Archive for March, 2009
March 17th, 2009
I grew up reading and respecting Bob Herbert, but it must be a slow news week at the Gray Lady because he’s written not once, but twice in support of the proposed “third Chicago airport” at Peotone - here and here. He’s obviously good friends with Peotone proponent Jesse Jackson Jr, who has his ear for these columns. The most telling line is:
“No one that I’ve spoken with has found fault with the plan or its financing, which relies primarily on private capital.”
Funny how the Internets have found plenty of people who find fault with the plan:;
- Capitol Fax Blog says that Jackson’s plan is decent, but “something that almost never gets mentioned is that the proposed airport footprint is not in Jackson’s congressional district, and some of the people who live in or adjacent to that footprint, particularly in Will County, don’t think that Jackson should be dictating to them.”
- Blogger Carol Henrichs notes there are five airports in the region (Gary, Rockford and Milwaukee) so it’s not a sure thing that Peotone would grow fast and bring lots of jobs. “Mid-America Airport is another Illinois airport in the cornfields studied by the same IDOT consultants that wrote reports on Peotone. But they built it and nobody came. Billed as a reliever to St. Louis’ Lambert Field, Mid-America has become nothing more than a burden on the local taxpayers who are now stuck with it. And, it has been virtually a ghost town for a decade. The same thing could happen at Peotone.”
- American Thinker says: “And the idiocy of building a small airport 40 miles from downtown Chicago that could “easily be expanded” begs the question; why build infrastructure and roads for a major airport and then open a facility designed not to relieve O’Hare congestion but simply steal revenue and traffic from other small towns like Rockford, Champaign, or even Gary, Indiana which has just received FAA permission to build another runway?”
Obviously, we in Rockford are biased - we want the passenger and cargo service to come here, not Peotone. But when you have three growing airports that could easily handle new traffic, maybe you should throw the infrastructure money there first? High-speed rail to Rockford, Milwaukee and Gary would make those airports just as usable as Peotone (assuming a lot of transportation connections there), and they’re already here.
Henrichs hits the nail on the head - “Gary/Chicago International Airport … is closer to Jackson’s constituency than Peotone. Different county/different state – what’s the difference to people who need jobs? Jackson is a U.S. Congressman who should concern himself with jobs in the country, not just the south side of Chicago, and at others’ expense. If airport jobs were available, Jackson’s constituents could get jobs at Gary much easier than at Peotone.”
Shouldn’t we bring the airport-related jobs to the areas that already have quality airports? Between RFD, MKE and GYY, we should be able to handle O’Hare and Midway’s overflow. Use the Peotone farmland for something that’s more needed.
EDIT: I forgot to include one more link. Steve Rhodes of NBC Chicago makes the good point that, “That isn’t news to those of us in Chicago, but we’re not the target of Herbert’s columns. Is Obama?” Perhaps this is a push to get some stimulus money down in Peotone…
March 12th, 2009
Reader “G. Kent” has been raising some good questions about how Chicago Rockford International Airport has used subsidies and incentives to spur its passenger growth in recent year. But the record shows, it’s not as one-sided as he (and others?) may think.
Here’s how much the airport has spent (or plans to spend) on air service development:
FY 2006:
- Revenue guarantee - $1.74 million
- MilesAhead program - $461,000
- Advertising - $962,000
- Other air service development costs -$256,000
- TOTAL - $3.42 million
FY 2007:
- Revenue guarantee - $1.64 million
- MilesAhead program - $90,000
- Advertising - $403,000
- Other air service development costs - $342,000
- TOTAL - $2.44 million
FY 2008
- Revenue guarantee - $822,000
- MilesAhead - $132,000
- Advertising - $365,000
- Other air service development costs - $190,000
- TOTAL -$1.51 million
FY 2009 (estimated)
- Revenue guarantee - $1.1 million
- MilesAhead - $69,000
- Advertising - $437,000
- Other air service development costs - $194,000
- TOTAL - $1.8 million
FY 2010 (budget)
- Revenue guarantee - $0
- MilesAhead - $150,000
- Advertising - $457,000
- Other air service development costs - $229,000
- TOTAL - $836,000
You see that the amount spent on air service development has gone down, while passenger service has gone up (the exception being FY 2009, which had an unplanned bump up because of fuel prices on the Southern Skyways routes). This gives credence to reader Sally Hanks’ point of “priming the pump” - the airport has to pay more early to prove itself, and as it proves itself it becomes cheaper to attract service.
But before you say, “Oh, they threw $10 million away the past few years”, look at the income from passenger service over that time:
FY 2006:
- Income from airlines and terminal services - $412,000
- Passenger facility charge - $193,000
- FAA formula grant (based on having more than 20,000 passengers) - At least $1 million
- TOTAL - $1.61 million
FY 2007:
- Income from airlines and terminal services - $495,000
- Passenger facility charge - $262,000
- FAA formula grant - At least $1 million
- TOTAL - $1.76 million
FY 2008:
- Income from airlines and terminal services - $599,000
- Passenger facility charge - $402,000
- FAA formula grant - $1.5 million
- DOT grant for United subsidy (from 2006-7) - $1 million
- TOTAL - $3.6 million
FY 2009 (estimate):
- Income from airlines and terminal services - $494,000
- Passenger facility charge - $401,000
- FAA formula grant - $1.5 million
- TOTAL - $2.4 million
FY 2010 (budget):
- Income from airlines and terminal services - $566,000
- Passenger facility charge - $420,000
- FAA formula grant - $1.5 million
- TOTAL - $2.49 million
So passenger service has brought in $12 million in direct revenue to the airport that wouldn’t be here without the post-2003 boost.And that doesn’t include millions in discretionary FAA money that comes here to improve the terminal and U.S. Customs facility, buy jet bridges, expand ramps … and eventually bring a parking deck here?
In fact, if RFD did nothing but maintain existing service, that $2.5 million in annual income budgeted for 2010 would still come in But what you’re seeing is, as time goes on, the outlay is outstripped by the income. And that doesn’t even quantify the economic impact of having a growing passenger service airport that bring people from outside of Rockford here.
So, yes, Mr Kent, the airport has paid airlines to come here and - to an extent - passengers to fly here. But enough of those routes stick around and enough of those passengers come back to offset those subsidies … and the subsidies are going down, while other numbers go up.
Call me a “shill” if you want, but here are the numbers … do you have something in response?
March 10th, 2009
My reservation code was “0001″.
Couldn’t make the first flight on Air Azul from Chicago Rockford International Airport to Newark Liberty International Airport, but I’m in the first month. Excited - I haven’t been back home in over two years. And while I normally fly into LaGuardia, Newark is a nicer airport and it’s convenient to downtown. Plus, it has the potential for international connections down the road.
I also am excited about BWI - I’ve flown there a few times and have had great experiences.
Do you folks plan to use the new routes?
March 9th, 2009
(Below is my column that appears in Monday’s newspaper. I reference the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission report. You can download it here or the executive summary here.)
Roads aren’t free.
Critics blast Amtrak, and mass transit in general, for not being “self-sufficient.” They decry massive government subsidies and say the services should pay for themselves.
But the federal government spends billions a year on roads, and state and local governments spend plenty as well.
Federal funding comes from gas and diesel taxes — taxes that haven’t risen since 1993. In fact, because of inflation, those taxes bring in significantly less money than they once did. State highway funding faces a similar situation.
Something’s gotta change. Roads are getting worse, not better. Congestion chokes urban arteries, wasting time, increasing pollution and wearing down vehicles and roads.
The genius of a fuel tax directed solely to transportation projects is that it puts the burden of funding on the users, while providing an incentive to cut down use. But not raising the taxes over time means less funding and more driving.
But an alternative to raising the fuel tax has been gaining steam — a vehicle-miles-traveled tax.
Instead of being charged for the fuel your vehicle consumes, you’re charged for how much you drive.
At first, I was dead set against this. I thought increasing the fuel tax and indexing it to inflation would be enough, while avoiding privacy concerns of tracking how far people drive.
We could even calibrate a rising fuel tax to offset dropping demand in fuel. If electric cars become more popular, we could … OK, this is where my idea sputtered and stopped.
I’m growing to understand the benefits of a VMT tax the more I read about it. Privacy concerns aren’t huge for me — we already allow GPS in our cars and phones. For a VMT tax to pass there would have to be assurances that only mileage is sent to the government, not specific routes.
Here’s where they started to sell me (by they, I mean proponents like Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and the recent report by the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission): You could calibrate a VMT tax to time of day, size of vehicle, cleanliness of fuel used, etc.
Basically, you could keep the incentives of fuel tax toward smaller, cleaner vehicles while retaining a stable funding mechanism. That’s key to me — a big SUV affects the highway system more than a small car, and should pay for that.
This doesn’t have to be “another tax.” It could just be a shifting of a tax (and, lawmakers, don’t try to keep both and use the fuel tax for something not transportation-related.) But it would have to be a tax increase, because what we’re paying now isn’t cutting it.
And if you don’t believe in government subsidies, would you prefer building the roads yourself? If we privatize them, companies won’t give us a free ride either.
Again, roads cost money. We can’t get away from that. We can only figure out the best way to pay.
Contact staff writer Thomas V. Bona at 815-987-1343 or tbona@rrstar.com.
March 6th, 2009
Chicago Rockford International Airport’s “Guess2Win” promotion ends Monday at 5 p.m., according to an email to its MilesAhead rewards club members. Details:
“In preparation for an announcement of the next two new destinations flying out of RFD, there are only three more days left of the Guess2Win Contest. We will be accepting entries until 5pm on Monday, March 9th, 2009. We are expecting an announcement soon, and MilesAhead members will have an exclusive offer so continue to check your emails.”
Makes an airport reporter excited to come to work next week…
March 4th, 2009
Had a brief email exchange with Allegiant Air spokeswoman Tyri Squyres, who said the announcement of two routes to Myrtle Beach - including one with direct competition with Direct Air - isn’t a change in their strategy to court competition. The competitive route, from Allentown, Penn., has been in their plans for a long time. Also, she noted - as I reported earlier - that they used to have more competition in their system than they do now.
Myrtle Beach’s airport director, Bob Kemp, is excited at Allegiant’s new presence. He said there’s plenty of interest from the northeast and West Virginia on trips to Myrtle Beach, so there’s plenty of room for air service.
“We’ve been talking to Allegiant for over two years and asking them to consider us, and we’re just delighted,” Kemp said. “We would hope that these first two markets of theirs are successful and that they’ll continue to grow their presence.”
March 4th, 2009
As astute blog reader JA noted before, Allegiant Air is going to compete with Direct Air on Allentown-Myrtle Beach.
This is significant on two levels:
- Allegiant tends to avoid competition. According to an airline presentation last month, Allegiant only had direct competition on two routes at the end of 2008, versus nine routes at the end of 2007. The presentation noted ‘To date, only one airline has entered our routes. That attempt lasted year and has not been repeated. Other airlines appear to see us as an annoyance, not a threat.”
- As I noted yesterday, Allegiant and Direct Air are the two biggest players at RFD. If Allegiant decides to compete with Direct Air in more spots, Rockford could be one of them…
What think you, fair readers?
March 3rd, 2009
Allegiant Air keeps growing.
Not long after announcing service to Los Angeles, it announces flights from Huntington, W.Va., to Myrtle Beach, S.C.
This is interesting on a number of levels:
- Allegiant has a history of starting mini-destinations - flying to them from one or a couple cities, rather than rolling them out as focus cities. Think Bellingham, Wash.; San Diego, Calif.; and San Francisco, Calif. Maybe this is one of those.
- At the same time, Allegiant has said publicly that Myrtle Beach could be a future focus city. Maybe they start slow, but look to ramp up at some point.
Huntington, W.Va., was the city paired with Rockford in the ill-fated two-stop route to Myrtle Beach that Southern Skyways ran last year. Let’s see how it works now that fuel prices are normal (EDIT: Alert reader Sally corrected me. It was Charleston that got paired with Rockford, not Huntington. Oh how could I forget Charleston? It’s Chew is so wonderful!)- Meanwhile, Allegian’s route map indicates Punta Gorda, Fla., is a focus city now, even though there are only two cities with service to there. Maybe they plan a ramp up there as well?
- Which brings me to the most interesting part. Allegiant is now serving the three focus cities of Direct Air (the other main carrier at Chicago Rockford International Airport) - both airlines fly to Orlando/Sanford, Fla. They now “share” three feeder airpors - Rockford; Allentown, Pa,; and Plattsburgh, N.Y. - but don’t compete at any of them (in Rockford, Allegiant has Sanford, Direct Air has Myrtle Beach and Punta Gorda). The closest they come to competing is in western Michigan - Allegiant serves Sanford out of Kalamazoo, while Direct Air does the same an hour up the road in Grand Rapids. Also interesting, Direct Air has moved into two former Allegiant cities - Springfield, Ill., and Worcester. Mass. How long can they play well together?
- Oh, and looking back at the story I referenced earlier - since when did Allegiant start flying military planes???
This could be one of the more interesting years in a while in the airline industry…
