer-funded highway infrastructure right? In the end, we should just have a real discussion about what is in the public interest to subsidize (and for that matter, what profits can be returned to the public as ROI) instead of cherry-picking when we decide the “free market” should be relied upon.

Except that really isn’t the case. As we’ve seen, airlines were able to in fact adequately finance themselves during the pandemic. The only reasons they received wads of PPP cash were because both airlines and the unions have leagues of skilled lobbyists and scores of politicians were somehow convinced that job losses in the airline industry > job losses in any other less favored industry. Crony capitalism at its finest.

flyguy89 wrote:

CMHtraveler wrote:

Trk1 wrote:

It is a disgrace to use development money for an airline to have leisure market to trash destinations. This is the good old boy system. Capitalism at its worst. If you could make money on these non-stops without a subsidy it would have been done. Other airlines should stop flying all routes out of Ohio and threaten no flights if not subsidized.

While I sort of agree with you in principle, this is a weird argument to make at a time when the entire industry is being kept alive by massive federal subsidies. IMO, we should all just stop pretending the “free market” is real. Markets exist of course, but they are rarely if ever truly driven by supply and demand. All kinds of interventions are needed, usually for good reason. This is especially true for our transportation system. After the deregulation of trucking, companies still completely rely on taxpayer-funded highway infrastructure right? In the end, we should just have a real discussion about what is in the public interest to subsidize (and for that matter, what profits can be returned to the public as ROI) instead of cherry-picking when we decide the “free market” should be relied upon.

Except that really isn’t the case. As we’ve seen, airlines were able to in fact adequately finance themselves during the pandemic. The only reasons they received wads of PPP cash were because both airlines and the unions have leagues of skilled lobbyists and scores of politicians were somehow convinced that job losses in the airline industry > job losses in any other less favored industry. Crony capitalism at its finest.

Disagree. I don’t think it’s clear at all that airlines would have been able to sustain themselves even with massive layoffs. Remember they were burning tons of money paying to lease/buy/store/maintain unnecessarily large fleets (not to mention buildings, gates, and other equipment) which would have been exponentially more loss-inducing if they had cut tons of routes without PPP.

I’m damn glad for Sara Nelson and the union folks because I think history has shown us that without PPP the Airlines would have still been bailed out, but would have laid off tens of thousands (financial crisis anyone?) and cut service to untold numbers of cities. Remember that PPP wasn’t just about jobs it also maintained critical service to existing markets, and prevented big executive bonuses and stock buybacks, another lesson from previous bailouts. In a lot of ways I think it prevented the worst tendencies of crony capitalism.

Having said all that I agree in this case with the posters above that subsidies for CMH Breeze service are a waste and that this money could be better spent on restoring west coast service or other new unserved routes.

DeltaRules wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Only BDL is a new city pair though, right? I mean Tampa is already serviced by 3 airlines from Columbus, CHS is serviced by 2, & MSY + ORF by 1 airline. Why would you use incentives like this on leisure routes, and routes with existing carriers on them? If the goal of the incentive $ is to bring additional jobs to the state through additional air service this doesn't really encourage that, and it doesn't send a good message to the carriers who are already serving these routes without incentives.

BDL makes sense, but other than BDL, shouldn't money be used to backstop business routes or routes that are longer stage length like SAN/PDX/SJC/e.t.c. For now there is a finite amount of cash to be dispatched across CAK, CLE, CVG, CMH, DAY, TOL, and any other smaller airport, probably doesn't provide good bang for your buck to use it on leisure destinations that already have service.

Agreed. I know people suggested an SDF focus city for Breeze could make sense, so I'm wondering if Ohio is trying to get on the inside track for a potential Midwest focus city at CMH by throwing them some extra jingle now in exchange for more unserved dots to be connected later.

Gotcha, I guess we'll see the bigger picture once the A220s come in

CMHtraveler wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

CMHtraveler wrote:

While I sort of agree with you in principle, this is a weird argument to make at a time when the entire industry is being kept alive by massive federal subsidies. IMO, we should all just stop pretending the “free market” is real. Markets exist of course, but they are rarely if ever truly driven by supply and demand. All kinds of interventions are needed, usually for good reason. This is especially true for our transportation system. After the deregulation of trucking, companies still completely rely on taxpayer-funded highway infrastructure right? In the end, we should just have a real discussion about what is in the public interest to subsidize (and for that matter, what profits can be returned to the public as ROI) instead of cherry-picking when we decide the “free market” should be relied upon.

Except that really isn’t the case. As we’ve seen, airlines were able to in fact adequately finance themselves during the pandemic. The only reasons they received wads of PPP cash were because both airlines and the unions have leagues of skilled lobbyists and scores of politicians were somehow convinced that job losses in the airline industry > job losses in any other less favored industry. Crony capitalism at its finest.

Disagree. I don’t think it’s clear at all that airlines would have been able to sustain themselves even with massive layoffs. Remember they were burning tons of money paying to lease/buy/store/maintain unnecessarily large fleets (not to mention buildings, gates, and other equipment) which would have been exponentially more loss-inducing if they had cut tons of routes without PPP.

Not trying to be rude, but it really isn’t an argument. The amount of capital liquidity raised by the airlines from the private sector isn’t speculative, additionally many airlines refused the federal loan portion opting instead for PPP only.

CMHtraveler wrote:

I’m damn glad for Sara Nelson and the union folks because I think history has shown us that without PPP the Airlines would have still been bailed out, but would have laid off tens of thousands (financial crisis anyone?) and cut service to untold numbers of cities. Remember that PPP wasn’t just about jobs it also maintained critical service to existing markets, and prevented big executive bonuses and stock buybacks, another lesson from previous bailouts. In a lot of ways I think it prevented the worst tendencies of crony capitalism.

Not exactly an argument that the whole thing wasn’t an exercise in crony capitalism...rather you seem to just be glad the unions also got their slice of the government cheese this time around- and maybe that’s fair, but it’s still crony capitalism. A lot of other industries had to shed jobs and downsize, no reason for the government to be picking favorites.

CMHtraveler wrote:

Having said all that I agree in this case with the posters above that subsidies for CMH Breeze service are a waste and that this money could be better spent on restoring west coast service or other new unserved routes.

Has it in fact been confirmed? Do we know how much?

flyguy89 wrote:

CMHtraveler wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Except that really isn’t the case. As we’ve seen, airlines were able to in fact adequately finance themselves during the pandemic. The only reasons they received wads of PPP cash were because both airlines and the unions have leagues of skilled lobbyists and scores of politicians were somehow convinced that job losses in the airline industry > job losses in any other less favored industry. Crony capitalism at its finest.

Disagree. I don’t think it’s clear at all that airlines would have been able to sustain themselves even with massive layoffs. Remember they were burning tons of money paying to lease/buy/store/maintain unnecessarily large fleets (not to mention buildings, gates, and other equipment) which would have been exponentially more loss-inducing if they had cut tons of routes without PPP.

Not trying to be rude, but it really isn’t an argument. The amount of capital liquidity raised by the airlines from the private sector isn’t speculative, additionally many airlines refused the federal loan portion opting instead for PPP only.

CMHtraveler wrote:

I’m damn glad for Sara Nelson and the union folks because I think history has shown us that without PPP the Airlines would have still been bailed out, but would have laid off tens of thousands (financial crisis anyone?) and cut service to untold numbers of cities. Remember that PPP wasn’t just about jobs it also maintained critical service to existing markets, and prevented big executive bonuses and stock buybacks, another lesson from previous bailouts. In a lot of ways I think it prevented the worst tendencies of crony capitalism.

Not exactly an argument that the whole thing wasn’t an exercise in crony capitalism...rather you seem to just be glad the unions also got their slice of the government cheese this time around- and maybe that’s fair, but it’s still crony capitalism. A lot of other industries had to shed jobs and downsize, no reason for the government to be picking favorites.

CMHtraveler wrote:

Having said all that I agree in this case with the posters above that subsidies for CMH Breeze service are a waste and that this money could be better spent on restoring west coast service or other new unserved routes.

Has it in fact been confirmed? Do we know how much?

1. Amount raised in the private sector isn’t speculative, but any discussion about what would or wouldn’t have happened without federal intervention is. Would the private sector have been as willing to invest if the airlines were leaking hundreds of millions per day? How much did the guarantee of federal intervention provide confidence to private sector investors to write those checks? I imagine they weren’t blind to what was happening on Capitol Hill.

2. Sure, in an industry that has 80% union density, unions are going to have a lot more leverage to make sure workers get their cut (or in this case, keep their jobs) and that there is more accountability for federal funds (no stock buybacks/executive bonuses). I don’t think that’s an argument against government bailouts of critical industries in distress I think it’s an argument for stronger unions in other industries (which as you may have guessed I fully support). I also think it’s an argument that the government should engage in serious industrial planning like parts of Europe but I digress...

3. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine mentioned JobsOhio specifically in his portion of the Breeze welcome hype video, so I think it’s confirmed they played a role. We don’t know the dollar amount involved. I’m hoping some intrepid reporter has already fired off a public records request.

Midwestindy wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Only BDL is a new city pair though, right? I mean Tampa is already serviced by 3 airlines from Columbus, CHS is serviced by 2, & MSY + ORF by 1 airline. Why would you use incentives like this on leisure routes, and routes with existing carriers on them? If the goal of the incentive $ is to bring additional jobs to the state through additional air service this doesn't really encourage that, and it doesn't send a good message to the carriers who are already serving these routes without incentives.

BDL makes sense, but other than BDL, shouldn't money be used to backstop business routes or routes that are longer stage length like SAN/PDX/SJC/e.t.c. For now there is a finite amount of cash to be dispatched across CAK, CLE, CVG, CMH, DAY, TOL, and any other smaller airport, probably doesn't provide good bang for your buck to use it on leisure destinations that already have service.

Agreed. I know people suggested an SDF focus city for Breeze could make sense, so I'm wondering if Ohio is trying to get on the inside track for a potential Midwest focus city at CMH by throwing them some extra jingle now in exchange for more unserved dots to be connected later.

Gotcha, I guess we'll see the bigger picture once the A220s come in

Crossposting from the Breeze thread and building on the above theory:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Looking at the BZ plans as submitted to DOT....would not anticipate any East-West Coast flying until Feb 2022. I believe BZ accepts 1 A220/mo beginning in Oct. That timing works for NE-FL service as it gets colder up north. Maybe Feb/Mar 2022 BZ starts East-West services. Depending on market (ie competition) conditions....could see RIC-SDF-SEA, ORF-SDF-SFO, PVD-SDF-SLC, BDL-SDF-SAN (thru flights) and as A220's delivered (1/month) NS added West Coast to RIC, ORF, BDL, PVD (or other eastern points)

Remove "SDF", insert "CMH", and the funding might make sense.

DeltaRules wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Agreed. I know people suggested an SDF focus city for Breeze could make sense, so I'm wondering if Ohio is trying to get on the inside track for a potential Midwest focus city at CMH by throwing them some extra jingle now in exchange for more unserved dots to be connected later.

Gotcha, I guess we'll see the bigger picture once the A220s come in

Crossposting from the Breeze thread and building on the above theory:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Looking at the BZ plans as submitted to DOT....would not anticipate any East-West Coast flying until Feb 2022. I believe BZ accepts 1 A220/mo beginning in Oct. That timing works for NE-FL service as it gets colder up north. Maybe Feb/Mar 2022 BZ starts East-West services. Depending on market (ie competition) conditions....could see RIC-SDF-SEA, ORF-SDF-SFO, PVD-SDF-SLC, BDL-SDF-SAN (thru flights) and as A220's delivered (1/month) NS added West Coast to RIC, ORF, BDL, PVD (or other eastern points)

Remove "SDF", insert "CMH", and the funding might make sense.

I actually hope CMH isn’t looking to become a focus city for BZ. I heard that many airlines, WN in particular, we’re not happy that the City and airport bent over backwards for Skybus. Wouldn’t want to see the same. I’d prefer to see continued growth from WN, AS and NK.

Of course additional flights would be great but to unserved locations like SAT, SAN, MCI, etc.

-long time lurker here

Why would JobsOHIO air service restoration program include CVG? That does nothing to bring jobs to Ohio.

bigred10k wrote:

Why would JobsOHIO air service restoration program include CVG? That does nothing to bring jobs to Ohio.

You realize that CVG serves the Greater Cincinnati region right? Ohioans make up the majority of the passengers flying through CVG and the vast majority of the regions businesses are based in Ohio. If more air service results in more people and jobs being based here then yes it does bring jobs to Ohio.

They aren't looking to add more air service just to have more low paying jobs at the airports.

AirportRival wrote:

bigred10k wrote:

Why would JobsOHIO air service restoration program include CVG? That does nothing to bring jobs to Ohio.

You realize that CVG serves the Greater Cincinnati region right? Ohioans make up the majority of the passengers flying through CVG and the vast majority of the regions businesses are based in Ohio. If more air service results in more people and jobs being based here then yes it does bring jobs to Ohio.

They aren't looking to add more air service just to have more low paying jobs at the airports.

The Cincinnati companies that need non-stop service to cities have long since decided to charter flights, have access their own planes, or otherwise deal with potential connecting flights if non-stops aren't available or the timing of a single non-stop doesn't work. Adding a number of Breeze flights from CVG to tourist destinations isn't going to move the needle and bring Chiquita back to Cincinnati from Charlotte or lure other companies to the Cincinnati region. Bringing back CVG-CDG wouldn't either.

Also I disagree with your comments that these would all be low paying jobs. Look at the good results for the Dayton economy by having PSA Airlines headquartered there. If enough flights are added, there is the potential for additional jobs above and beyond the ground staff at the airports. Adding a pilot, maintenance, and/or crew bases in one of these cities to support an operation like Breeze would mean better paying jobs, and its reasonable to assume that they would choose to live near the airport. That then means they are going to be spending their paychecks at other local businesses, restaurants, etc. So doing this in CVG vs. actually investing in an Ohio airport would make little sense when Ohio taxpayer dollars are being used.