Passenger Demand Analysis – Cy 2011

Home , Airline codes, Allegiant Air, Regional Sky, Utah Airways

COLUMBIA REGIONAL AIRPORT PASSENGER DEMAND ANALYSIS – CY 2011

JULY 12, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 1 Airlines ...... 18 Objectives ...... 1 Airlines Used At COU ...... 18 Methodology...... 2 Airlines Used At STL ...... 19 Executive Summary ...... 3 Airlines Used At MCI ...... 20 Airlines Used At SGF ...... 21 Airport Use ...... 5 Airlines Used At All Diverting Airports...... 22 Airport Catchment Area ...... 5 Current Air Service ...... 6 Factors Affecting Air Service Demand and Enplanements and Population Trends ...... 6 Retention ...... 23 Load Factor, Available Seats, and Passengers ...... 7 Passenger Activity Comparison ...... 23 Airport Use ...... 8 Airfares ...... 24 Domestic and International Itineraries ...... 8 Travel Time Comparison ...... 26 Airport Use By Community ...... 9 Nonstop Service Availability ...... 27 Quality of Air Service at Competing Airports ...... 28 True Market ...... 10 Retention Rate Sensitivity ...... 30

True Market Estimate ...... 10 Top 25 True Market Destinations ...... 11 Situation Analysis ...... 31

IRPORT Originating Airport For The Top 25 Domestic Destinations .... 12 Appendix A. Top 50 True Markets ...... 33 A Top 10 Domestic Destinations By Originating Airport ...... 13 Appendix B. Jefferson City/Cole County Originating Airport For The Top 15 International Analysis ...... 35

EGIONAL Destinations ...... 14

R Airport Use – Jefferson City ...... 35 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Geographic Originating Airport For The Top 25 Domestic Destinations Regions ...... 15 – Jefferson City ...... 36 OLUMBIA Regional Distribution of Travelers ...... 16 C

Airport Use – Cole County ...... 37 – Distribution of International Travel...... 17 Originating Airport For The Top 25 Domestic Destinations – Cole County ...... 38 NALYSIS NALYSIS A Appendix C. Glossary ...... 39 EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 1

INTRODUCTION

This Passenger Demand Analysis provides objective air traveler data that is compiled from industry accepted sources using standard methodologies. Airlines accept data included in the Passenger Demand Analysis as credible base information for air service forecasts. This Passenger Demand Analysis – CY 2011 represents a continuing effort by COU’s management to evaluate the travel habits of catchment area residents.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the Passenger Demand Analysis is to develop information on the travel patterns of local airline passengers who reside in the COU geographic area. The report provides an

IRPORT understanding of the air service situation at COU and formulates strategies for improvement. This A analysis examines: • The originating airports used by air travelers

EGIONAL • R Diversion of airline passenger traffic to competing airports • An estimate of total airline passengers in the catchment area and related destinations • Airlines used by local air travelers OLUMBIA C

• Average airfares – • Service levels at COU and competing airports • An assessment of the air service situation at COU NALYSIS NALYSIS

A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 2

METHODOLOGY

The Passenger Demand Analysis – CY 2011 combines Airline Reporting Corporation (ARC) ticketed data and US Department of Transportation (DOT) airline data to provide a comprehensive overview of the air travel market. For the purposes of this study, ARC data include tickets booked by travel agencies in the COU catchment area as well as tickets booked via online travel agencies by passengers in the COU catchment area. It does not capture tickets issued directly by airline Web sites (e.g., www.aa.com, www.united.com) or directly through airline reservation offices. The data used include tickets for the zip codes in the catchment area, NOT all tickets. As a result, ARC data represents a sample to measure the air travel habits of catchment area air travelers. Note that traditional travel agent data is reported by the zip code of the travel agency. Online travel agent data (e.g. Expedia, Orbitz, and Travelocity) is reported by the customer zip code used to purchase the ticket. Although limitations exist, ARC data accurately portrays the airline booking habits of a large cross-section of catchment area travelers making the data useful to both airports and airlines. Adjustments were made to account for Southwest Airlines, which have low reliance on travel agencies and are therefore underrepresented in ARC data.

A total of 34,570 ARC tickets were included in the Passenger Demand Analysis – CY 2011 for calendar year 2011, up from 11,322 for the year ended February 28, 2010.

IRPORT A EGIONAL R OLUMBIA C

– NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DATA AIRPORT USE DESTINATIONS Fifty-five percent of travelers were destined to The Passenger Demand Analysis – CY 2011 Eleven percent of catchment area travelers one of the top 25 markets. Denver was the includes 34,570 ARC tickets for calendar year used COU. Fifty-five percent diverted to number one destination with six percent of 2011. In addition to ARC data, Data Base Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (STL), passengers. COU retained just three percent of Products, Inc. and Diio Mi origin and destination 33 percent diverted to Kansas City International passengers to Denver. The next largest data, onboard and schedule data is used. A Airport (MCI), and one percent diverted to markets were: Los Angeles, Atlanta, glossary of terms is provided in Appendix C. Springfield-Branson National Airport (SGF). Washington National, and Seattle with

retentions of five, 15, 12, and three percent, By comparison, COU retained seven percent of CATCHMENT AREA respectively. None of the top 25 markets had traffic for year ended February 2010, while 62 nonstop service during the 12-month period. The catchment area has a population of percent diverted to STL, 29 percent to MCI, and

478,815 based on an area made up of 114 two percent to SGF. Compared to the 2010 true market, Las Vegas zip codes. dropped from the second ranking to eighth and RUE ARKET th T M Orlando dropped from third to 13 while the DEPARTURES AND AVAILABLE SEATS COU’s total air service market, called the true other three top five destinations remained in the

IRPORT market, is estimated at 716,377 annual origin top five. Changes in the top markets were

A Delta Air Lines served COU in calendar year and destination passengers or 981 passengers anticipated due to the larger base data sample 2011, with an average of 19 weekly departures daily each way. Domestic travelers accounted available and the growth in COU usage. and 950 weekly seats. Effective June 7, 2012,

EGIONAL for 638,728 (89 percent) of the total true market.

R Delta moved one Memphis frequency to International travelers made up the remaining Atlanta. A second Atlanta frequency will start on REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL 77,649 passengers. COU’s domestic retention September 7, 2012, and Memphis will be Twenty-three percent of travelers were traveling

OLUMBIA of 11 percent increased three percentage points

C to the Southeast region. Sixteen percent of reduced to one roundtrip.

– over the prior report while international retention passengers traveled to the West region, 15 remained unchanged. The most significant percent to the East and an additional 11 percent change was the decline in STL’s percentage of NALYSIS NALYSIS were destined to the Southwest region. A international passengers which dropped 22 Retention was highest in the Southeast and percentage points while MCI’s share increased Southwest regions and lowest in the Northwest EMAND EMAND 18 percentage points. D and International regions.

ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 4

DOMESTIC AIRFARES AIR SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES

For calendar year 2011, the one-way average Delta has experienced continued success in the domestic airfare for COU was $194. In a COU market with load factors of 80 percent for comparison of fares, COU’s fare was: the year ended March 2012. Though load factor • $36 higher than STL improvement will be difficult, the shift of service • $38 higher than MCI from Memphis to Atlanta with its greater • $12 lower than SGF connecting opportunities will continue the success of the COU market. COU and its COU’s fares were higher in 20 of the top 25 true surrounding catchment area have demonstrated the ability to support additional hub service with AIRLINES USED markets when compared to STL and MCI. Denver service arguably the top priority Local air travelers used Delta for air travel at followed by Chicago O’Hare and Dallas-Fort VERAGE ARE REND COU. In comparison, diverting travelers used a A F T Worth. There is a need to sequence hub service variety of airlines including: Southwest Airlines Fare trends from calendar year 2002 through additions in order for them to succeed and (24 percent), Delta (23 percent), American 2011 at COU, STL, MCI and SGF are avoid destructive diversion due to competing Airlines (15 percent), United Airlines (14 summarized below: services. In addition to hub service Allegiant percent), US Airways (12 percent), Frontier • COU fares increased at a CAGR of 1.4 service to Orlando is also an opportunity with Airlines (11 percent), and other airlines percent, with the lowest fare in 2007 at the future possibility of Las Vegas and/or one percent. Tampa service.

$150 and the highest fare in 2011 at $194. • Fares increased at STL, MCI and SGF at

IRPORT PASSENGER ACTIVITY respective CAGRs of 2.1, 3.1 and EFFERSON ITY OLE OUNTY A J C /C C 2.7 percent. From calendar year 2002 through 2011, A detailed analysis of Jefferson City and Cole domestic origin and destination passengers (as County was completed. Overall, nine percent of EGIONAL ONSTOP ERVICE R N S reported by airlines to the US DOT) changed Jefferson City passengers flew from COU, while In July 2011, no markets in the top 25 markets as follows: 64 percent used STL, 25 percent used MCI, were served from COU. COU had service to • COU’s passengers increased at a

OLUMBIA and two percent used SGF. Overall, the top five

C Memphis which was not in the top 25 markets. compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of

– true markets from Jefferson City were Denver, Of the diverting airports, STL offered nonstop 4.6 percent and ranged from 14,540 (2007) Atlanta, Washington National, New York service to 23 of the top 25 destinations, MCI to 74,116 (2011). LaGuardia, and Los Angeles. Similarly, for Cole

NALYSIS NALYSIS offered service to 21 and SGF provided service A • STL’s and MCI’s passengers remained flat County, nine percent of passengers flew from to six. STL offered the highest number of over the 10-year period. COU and the top five markets were the same nonstop destinations with a total of 61 in EMAND EMAND • SGF’s passengers increased at a CAGR of as for Jefferson City alone. D July 2011. 1.2 percent. ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 5

AIRPORT USE

o understand airport use, it is important to understand the relative size of the catchment area, current air service, and enplanement activity. COU’s use was determined using ARC Tdata for calendar year 2011 for the zip codes from the catchment area.

EXHIBIT 3.1 COU CATCHMENT AREA AIRPORT CATCHMENT AREA

An airport catchment area, or service area, is a geographic area surrounding an airport where it can reasonably expect to draw passenger traffic and is representative of the local market. The catchment area contains the population of travelers who should use COU considering the drive time from the catchment area to competing airports. This population of travelers is COU’s focus market for air service improvements and

represents the majority of travelers using the

IRPORT local airport. A Exhibit 3.1 identifies the COU catchment area.

EGIONAL It is comprised of 114 zip codes within the US R with an estimated population of 478,815 in 2012 (source: US Census Bureau and Woods &

OLUMBIA Poole Economics, Inc.). C

– NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 6

CURRENT AIR SERVICE

Catchment area airport use is affected by a variety of factors including: destinations offered, flight frequency, available seats, type of aircraft, airfares, and distance to a competing airport. Table 3.1 provides COU’s average weekly departures by month for calendar year 2011. Delta Air Lines served COU, with an average of 19 weekly departures and 950 weekly seats. The COU schedule was improved effective June 7, 2012, when one Memphis frequency was moved to Atlanta. A second Atlanta frequency will start on September 7, 2012, and Memphis will be reduced to one roundtrip.

TABLE 3.1 AVERAGE WEEKLY DEPARTURES DESTINATION MARKETING AVERAGE WEEKLY DEPARTURES – CY 2011 AIRPORT CARRIER JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Memphis Delta 19 21 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 13 Total 19 21 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 13

ENPLANEMENTS AND POPULATION TRENDS

Exhibit 3.2 plots enplanement and population trends at COU for calendar year 2002 to 2011. The Columbia Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was used as a surrogate for the growth trend of the COU catchment area population. Over the past 10 years, the MSA population grew from 153,075 in 2002 to 176,934 in 2011 increasing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.8 percent. Enplanements have increased at a CAGR of 5.8 percent since 2002, with passenger traffic increasing

significantly since 2007.

IRPORT EXHIBIT 3.2 ENPLANEMENTS AND POPULATION TRENDS A 50,000 200,000

EGIONAL 40,000 160,000 R 30,000 120,000

OLUMBIA 20,000 80,000 C

Population –

COU Enplanements COU 10,000 40,000

NALYSIS NALYSIS 0 0 A 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Calendar year EMAND EMAND

D COU Enplanements Columbia MSA Population

Source: COU Airport Records, Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 7

Increasing LOAD FACTOR, AVAILABLE SEATS, AND PASSENGERS Passengers Onboard passengers Exhibit 3.3 shows COU’s available seats, onboard passengers, and load factors for arrivals and departures by quarter from have nearly doubled the first quarter 2009 to the fourth quarter 2011. Over the three-year period load factors have ranged from 68 percent in the from the first quarter 2009 to the fourth first quarter of 2009 to a high in the fourth quarter of 2011 at 85 percent. quarter 2011. Onboard passengers reached a low of 11,858 in the first quarter of 2009 and a high of 21,122 in the third quarter of 2011. Capacity reached a low of 17,442 in the first quarter of 2009 with capacity reaching a high in the third quarter 2011 at 26,274 seats. Overall onboard passengers have nearly doubled in the past three years.

EXHIBIT 3.3 LOAD FACTOR, AVAILABLE SEATS, AND ONBOARD PASSENGERS 100 40,000

90 36,000

80 32,000

70 28,000

60 24,000

50 20,000

40 16,000 Load factor % factor Load

30 12,000 Passengers/Seats

20 8,000 IRPORT A 10 4,000

0 0

EGIONAL 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 R Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Calendar quarter

OLUMBIA Load Factor Seats Onboards C

–

NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 8

AIRPORT USE EXHIBIT 3.4 AIRPORT USE

Exhibit 3.4 provides a graphic depiction of the airports COU SGF used by COU catchment area travelers. An estimated 11 11% 1% percent of the catchment area’s air travelers used COU for their trips to and from the catchment area; 55 percent of catchment area travelers diverted to STL, 33 percent diverted to MCI and one percent diverted to SGF. Compared to the year ended February 2010, COU’s MCI STL 33% 55% retention improved four percentage points while STL’s share of COU passengers decreased seven percentage points, SGF’s share decreased one percentage point and MCI’s share increased four points. TABLE 3.2 AIRPORT USE - DOMESTIC & INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL ITINERARIES AIRPORT USE ORIGINATING CY YE FEB RANK AIRPORT PAX 2011 % 2010 % CHANGE Table 3.2 shows passengers by domestic and Domestic international itineraries. Eleven percent of domestic and 1 STL 351,988 55 60 (5) three percent of international travelers used COU. COU’s 2 MCI 206,940 32 30 3

3 COU 73,359 11 8 3 domestic retention increased three percentage points to 4 SGF 6,441 1 2 (1) 11 percent. STL’s share of domestic passengers declined Subtotal 638,728 100 100 100 IRPORT

A five percentage points but STL still was the primary airport International used by domestic travelers. MCI’s share of domestic 1 STL 45,487 59 80 (22) 2 MCI 26,254 34 16 18 passengers increased three percentage points while

EGIONAL 3 SGF 3,466 4 0 4

R SGF’s share declined one percentage point. 4 COU 2,443 3 3 0 Subtotal 77,649 100 100 100 Internationally, COU’s retention remained the same while Domestic and international

OLUMBIA 1 STL 397,475 55 62 (7) C STL’s share dropped 22 percentage points and MCI’s 2 MCI 233,194 33 29 4 – share increased 18 percentage points. SGF’s share of 3 COU 75,801 11 7 4 international passengers increased to four percent. 4 SGF 9,907 1 2 (1)

NALYSIS NALYSIS Total 716,377 100 100 100 A

EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 9

AIRPORT USE BY COMMUNITY

Airport retention rates by community are an important aspect to understanding the overall COU catchment area. Table 3.3 shows how retention varies among the local communities within it. ARC data from online travel agencies reflect the zip code of the customer purchasing the ticket, while the ARC data from travel agencies located within the COU catchment area reflect the travel agency’s zip code. For those local travel agency tickets, this analysis assumes that the traveler’s residence is in the same community as the travel agency where the ticket was purchased.

The highest retention by community for COU was in the Ashland, Columbia and Hartsburg communities with 17, 14, and 14 percent retention, respectively. The retention in the Columbia community increased six percentage points from the year ended February 2010, while COU’s retention in the Jefferson City and Moberly communities improved four and five percentage points, respectively. When comparing to the prior true market estimate for year ended February 2010, there are significantly more communities represented due to the inclusion of the online travel agency data in ARC.

TABLE 3.3 AIRPORT USE BY COMMUNITY CY 2011 % YE FEB 2010 % AIRPORT USE AIRPORT USE % POINT COMMUNITY STL MCI COU SGF STL MCI COU SGF CHANGE Ashland 42 41 17 0 - - - - - Boonville 29 64 6 0 - - - - - California 49 46 3 2 - - - - - Centertown 95 4 0 0 - - - - - Centralia 67 25 8 0 - - - - -

IRPORT Columbia 56 30 14 0 60 31 8 1 6 A Eldon 38 54 7 1 - - - - - Fulton 73 22 5 0 - - - - - Hartsburg 67 19 14 0 - - - - -

EGIONAL Holts Summit 66 25 8 1 - - - - - R Jefferson City 64 25 9 2 68 22 5 5 4 Lake Ozark 68 24 3 4 - - - - - Mexico 74 20 6 0 - - - - - OLUMBIA

C Moberly 46 47 7 0 53 44 2 0 5

– Osage Beach 64 29 1 7 - - - - - Total 55 33 11 1 62 29 7 2 4

NALYSIS NALYSIS

EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 10

TRUE MARKET

his section investigates destinations associated with travel to and from the catchment area. Destinations T are grouped into geographic regions to understand the flow of air travel.

TRUE MARKET ESTIMATE

The airport catchment area (Exhibit 3.1, page 5) represents the geographic area from which the airport primarily attracts air travelers. Domestic airlines report origin and destination traffic statistics to the US DOT on a quarterly basis. Used by itself, these traffic statistics do not quantify the total size of an air service market. By combining ARC information with passenger data contained in the US DOT airline reports, an estimate of the total air travel market by destination was

calculated. Adjustments were made to account for Southwest Airlines, which has low reliance on travel IRPORT

A agencies and are therefore underrepresented in ARC data. Passengers are estimated for domestic and international markets on a destination and regional basis. EGIONAL

R The ARC data used in this report includes information on initiated passengers ticketed by local or online travel agencies. This enables the identification of passenger retention and diversion. OLUMBIA

C According to US DOT airline reports for calendar year 2011, 58 percent of COU origin and

– destination passengers initiated air travel from COU, and the other 42 percent began their trip from another city (e.g. New York, Dallas, and Phoenix). For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed

NALYSIS NALYSIS that travel patterns for COU visitors mirror catchment area passengers. A

EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 11

Denver Was COU’s TOP 25 TRUE MARKET DESTINATIONS Largest Market Denver was the largest The top 25 destinations for COU accounted for TABLE 4.1 TRUE MARKET ESTIMATE - TOP 25 DESTINATIONS true market with 35,285 55 percent of the travel to/from the COU COU YE FEB passengers, or 48 REPORTED DIVERTED TRUE 2010 passengers daily each catchment area. Denver was the largest market RANK DESTINATION PAX PAX MARKET PDEW RANK way. Rounding out the with 35,285 annual passengers resulting in 48 1 Denver, CO 929 34,357 35,285 48.3 8 top five destinations were passengers daily each way and accounted for 2 Los Angeles, CA 1,635 32,636 34,271 46.9 5 Los Angeles, Atlanta, 3 Atlanta, GA 3,724 21,073 24,798 34.0 4 Washington National, six percent of domestic travel. Los Angeles, 4 Washington, DC (DCA) 2,786 20,976 23,761 32.5 1 and Seattle. Atlanta, Washington National, and Seattle 5 Seattle, WA 656 21,798 22,455 30.8 12 rounded out the top five, with total annual 6 New York, NY (LGA) 1,867 20,568 22,435 30.7 7 7 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 1,080 18,232 19,312 26.5 9 estimated traffic of 34,271, 24,798, 23,761, and 8 Las Vegas, NV 898 15,387 16,285 22.3 2 22,455 passengers, respectively. In calendar 9 Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,322 14,813 16,135 22.1 10 year 2011, COU did not have nonstop service to 10 Newark, NJ 727 14,564 15,290 20.9 38 any of its top 25 markets; however, in 2012 11 Dallas, TX (DFW) 1,928 12,862 14,790 20.3 16 12 Chicago, IL (ORD) 969 12,967 13,936 19.1 6 Delta began nonstop service to Atlanta. 13 Orlando, FL (MCO) 2,513 11,414 13,927 19.1 3 14 San Diego, CA 414 11,997 12,410 17.0 17 Overall, three of the top five markets from the 15 Detroit, MI 1,837 9,999 11,836 16.2 31 year ended February 2010 are still in the top 16 Chicago, IL (MDW) 0 11,149 11,149 15.3 20 17 Boston, MA 1,736 9,164 10,900 14.9 18 five; Washington National, Atlanta, and Los 18 Raleigh/Durham, NC 2,059 7,893 9,952 13.6 39

Angeles. Las Vegas dropped to eighth and 19 Miami, FL 727 8,799 9,526 13.0 19 Orlando to 13th. Changes in the top markets 20 Tampa, FL 2,594 6,455 9,049 12.4 14 21 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 1,625 7,158 8,783 12.0 43 IRPORT were anticipated due to the larger amount of A 22 New Orleans, LA 1,766 6,997 8,763 12.0 29 base data available with the inclusion of the 23 Pittsburgh, PA 1,130 7,486 8,617 11.8 52 online travel agency data. 24 San Antonio, TX 1,272 7,233 8,505 11.7 21

EGIONAL 25 Sacramento, CA 212 8,170 8,382 11.5 48 R Top 25 destinations 36,407 354,147 390,553 535.0 N/A

Total domestic 73,359 565,370 638,728 875.0 N/A Total international 2,443 75,206 77,649 106.4 N/A

OLUMBIA All markets 75,801 640,576 716,377 981.3 N/A C

– NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 12

ORIGINATING AIRPORT FOR THE TOP 25 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS

Table 4.2 shows the percentage of passengers by market and originating airport. Nine percent of passengers used COU for travel to the top 25 markets. Three markets had COU retention of 20 percent or greater including: Raleigh/Durham, Tampa, and New Orleans. Five markets had retention less than five percent: Denver, Seattle, San Diego, Chicago Midway, and Sacramento.

TABLE 4.2 TOP 25 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS BY ORIGINATING AIRPORT ORIGIN AIRPORT % TOTAL RANK DESTINATION STL MCI COU SGF PAX 1 Denver, CO 34 63 3 0 35,285 2 Los Angeles, CA 45 50 5 0 34,271 3 Atlanta, GA 68 13 15 4 24,798 4 Washington, DC (DCA) 52 34 12 2 23,761 5 Seattle, WA 43 53 3 1 22,455 6 New York, NY (LGA) 65 25 8 1 22,435 7 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 45 50 6 0 19,312 8 Las Vegas, NV 29 64 6 1 16,285 9 Fort Lauderdale, FL 60 31 8 1 16,135 10 Newark, NJ 84 11 5 0 15,290 11 Dallas, TX (DFW) 49 31 13 8 14,790

12 Chicago, IL (ORD) 82 10 7 1 13,936 13 Orlando, FL (MCO) 65 17 18 0 13,927 14 San Diego, CA 51 45 3 1 12,410 IRPORT

A 15 Detroit, MI 79 5 16 0 11,836 16 Chicago, IL (MDW) 60 40 0 0 11,149 17 Boston, MA 44 39 16 0 10,900

EGIONAL 18 Raleigh/Durham, NC 72 7 21 0 9,952 R 19 Miami, FL 81 10 8 1 9,526 20 Tampa, FL 55 16 29 0 9,049 21 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 67 15 19 0 8,783

OLUMBIA 22 New Orleans, LA 38 41 20 0 8,763 C

– 23 Pittsburgh, PA 70 16 13 0 8,617 24 San Antonio, TX 40 44 15 1 8,505 25 Sacramento, CA 54 43 3 0 8,382

NALYSIS NALYSIS Top 25 domestic 55 35 9 1 390,553 A Total domestic 55 32 11 1 638,728 EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 13

TOP 10 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS BY ORIGINATING AIRPORT

Table 4.3 shows the top 10 markets when passengers exclusively fly out of COU, STL, MCI, and SGF. The top three markets for passengers flying out of COU were Memphis, Atlanta, and Washington National. The top three markets for passengers diverting to STL were Atlanta, Los Angeles, and New York LaGuardia. For MCI, the top three markets were Denver, Los Angeles, and Seattle while the top three markets for SGF were Dallas-Fort Worth, Atlanta, and Washington National. Exhibit 4.1 shows the top 10 markets overall and the percentage STL, MCI, COU, and SGF receive by market with a column graph.

TABLE 4.3 TOP 10 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS BY ORIGINATING AIRPORT STL MCI COU SGF RANK DESTINATION PAX DESTINATION PAX DESTINATION PAX DESTINATION PAX 1 Atlanta, GA 16,744 Denver, CO 22,125 Memphis, TN 5,420 Dallas, TX (DFW) 1,122 2 Los Angeles, CA 15,302 Los Angeles, CA 17,261 Atlanta, GA 3,724 Atlanta, GA 987 3 New York, NY (LGA) 14,676 Seattle, WA 11,895 Washington, DC (DCA) 2,786 Washington, DC (DCA) 458 4 Newark, NJ 12,831 Las Vegas, NV 10,467 Tampa, FL 2,594 New York, NY (LGA) 311 5 Washington, DC (DCA) 12,456 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 9,568 Orlando, FL (MCO) 2,513 Seattle, WA 215 6 Denver, CO 12,070 Washington, DC (DCA) 8,061 Raleigh/Durham, NC 2,059 Chicago, IL (ORD) 171 7 Chicago, IL (ORD) 11,414 New York, NY (LGA) 5,581 Baltimore, MD 2,029 Denver, CO 162 8 Fort Lauderdale, FL 9,743 San Diego, CA 5,523 Dallas, TX (DFW) 1,928 Fort Lauderdale, FL 147 9 Seattle, WA 9,688 Fort Lauderdale, FL 4,923 New York, NY (LGA) 1,867 Knoxville, TN 145 10 Detroit, MI 9,365 San Francisco, CA 4,627 Detroit, MI 1,837 San Diego, CA 143

EXHIBIT 4.1 RETENTION AND DIVERSION FOR THE TOP 10 DESTINATIONS

40,000 IRPORT A 35,000

30,000 SGF MCI STL COU EGIONAL R

25,000

20,000 OLUMBIA C

15,000 – Passengers 10,000

NALYSIS NALYSIS 5,000 A 0 DEN LAX ATL DCA SEA LGA PHX LAS FLL EWR EMAND EMAND

D Top 10 Market ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 14

ORIGINATING AIRPORT FOR THE TOP 15 INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS

Table 4.4 shows the percentage of passengers for the top 15 international destinations by originating airport. Only the top 15 international destinations are shown since the smaller market sizes involved limited available data. Three percent of air travelers from the catchment area used COU for travel to the top 15 international destinations. The top three international markets were: Cancun, Mexico; Beijing, China; and London, UK. Compared to the year ended February 2010, Cancun remained the number one market and London remained the number three market; however, Beijing replaced Montego Bay, Jamaica for the second ranked international market.

TABLE 4.4 TOP 15 INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS BY ORIGINATING AIRPORT ORIGIN AIRPORT % TOTAL RANK DESTINATION STL MCI SGF COU PAX 1 Cancun, Mexico 65 33 2 0 6,717 2 Beijing, China 47 47 4 3 1,977 3 London, UK (LHR) 38 38 22 3 1,925 4 Montreal, Canada 47 47 1 4 1,918 5 San Jose, Costa Rica 42 42 13 3 1,839 6 Toronto, Canada 47 47 4 3 1,686 7 Tokyo, Japan (NRT) 49 49 0 2 1,655 8 Puerto Vallarta, Mexico 65 35 0 0 1,545 9 Montego Bay, Jamaica 76 24 0 0 1,534 10 San Jose Cabo, Mexico 13 88 0 0 1,522

IRPORT 11 Cozumel, Mexico 74 22 4 0 1,332

A 12 Paris-De Gaulle, France 43 43 9 5 1,244 13 Barcelona, Spain 44 44 7 4 1,224 14 Shanghai, China 47 47 3 3 1,190

EGIONAL 15 Istanbul, Turkey 47 47 4 3 1,190 R Top 15 International 52 42 4 2 28,497 Total International 59 34 4 3 77,649

OLUMBIA C

–

NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 15

EDERAL VIATION DMINISTRATION EOGRAPHIC EGIONS Airline Hubs for F A A (FAA) G R Regional Flow of It is important to identify and quantify air travel markets, but it is also important to measure air travel by specific geographic Traffic It is important to regions. Generally, airlines operate route systems that serve geographic areas. Additionally, most airline hubs are directional consider the and flow passenger traffic to and from geographic regions, not just destinations within the region. Therefore, air service catchment area’s analysis exercises consider the regional flow of passenger traffic as well as passenger traffic to a specific city. Accordingly, regional flow of traffic as most airline hubs this section analyzes the regional distribution of air travelers from the airport catchment area. For this exercise, the FAA are directional and flow geographic breakdown of the US is used (Exhibit 4.2). passenger traffic to and from geographic regions. EXHIBIT 4.2 FAA GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS

Northwest NortheastNortheast Great Lakes

East West Central

Southeast

Southwest IRPORT A Alaska EGIONAL R OLUMBIA C

– NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 16

REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVELERS

Table 4.5 and Exhibit 4.3 divide catchment area travel into the FAA's nine geographic regions and one catch-all international region. The Southeast region is the largest traveled region for COU catchment area passengers with 23 percent of the total. The West region and East region follow with the second and third highest shares of 16 and 15 percent, respectively. Retention was the highest in the Southeast and Southwest regions at 19 and 15 percent, respectively, and lowest in the Northwest and International regions at three percent.

TABLE 4.5 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL BY AIRPORT REGION AIRPORT SE W E SW INTL NW GL NE AK C TOTAL Pax 102,556 48,969 72,231 35,320 45,487 30,116 45,561 16,595 353 287 397,475 STL % 26 12 18 9 11 8 11 4 0 0 100 Pax 31,117 57,307 24,914 29,194 26,254 42,936 13,179 7,870 244 180 233,194 MCI % 13 25 11 13 11 18 6 3 0 0 100 Pax 31,027 5,107 11,759 11,961 2,443 2,665 8,135 2,554 81 71 75,801 COU % 41 7 16 16 3 4 11 3 0 0 100 Pax 1,991 521 1,190 1,631 3,466 510 458 128 6 7 9,907 SGF % 20 5 12 16 35 5 5 1 0 0 100 Pax 166,690 111,904 110,094 78,105 77,649 76,228 67,333 27,146 683 545 716,377 Total % 23 16 15 11 11 11 9 4 0 0 100 COU Retention 19 5 11 15 3 3 12 9 12 13 11

EXHIBIT 4.3 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL IRPORT A 180,000 SGF MCI STL COU 160,000

EGIONAL 140,000 R 120,000 100,000

OLUMBIA 80,000 C

– 60,000 40,000 True True market passengers

NALYSIS NALYSIS 20,000 A 0 SE W E SW INTL NW GL NE AK C

EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 17

Europe Was the DISTRIBUTION OF INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL Top International Region Eleven percent of catchment area travelers had international itineraries. Table 4.6 shows international travelers by airport and Europe was the most region. Europe was the most frequented international region with 36 percent, or 27,596 of the total 77,649 catchment area frequented international travelers. Mexico and Central America was the second largest international region with 21 percent, and Asia was international region with 36 percent, or the third largest international region with 14 percent. The remaining top international regions were, in order of greatest to least: 27,596 annual Canada, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Australia and Oceania. COU had the highest retention to travelers. the Middle East and Europe and lowest retention to the Caribbean and Mexico and Central America.

TABLE 4.6 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERS ORIGINATING AIRPORT TRUE % OF REGION STL MCI SGF COU MARKET COLUMN Europe 16,085 8,517 1,622 1,373 27,596 36 Mexico & Central America 9,185 6,458 662 81 16,386 21 Asia 6,356 4,170 262 242 11,030 14 Canada 3,639 2,915 600 273 7,426 10 Caribbean 3,516 1,610 90 30 5,247 7 Middle East 1,892 1,097 196 192 3,377 4 Africa 2,218 510 18 101 2,847 4 South America 1,729 641 13 111 2,494 3 Australia & Oceania 867 335 4 40 1,245 2 Total passengers 45,487 26,254 3,466 2,443 77,649 100

% of row 59 34 4 3 100 N/A % of column 100 100 100 100 100 N/A

IRPORT A

EGIONAL R OLUMBIA C

– NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 18

AIRLINES

nformation in this section identifies airline use by catchment area air travelers. The information is airport and airline specific. The intent is to determine which airlines are used to travel to Ispecific destinations when air travel is accessed at an airport other than the local airport. The airline market share at COU is based on US DOT airline reported data. Airline market share at STL, TABLE 5.1 AIRLINES USED AT COU MCI and SGF is based on ARC data and is an TOP 25 COU TOTAL estimation of carrier share. RANK TRUE MARKETS DL PAX 1 Memphis, TN 5,420 2 Atlanta, GA 3,724 AIRLINES USED AT COU 3 Washington, DC (DCA) 2,786 4 Tampa, FL 2,594 Table 5.1 provides the airline share for the top 25 5 Orlando, FL (MCO) 2,513 true markets at COU. With COU only having service 6 Raleigh/Durham, NC 2,059 from one carrier, all of the traffic from COU used 7 Baltimore, MD 2,029 8 Dallas, TX (DFW) 1,928 Delta Air Lines. 9 New York, NY (LGA) 1,867

10 Detroit, MI 1,837 11 New Orleans, LA 1,766 12 Boston, MA 1,736 IRPORT

A 13 Los Angeles, CA 1,635 14 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 1,625 15 Jacksonville, FL 1,403

EGIONAL 16 Houston, TX (IAH) 1,383 R 17 Philadelphia, PA 1,363 18 Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,322 19 Austin, TX 1,312 OLUMBIA

C 20 San Antonio, TX 1,272

– 21 Dallas, TX (DAL) 1,171 22 Pittsburgh, PA 1,130 23 Nashville, TN 1,120 NALYSIS NALYSIS

A 24 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 1,080 25 Knoxville, TN 979 Total top 25 47,055 EMAND EMAND

D Total all domestic markets 73,359 ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 19

AIRLINES USED AT STL

Table 5.2 shows the airlines used when travelers from the catchment area used STL for travel to the top 25 STL originated true markets (based on ARC data). Delta had the largest share of catchment area passengers at STL carrying 26 percent of diverting passengers. Southwest Airlines/AirTran Airways carried the second highest share of diverting passengers with 25 percent. American Airlines, United Airlines/Continental Airlines, US Airways, and Frontier Airlines were the other major airlines obtaining a significant share of diverting passengers with shares of 18 to three percent. All other carriers combined carried two percent of diverting passengers. On a market-by-market basis, the airlines had the greatest shares in markets where they offered nonstop service.

TABLE 5.2 AIRLINES USED AT STL TOP 25 STL AIRLINE % TOTAL RANK TRUE MARKETS DL WN/FL AA UA/CO US F9 OTHER STL PAX 1 Atlanta, GA 72 24 0 0 4 0 0 16,744 2 Los Angeles, CA 5 24 51 8 4 2 6 15,302 3 New York, NY (LGA) 27 7 57 1 7 0 0 14,676 4 Newark, NJ 3 16 0 75 4 0 1 12,831 5 Washington, DC (DCA) 29 2 58 0 11 0 0 12,456 6 Denver, CO 0 37 2 30 2 28 0 12,070 7 Chicago, IL (ORD) 1 0 62 30 2 0 5 11,414

8 Fort Lauderdale, FL 40 39 6 5 9 0 1 9,743 9 Seattle, WA 8 33 3 10 4 6 35 9,688 10 Detroit, MI 80 16 1 1 1 0 0 9,365 IRPORT 11 Orlando, FL (MCO) 15 73 6 4 2 0 0 9,015 A 12 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 3 35 3 7 52 1 0 8,654 13 Miami, FL 5 0 90 1 2 0 2 7,692 14 Dallas, TX (DFW) 1 0 96 2 1 0 0 7,193 EGIONAL

R 15 Raleigh/Durham, NC 55 23 1 2 20 0 0 7,122 16 Chicago, IL (MDW) 15 85 0 0 0 0 0 6,689 17 San Diego, CA 18 19 32 13 11 6 0 6,331

OLUMBIA 18 Pittsburgh, PA 10 12 1 26 52 0 0 6,037 C 19 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 11 2 2 4 81 0 0 5,842 – 20 Hartford, CT 19 28 3 21 29 0 0 5,698 21 Philadelphia, PA 5 14 4 3 74 0 0 5,495 22 Richmond, VA 45 5 7 20 23 0 0 5,003 NALYSIS NALYSIS

A 23 Tampa, FL 32 44 10 6 7 0 0 4,961 24 Boston, MA 17 19 8 36 16 3 1 4,818 25 Las Vegas, NV 16 32 11 12 14 16 0 4,795 EMAND EMAND

D Total top 25 23 23 23 13 14 3 2 219,635 Total all domestic markets 26 25 18 14 12 3 2 351,988 ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 20

Southwest AIRLINES USED AT MCI Captured Highest Share at MCI Table 5.3 shows the airlines used when travelers from the catchment area used MCI for the top 25 MCI markets flown. Southwest captured 26 Southwest/AirTran had the largest share of catchment area passengers at MCI carrying 26 percent of diverting passengers. percent of travelers Frontier, Delta, United/Continental, US Airways and American were the other major airlines with a significant share which using MCI, followed by Frontier with 24 ranged from 24 to nine percent. All other airlines carried a combined one percent. percent.

TABLE 5.3 AIRLINES USED AT MCI TOP 25 MCI AIRLINE % TOTAL RANK TRUE MARKETS WN/FL F9 DL UA/CO US AA OTHER MCI PAX 1 Denver, CO 30 40 0 27 2 0 1 22,125 2 Los Angeles, CA 32 37 10 10 5 5 1 17,261 3 Seattle, WA 28 44 10 7 4 2 4 11,895 4 Las Vegas, NV 31 31 13 12 12 1 0 10,467 5 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 31 4 7 3 52 2 0 9,568 6 Washington, DC (DCA) 0 59 11 1 26 3 0 8,061 7 New York, NY (LGA) 6 32 57 0 2 2 1 5,581 8 San Diego, CA 31 16 13 11 17 11 0 5,523 9 Fort Lauderdale, FL 32 0 29 19 2 18 0 4,923 10 San Francisco, CA 15 42 3 30 7 1 2 4,627 11 Dallas, TX (DFW) 0 0 1 0 0 99 0 4,546 12 Chicago, IL (MDW) 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,460

13 Boston, MA 12 51 23 8 3 4 1 4,299 14 Austin, TX 28 29 17 9 0 16 0 3,884 15 San Antonio, TX 31 35 2 11 0 21 0 3,746 IRPORT

A 16 New Orleans, LA 21 46 14 12 1 5 0 3,622 17 Sacramento, CA 31 33 10 12 5 8 0 3,613 18 Atlanta, GA 33 0 60 2 2 4 0 3,342

EGIONAL 19 Salt Lake City, UT 18 20 51 7 4 1 0 3,043 R 20 Lubbock, TX 31 0 0 0 0 69 0 2,754 21 Orlando, FL (MCO) 60 0 18 9 11 3 0 2,376 22 Jacksonville, FL 26 0 47 0 4 22 0 2,354

OLUMBIA 23 Oklahoma City, OK 31 69 0 0 0 0 0 2,287 C

– 24 Little Rock, AR 31 0 17 34 0 17 0 2,287 25 Portland, OR 31 18 16 20 14 0 2 2,251 Total top 25 28 29 13 11 9 9 1 148,894

NALYSIS NALYSIS Total all domestic markets 26 24 16 14 10 9 1 206,940 A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 21

AIRLINES USED AT SGF

Table 5.4 shows the airlines used when travelers from the catchment area used SGF for the top 25 markets flown. American had the largest share of catchment area passengers at SGF carrying 43 percent of diverting passengers, followed by Delta with 38 percent and United with 19 percent. Allegiant Air’s impact on the COU market could not be determined based on ARC data as Allegiant does not use travel agencies for air traveler’s to book flights.

TABLE 5.4 AIRLINES USED AT SGF TOP 25 SGF AIRLINE % TOTAL RANK TRUE MARKETS AA DL UA SGF PAX 1 Dallas, TX (DFW) 100 0 0 1,122 2 Atlanta, GA 0 100 0 987 3 Washington, DC (DCA) 70 15 15 458 4 New York, NY (LGA) 18 24 59 311 5 Seattle, WA 50 0 50 215 6 Chicago, IL (ORD) 64 0 36 171 7 Denver, CO 0 0 100 162 8 Fort Lauderdale, FL 0 100 0 147 9 Knoxville, TN 0 100 0 145

10 San Diego, CA 43 0 57 143 11 Columbus, OH 20 0 80 131

IRPORT 12 Las Vegas, NV 27 27 45 126 A 13 Miami, FL 70 30 0 112 14 Richmond, VA 100 0 0 111 15 Dallas, TX (DAL) 0 100 0 106 EGIONAL

R Total top 15 46 36 19 4,447 Total all domestic markets 43 38 19 6,441

OLUMBIA C

–

NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 22

AIRLINES USED AT ALL DIVERTING AIRPORTS

Exhibit 5.1 displays the market share of airlines serving the COU catchment area diverting passengers. Southwest/AirTran garnered the majority with 24 percent, Delta carried 23 percent, American carried 16 percent and United/Continental 14 percent. US Airways, Frontier and other carriers carried the remaining 24 percent of traffic.

EXHIBIT 5.1 AIRLINE MARKET SHARE OF DIVERTING PASSENGERS

F9 OTHER 1% 11% WN/FL 24% US 12%

UA/CO 14% DL

23%

IRPORT 15%

EGIONAL R OLUMBIA C

– NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 23

FACTORS AFFECTING AIR SERVICE DEMAND AND RETENTION

his section examines several factors that have affected and will continue to affect air service demand in the Central Missouri area and COU’s ability to retain passengers. The factors Taffecting an airport’s ability to retain passengers included in this section are: airfares, travel time from competing airports, nonstop service availability at competing airports, and the quality and capacity of air service offered by competing airports.

EXHIBIT 6.1 DOMESTIC ORIGIN AND DESTINATION PASSENGERS PASSENGER ACTIVITY COMPARISON TRENDS100,000 12,000 To better understand the changes in passenger volumes at 90,000 10,800 COU, STL, MCI and SGF, Exhibit 6.1 provides a depiction of 80,000 9,600 origin and destination passengers over the last 10 years as

reported to the US DOT. Passenger trends are 70,000 8,400

summarized below: 60,000 7,200 • COU’s passengers increased at a compounded

IRPORT 50,000 6,000 annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.6 percent. COU’s A

Pax: COU 40,000 4,800 passengers ranged from 14,540 in 2007 to 74,116 passengers in 2011. 30,000 3,600

EGIONAL • While passengers changed year by year, overall R 20,000 2,400

Pax: STL, MCI & SGF (000s) STL’s and MCI’s passengers remained flat. 10,000 1,200 • SGF’s passengers increased at a CAGR of

OLUMBIA 1.2 percent. C

0 0 –

NALYSIS NALYSIS Calendar Year A COU STL MCI SGF

EMAND EMAND Source: Diio Mi D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 24

Fare Disparity AIRFARES COU had the highest fare in 20 of the When a traveler decides which airport to access for TABLE 6.1 U.S. DOT AVERAGE DOMESTIC ONE-WAY FARES catchment area’s top travel, airfares play a large role. Airfares affect air AVERAGE ONE-WAY FARE COU 25 markets compared MAX to STL and MCI. service demand and an airport’s ability to retain RANK DESTINATION COU STL MCI SGF DIFF. passengers. One-way airfares (excluding taxes and 1 Denver, CO $178 $125 $109 $231 $68 2 Los Angeles, CA $284 $183 $154 $146 $138 Passenger Facility Charges (PFC)) paid by travelers 3 Atlanta, GA $182 $142 $138 $196 $45 are used to measure the relative fare 4 Washington, DC (DCA) $265 $186 $150 $257 $115 competitiveness between COU, STL, MCI and SGF. 5 Seattle, WA $352 $188 $174 $265 $178 Fares listed for competing airports are for all air 6 New York, NY (LGA) $201 $159 $161 $240 $42 7 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) $184 $156 $147 $248 $37 travelers using competing airports and are not 8 Las Vegas, NV $216 $163 $143 $125 $91 reflective of the average fare paid by catchment area 9 Fort Lauderdale, FL $168 $141 $135 $210 $33 travelers diverting to competing airports. 10 Newark, NJ $204 $186 $235 $310 $18 11 Dallas, TX (DFW) $184 $147 $146 $200 $38 12 Chicago, IL (ORD) $175 $123 $139 $262 $52 Table 6.1 shows one-way average airfares for the 13 Orlando, FL (MCO) $173 $126 $134 $203 $47 top 25 catchment area domestic destinations. 14 San Diego, CA $243 $161 $156 $254 $87 Average airfares are a result of many factors 15 Detroit, MI $171 $129 $209 $239 $42 16 Chicago, IL (MDW) - $121 $129 $621 - including: length of haul, availability of seats, 17 Boston, MA $217 $183 $152 $234 $66 business versus leisure fares, and airline 18 Raleigh/Durham, NC $145 $135 $151 $216 $11

competition. The overall domestic average fare for 19 Miami, FL $224 $148 $165 $217 $76 calendar year 2011, at COU was $194, $36 higher 20 Tampa, FL $163 $137 $132 $287 $31 21 Charlotte-Douglas, NC $143 $181 $170 $268 ($26) IRPORT than STL, $38 higher than MCI and $12 lower

A 22 New Orleans, LA $180 $164 $126 $247 $55 than SGF. 23 Pittsburgh, PA $155 $127 $144 $245 $28 24 San Antonio, TX $204 $164 $126 $213 $78

EGIONAL In individual markets, COU had the highest fare in 20 25 Sacramento, CA $260 $190 $170 $278 $91 R Average domestic fare $194 $158 $156 $206 $39 of the top 25 markets when compared to the primary Source: Data Base Products, Inc.; Note: Calendar Year 2011; Fares do not include taxes diverting airports of STL and MCI. When compared to or Passenger Facility Charges

OLUMBIA SGF, COU fares were higher to only five destinations. C

–

NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 25

Exhibit 6.2 tracks the average fares at COU, STL, EXHIBIT 6.2 10-YEAR AVERAGE DOMESTIC ONE-WAY FARE TREND – CALENDAR YEAR MCI and SGF for calendar year 2002 through 2011.

Exhibit 6.3 charts the average fare for the airports $225 adjusted for inflation (2002 dollars). The average fare data is based on US DOT airline data. $200 • COU’s average fares have ranged from $150 $175 (2007) to $194 (2011), and increased at a CAGR of 1.4 percent. $150 • STL average fares ranged from $131 (2002) way average fare way

to $158 (2011), and increased at a CAGR of - $125 2.1 percent One • MCI average fares ranged from $118 (2002) $100 to $156 (2011), and increased at a CAGR of $75 3.1 percent. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 • SGF average fares ranged from $163 (2002) COU STL MCI SGF to $214 (2008), and increased at a CAGR of 2.7 percent. EXHIBIT 6.3 10-YEAR AVERAGE DOMESTIC ONE-WAY FARE TREND – CALENDAR YEAR (2002 DOLLARS) Over the 10-year period, COU’s fares have ranged

from $8 to $45 higher than STL, from $16 to $63 $250 higher than MCI, and from $43 lower to $12 higher $225 IRPORT

A than SGF. In the most recent years, the fare spread has been declining when compared with STL $200 and MCI. $175 EGIONAL

R $150 Adjusted for inflation, airfares at COU decreased at a $125

CAGR of 1.1 percent and 0.5 percent at STL, while average fare way - OLUMBIA

C increasing at a CAGR of 0.5 percent for MCI and 0.1 $100

One – percent at SGF. $75

$50 NALYSIS NALYSIS A 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

COU STL MCI SGF EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 26

TRAVEL TIME COMPARISON

Table 6.2 displays the overall flight time from COU to the top 10 catchment area destinations that do not have nonstop service and require a connection. A comparison of the travel time from COU with the amount of time it takes to drive to STL, MCI and SGF and then use nonstop service is provided.

Accessible connecting flights from COU require a minimum connecting time allowance of 30 minutes to be included in the comparison. Excluding heavy traffic and inclement weather, from the Columbia community, drive times are estimated at (source: MapQuest): • STL = one hour and 48 minutes • MCI = two hours and 20 minutes • SGF = two hours and 50 minutes

It is quicker for a passenger to fly out of COU and make a connection at MEM to get to their final destination than driving to STL, MCI, or SGF and taking a nonstop flight in only one of the top 10 markets. This is primarily due to the limited connectivity

at Memphis compared to larger hubs. With the addition of nonstop Atlanta service and the significantly higher level of connecting opportunities at the Atlanta hub, it is anticipated that the travel time will be more comparable going forward.

IRPORT A TABLE 6.2 TRAVEL TIME COMPARISON (MINUTES) CONNECTING COU STL MCI SGF TIME RANK DESTINATIONS CONNECT NONSTOP NONSTOP NONSTOP SAVINGS EGIONAL

R 1 Denver, CO 272 240 243 290 (32) 2 Los Angeles, CA 369 343 349 - (26) 3 Atlanta, GA 255 200 254 280 (55) 4 Washington, DC (DCA) 253 218 278 - (35) OLUMBIA C

5 Seattle, WA 461 363 375 - (98) – 6 New York, NY (LGA) 296 248 304 - (48) 7 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 387 300 304 - (87) 8 Las Vegas, NV 394 318 325 355 (76) NALYSIS NALYSIS

A 9 Fort Lauderdale, FL 265 268 320 - 3 10 Newark, NJ 300 243 300 - (57) Note: Sample week in July 2011 EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 27

COU Did Not Have NONSTOP SERVICE AVAILABILITY Nonstop Service to a Top 25 Travelers drive to competing airports to access air service for TABLE 6.3 NONSTOP SERVICE COMPARISON Destination many reasons, one of which is nonstop service availability. WEEKLY DEPARTURES In July 2011, COU Table 6.3 compares the level of air service offered at COU RANK DESTINATION COU STL MCI SGF offered nonstop service 1 Denver, CO 0 81 117 20 to none of the top 25 with that offered at STL, MCI and SGF in July 2011. 2 Los Angeles, CA 0 35 40 3 catchment area 3 Atlanta, GA 0 80 82 27 destinations. COU did not have nonstop service to a top 25 destination. 4 Washington, DC (DCA) 0 39 32 0 5 Seattle, WA 0 14 14 0 COU has nonstop service to Memphis which is not in the top 6 New York, NY (LGA) 0 52 44 0 25 destinations. Comparatively, STL had service to 23 7 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 0 44 42 0 markets in the top 25 with 917 flights per week and 61 overall 8 Las Vegas, NV 0 28 28 5 nonstop destinations. MCI had service to 21 markets in the 9 Fort Lauderdale, FL 0 8 8 0 10 Newark, NJ 0 50 34 0 top 25 with 810 weekly flights and nonstop service to 47 11 Dallas, TX (DFW) 0 62 55 48 nonstop destinations. SGF had service to six markets in the 12 Chicago, IL (ORD) 0 138 102 46 top 25 with 149 weekly frequencies. 13 Orlando, FL (MCO) 0 35 23 0 14 San Diego, CA 0 7 14 0 15 Detroit, MI 0 52 27 0 16 Chicago, IL (MDW) 0 64 66 0 17 Boston, MA 0 14 18 0 18 Raleigh/Durham, NC 0 19 0 0 19 Miami, FL 0 14 0 0

20 Tampa, FL 0 14 15 0 21 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 0 42 34 0

IRPORT 22 New Orleans, LA 0 7 10 0 A 23 Pittsburgh, PA 0 18 0 0 24 San Antonio, TX 0 0 5 0 25 Sacramento, CA 0 0 0 0

EGIONAL

R Total top 25 frequencies 0 917 810 149 Number of top 25 served 0 23 21 6 Total destinations served 1 61 47 10 Note: Sample week in July 2011 OLUMBIA C

–

NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 28

QUALITY OF AIR SERVICE AT COMPETING AIRPORTS

The quality of air service offered by an airport is a factor in a TABLE 6.4 COU DEPARTURES BY AIRCRAFT TYPE traveler’s decision when selecting where to originate or terminate air AIRCRAFT SEAT WEEKLY DEPARTURES service. In general, passengers prefer larger aircraft over smaller TYPE RANGE DL TOTAL Regional jet 30-50 20 20 aircraft and jet aircraft over turboprop aircraft. For the purposes of Total departures 20 20 this section, quality of air service is measured by size of aircraft and % of total 100% 100% jets versus turboprops. Table 6.4 provides COU’s weekly Total seats 1,000 1,000 % of total 100% 100% departures by aircraft type for a sample week in July 2011. Delta Air Source: Diio Mi; Note: Sample week in July 2011 Lines provided 20 weekly departures at COU with 1,000 seats. All departures were provided with regional jet equipment.

Table 6.5 provides STL’s weekly departures by aircraft type. Southwest Airlines/AirTran Airways provided the largest percentage of departures (37 percent) at 629 and seats (49 percent) at 84,007. Delta provided the second largest number of departures (15 percent) at 264 and third largest number of seats (14 percent) at 25,018. United Airlines/Continental Airlines followed with 14 percent of departures and eight percent of seats, and American Airlines provided 12 percent of departures and 18 percent of seats. The majority of departures were provided with narrow body jet equipment followed by regional jet equipment and a small number of turboprop aircraft.

TABLE 6.5 STL DEPARTURES BY AIRCRAFT TYPE AIRCRAFT SEAT WEEKLY DEPARTURES TYPE RANGE WN/FL DL UA/CO AA 9K OTHER TOTAL IRPORT

A 0-18 0 0 0 0 145 38 183 Turboprop 51-80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30-50 13 40 160 7 0 58 278 Regional 51-70 0 76 66 0 0 2 144 EGIONAL jet R 71-100 0 44 0 0 0 37 81 70-125 58 26 8 0 0 45 137 Narrow 126-160 558 70 4 165 0 39 836 body jet

OLUMBIA 161-200 0 8 0 40 0 0 48 C Total departures 629 264 238 212 145 219 1,707 – % of total 37% 15% 14% 12% 8% 13% 100% Total seats 84,007 25,018 13,888 30,888 1,305 18,005 173,111 % of total 49% 14% 8% 18% 1% 10% 100% NALYSIS NALYSIS

A Source: Diio Mi; Note: Sample week in July 2011

EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 29

Table 6.6 provides MCI’s weekly departures by TABLE 6.6 MCI DEPARTURES BY AIRCRAFT TYPE aircraft type. Southwest/AirTran provided the largest AIRCRAFT SEAT WEEKLY DEPARTURES percentage of departures (32 percent) at 440 and TYPE RANGE WN/FL UA/CO DL F9 AA OTHER TOTAL 0-18 0 0 0 0 0 36 36 Turboprop seats (42 percent) at 59,800. United/Continental 51-80 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 provided the second largest number of departures 30-50 0 174 52 0 13 15 254 Regional 51-70 0 69 45 0 7 6 127 (19 percent) at 255 and fourth largest number of jet 71-100 0 0 37 125 0 42 204 seats (11 percent) at 15,114. Delta Air Lines Narrow 70-125 32 1 7 39 0 13 92 followed with 18 percent of departures and 17 body jet 126-160 408 11 100 29 83 27 658 percent of seats, while Frontier provided 14 percent Total departures 440 255 241 194 103 139 1,372 of departures and 15 percent of seats. Similar to % of total 32% 19% 18% 14% 8% 10% 100% Total seats 59,800 15,114 24,492 21,079 12,718 9,888 143,091 STL, the majority of departures at MCI were % of total 42% 11% 17% 15% 9% 7% 100% provided with narrow body jet and regional jet Source: Diio Mi; Note: Sample week in July 2011 equipment followed by a small number of turboprop departures.

SGF’s weekly departures and seats are provided in TABLE 6.7 SGF DEPARTURES BY AIRCRAFT TYPE Table 6.7. American provided the largest share of AIRCRAFT SEAT WEEKLY DEPARTURES weekly departures and seats with 67 weekly TYPE RANGE AA UA DL G4 TOTAL Regional jet 30-50 67 47 40 0 154 departures and 3,139 weekly seats. United provided Narrow body 126-160 0 0 0 20 20 the second highest share of weekly departures and jet third highest share of seats with 47 departures and Total departures 67 47 40 20 174 % of total 39% 27% 23% 11% 100% IRPORT 2,350 weekly seats. Delta provided 23 percent of A Total seats 3,139 2,350 2,000 3,000 10,489 departures and 19 percent of seats, while Allegiant % of total 30% 22% 19% 29% 100% Air offered 11 percent of departures and 29 percent Note: Sample week in July 2011

EGIONAL of seats. All departures were provided on regional jet R or narrow body jet equipment.

OLUMBIA

– NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 30

Retention RETENTION RATE SENSITIVITY Improvement A percentage point Considering the previous factors of airfares, travel time, nonstop service, and quality of service, a retention rate sensitivity increase in retention of analysis follows in Table 6.8. The purpose is to show how small changes in passenger retention can affect passenger volume. 10 points would create an estimated additional Passengers in total and for each of the top 25 markets are calculated using varying degrees of retention. An increase in 71,638 annual retention of 10 percentage points would result in an additional 71,638 estimated annual passengers or 98 passengers daily passengers for COU. each way for COU.

TABLE 6.8 RETENTION RATE SENSITIVITY REPORTED RETENTION RETENTION IMPROVEMENT RANK DESTINATION PAX % 5% 10% 15% 1 Denver, CO 929 3 2,693 4,457 6,221 2 Los Angeles, CA 1,635 5 3,349 5,062 6,776 3 Atlanta, GA 3,724 15 4,964 6,204 7,444 4 Washington, DC (DCA) 2,786 12 3,974 5,162 6,350 5 Seattle, WA 656 3 1,779 2,902 4,024 6 New York, NY (LGA) 1,867 8 2,989 4,111 5,233 7 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 1,080 6 2,046 3,011 3,977 8 Las Vegas, NV 898 6 1,713 2,527 3,341 9 Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,322 8 2,129 2,936 3,742 10 Newark, NJ 727 5 1,491 2,256 3,020 11 Dallas, TX (DFW) 1,928 13 2,667 3,407 4,146

12 Chicago, IL (ORD) 969 7 1,666 2,363 3,059 13 Orlando, FL (MCO) 2,513 18 3,210 3,906 4,602 14 San Diego, CA 414 3 1,034 1,655 2,275 IRPORT

A 15 Detroit, MI 1,837 16 2,429 3,021 3,612 16 Chicago, IL (MDW) 0 0 557 1,115 1,672 17 Boston, MA 1,736 16 2,281 2,826 3,371 18 Raleigh/Durham, NC 2,059 21 2,557 3,054 3,552 EGIONAL

R 19 Miami, FL 727 8 1,203 1,679 2,156 20 Tampa, FL 2,594 29 3,046 3,499 3,951 21 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 1,625 19 2,064 2,503 2,943

OLUMBIA 22 New Orleans, LA 1,766 20 2,204 2,643 3,081 C 23 Pittsburgh, PA 1,130 13 1,561 1,992 2,423 – 24 San Antonio, TX 1,272 15 1,697 2,122 2,547 25 Sacramento, CA 212 3 631 1,050 1,469

NALYSIS NALYSIS Total top 25 36,407 9 55,934 75,462 94,990

A Total domestic 73,359 11 105,295 137,232 169,168 Total international 2,443 3 6,325 10,207 14,090 Total of all markets 75,801 11 111,620 147,439 183,258 EMAND EMAND

D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 31

SITUATION ANALYSIS

OU’s limited air service has been performing very well. For the year Cended March 2012, COU’s load factor averaged nearly 81 percent. The estimated true market grew approximately 40,223 (six percent) to 716,377 or 981 passengers daily each way since the year ended February 2010 true market estimate. True market retention increased from seven percent to 11 percent. Retention improvement was due to the improved COU schedule and the declining STL diversion. The STL diversion dropped seven points to 55 percent while the MCI diversion increased four points to 33 percent. This was to be expected since the connectivity over Memphis is much better to the east and less competitive to the west.

Among COU’s top 50 true markets, Chicago O’Hare, Minneapolis, and Chicago Midway are IRPORT

A considered northbound connecting markets and retention was only six percent. Sixty-nine percent diverted to STL and 24 percent diverted to MCI. Denver, Los Angeles, Seattle, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Portland, Honolulu, and Oakland EGIONAL

R are considered westbound connecting markets and retention was four percent. Forty-two percent diverted to STL and 54 percent diverted to MCI. Dallas (Fort Worth and Love Field), New Orleans, San Antonio, Austin, Oklahoma City, Houston Intercontinental, Lubbock, and Little Rock are OLUMBIA C considered southbound connecting markets and retention was 15 percent. Forty-five percent – diverted to STL and 38 percent diverted to MCI. The other 25 markets (excluding Memphis) are considered eastbound connecting markets and retention was 13 percent. Sixty-five percent NALYSIS NALYSIS

A diverted to STL and 20 percent diverted to MCI.

EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 32

COU average fares in its top 25 domestic true markets were $36 higher than comparable STL average fares and $38 higher than comparable MCI fares. The CLT market was an aberration with COU average fares lower than both STL and MCI. In the other 24 markets, STL fares offered a larger fare advantage than MCI in eight markets while MCI had a fare advantage in 16 markets. In general COU average fares tended to be more competitive with STL fares in eastern and southeastern markets except for Washington National and Miami. COU fare differences compared to MCI were quite high.

With the continuing decline in connecting opportunities at Memphis, Delta’s shift of COU service to Atlanta is a very favorable development and will provide valuable access to many southeastern and eastern markets. However, catchment area air travel diversion to western, upper Midwest, and southwestern destinations can be expected to be high due to the circuity of routings via Atlanta to these areas. With an estimated true market of nearly 1,000 passengers daily each way, there is a serious need for service to additional hubs. To the extent possible, it is important to sequence new hub service to assure that each new service is successful and minimizes diversion from existing COU service.

Prioritizing opportunities is subject to debate, but Denver service is arguably the catchment area’s top priority and opportunity buoyed by indications of interest on the part of United Airlines and perhaps Frontier Airlines. With the shift of existing service to Atlanta, virtually all travel to Denver and beyond points will divert to STL and/or MCI. Service to Chicago O’Hare is a close second priority and

opportunity. While the service would potentially divert some traffic from the Atlanta service, it would serve a large local market and provide a major improvement in service to the northeast and Great

IRPORT Lakes area. If United or American Airlines are reluctant to provide Chicago O’Hare service, Detroit A service is an option though Delta may view the service as competing with the Atlanta service.

EGIONAL The third priority for COU is American service to Dallas-Fort Worth. If COU is successful in obtaining R Denver service, Dallas-Fort Worth service efforts would need to be delayed until the Denver service is well established due to the diversion risk. The Dallas-Fort Worth service would access a larger Texas

OLUMBIA market and provide westbound connectivity. If efforts to obtain Denver service are unsuccessful, focus C

– should immediately be shifted to obtaining Dallas-Fort Worth service.

NALYSIS NALYSIS Concurrently, COU and its catchment area have an opportunity to obtain Allegiant Air service to A Orlando. As a very low-fare twice weekly niche service, it would not pose a significant diversion threat to the Atlanta service. Success in the Orlando market could potentially lead to Las Vegas and/or EMAND EMAND D Tampa service. ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 33

APPENDIX A. TOP 50 TRUE MARKETS

TABLE A.1 TOP 50 TRUE MARKETS ORIGIN AIRPORT OF REPORTED RETENTION TRUE DIVERTING PAX RANK DESTINATION PAX % MARKET PDEW STL MCI SGF 1 Denver, CO 929 3 35,285 48.3 12,070 22,125 162 2 Los Angeles, CA 1,635 5 34,271 46.9 15,302 17,261 73 3 Atlanta, GA 3,724 15 24,798 34.0 16,744 3,342 987 4 Washington, DC (DCA) 2,786 12 23,761 32.5 12,456 8,061 458 5 Seattle, WA 656 3 22,455 30.8 9,688 11,895 215 6 New York, NY (LGA) 1,867 8 22,435 30.7 14,676 5,581 311 7 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 1,080 6 19,312 26.5 8,654 9,568 11 8 Las Vegas, NV 898 6 16,285 22.3 4,795 10,467 126 9 Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,322 8 16,135 22.1 9,743 4,923 147 10 Newark, NJ 727 5 15,290 20.9 12,831 1,732 0 11 Dallas, TX (DFW) 1,928 13 14,790 20.3 7,193 4,546 1122 12 Chicago, IL (ORD) 969 7 13,936 19.1 11,414 1,382 171

13 Orlando, FL (MCO) 2,513 18 13,927 19.1 9,015 2,376 22 14 San Diego, CA 414 3 12,410 17.0 6,331 5,523 143 15 Detroit, MI 1,837 16 11,836 16.2 9,365 593 41 IRPORT

A 16 Chicago, IL (MDW) 0 0 11,149 15.3 6,689 4,460 0 17 Boston, MA 1,736 16 10,900 14.9 4,818 4,299 47 18 Raleigh/Durham, NC 2,059 21 9,952 13.6 7,122 744 26

EGIONAL 19 Miami, FL 727 8 9,526 13.0 7,692 995 112

R 20 Tampa, FL 2,594 29 9,049 12.4 4,961 1,466 29 21 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 1,625 19 8,783 12.0 5,842 1,296 21 22 New Orleans, LA 1,766 20 8,763 12.0 3,349 3,622 26

OLUMBIA 23 Pittsburgh, PA 1,130 13 8,617 11.8 6,037 1,417 32 C 24 San Antonio, TX 1,272 15 8,505 11.7 3,436 3,746 51 – 25 Sacramento, CA 212 3 8,382 11.5 4,535 3,613 22 26 Austin, TX 1,312 16 8,205 11.2 2,994 3,884 15

NALYSIS NALYSIS 27 Jacksonville, FL 1,403 17 8,119 11.1 4,298 2,354 64

A 28 Philadelphia, PA 1,363 18 7,735 10.6 5,495 804 74 29 Richmond, VA 384 5 7,721 10.6 5,003 2,223 111 30 Hartford, CT 323 4 7,696 10.5 5,698 1,675 0 EMAND EMAND

D 31 Salt Lake City, UT 464 6 7,561 10.4 3,996 3,043 58 32 San Francisco, CA 283 4 7,546 10.3 2,609 4,627 28 ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 34

TABLE A.1 TOP 50 TRUE MARKETS ORIGIN AIRPORT OF REPORTED RETENTION TRUE DIVERTING PAX RANK DESTINATION PAX % MARKET PDEW STL MCI SGF 33 Minneapolis, MN 959 14 6,750 9.2 4,005 1,786 0 34 Oklahoma City, OK 495 7 6,669 9.1 3,837 2,287 51 35 Baltimore, MD 2,029 32 6,394 8.8 3,401 964 0 36 Houston, TX (IAH) 1,383 22 6,299 8.6 2,722 2,195 0 37 Lubbock, TX 596 10 6,183 8.5 2,773 2,754 61 38 West Palm Beach, FL 252 4 6,076 8.3 4,771 1,052 0 39 Memphis, TN 5,420 92 5,919 8.1 312 125 62 40 Little Rock, AR 495 8 5,837 8.0 3,005 2,287 51 41 Cleveland, OH 878 16 5,591 7.7 4,309 404 0 42 Louisville, KY 333 8 4,404 6.0 2,496 1,540 34 43 Fort Walton Beach, FL 232 5 4,359 6.0 3,250 877 0 44 Fort Myers, FL 414 10 4,157 5.7 2,857 862 23 45 Dallas, TX (DAL) 1,171 28 4,112 5.6 2,058 777 106 46 Portland, OR 151 4 4,093 5.6 1,664 2,251 27 47 Honolulu, HI 182 5 3,783 5.2 1,646 1,924 32 48 Oakland, CA 91 3 3,494 4.8 1,789 1,569 45 49 Columbus, OH 969 34 2,810 3.8 1,186 524 131 50 Huntsville/Decatur, AL 363 13 2,802 3.8 1,477 924 37 Top 50 Domestic Destinations 58,350 11 534,868 732.7 292,408 178,745 5,364 Total Domestic 73,359 11 638,728 875.0 351,988 206,940 6,441 Total International 2,443 3 77,649 106.4 45,487 26,254 3,466

Total All Markets 75,801 11 716,377 981.3 397,475 233,194 9,907

IRPORT A EGIONAL

R OLUMBIA C

– NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 35

APPENDIX B. JEFFERSON CITY/COLE COUNTY ANALYSIS

o assess the travel pattern of the Jefferson City community and the larger area of Cole County, a more detailed analysis of each geographic area was undertaken. The analysis T includes airport use, the true market and a breakdown of the top 25 true markets.

AIRPORT USE – JEFFERSON CITY

Table B.1 shows passengers by domestic and TABLE B.1 JEFFERSON CITY - AIRPORT USE international itineraries for Jefferson City, as well ORIGINATING TRUE AIRPORT RANK AIRPORT MARKET USE % as the true market estimate for passengers Domestic originating from Jefferson City. There is an 1 STL 100,833 63 estimated 166,804 annual passengers to/from the 2 MCI 39,532 25 3 COU 12,546 10 Jefferson City community or 228 passengers daily 4 SGF 2,282 2

each way. Approximately 93 percent or 155,193 Subtotal 155,193 100 passengers were domestic while the remaining International 1 STL 7,595 65

IRPORT seven percent or 11,611 passengers

A 2 MCI 3,496 30 flew internationally. 3 SGF 375 3 4 COU 145 1 Subtotal 11,611 100 EGIONAL Ten percent of domestic travelers used COU,

R Domestic and international while the majority of the domestic passengers (63 1 STL 108,428 64 percent) used STL, 25 percent used MCI, and two 2 MCI 43,028 25

OLUMBIA percent used SGF. Internationally only one 3 COU 12,692 9 C 4 SGF 2,657 2 – percent of Jefferson City passengers used COU Total 166,804 100 with 65 percent using STL, 30 percent used MCI, and three percent used SGF. NALYSIS NALYSIS

A Overall, COU received nine percent of Jefferson City passengers. STL received the majority of

EMAND EMAND Jefferson City passengers with 64 percent, followed by MCI with 25 percent, and SGF with D two percent. ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 36

ORIGINATING AIRPORT FOR THE TOP 25 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS – JEFFERSON CITY

Table B.2 shows the top 25 domestic destinations for Jefferson City travelers, as well as the percentage of passengers by market and originating airport. Overall, Denver was the largest individual market with 9,118 passengers, or approximately six percent of the total true market estimate from Jefferson City. Rounding out the top five markets were Atlanta, Washington National, New York LaGuardia, and Los Angeles. Seven percent of passengers used COU for travel to the top 25 markets. Only one market had COU retention of 20 percent or greater: Tampa. Ten markets had retention of less than five percent: Denver, Seattle, Little Rock, Dallas-Fort Worth, Newark, Sacramento, Dallas Love Field, Austin, Hartford, and Chicago Midway.

TABLE B.2 TOP 25 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS BY ORIGINATING AIRPORT FOR JEFFERSON CITY ORIGIN AIRPORT % TOTAL RANK DESTINATION STL MCI COU SGF PAX 1 Denver, CO 44 53 3 0 9,118 2 Atlanta, GA 63 12 19 6 6,940 3 Washington, DC (DCA) 64 23 7 5 6,791 4 New York, NY (LGA) 66 27 6 0 6,708 5 Los Angeles, CA 59 35 6 0 6,291 6 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 54 39 7 0 5,855 7 Fort Lauderdale, FL 81 10 7 3 5,683 8 Seattle, WA 35 62 2 2 4,790 9 Little Rock, AR 63 35 2 0 4,763 10 Dallas, TX (DFW) 44 39 3 14 4,172

IRPORT 11 Detroit, MI 89 4 6 1 3,574

A 12 Newark, NJ 95 4 1 0 3,454 13 New Orleans, LA 55 31 14 0 3,423 14 Chicago, IL (ORD) 79 13 5 3 3,064

EGIONAL 15 Sacramento, CA 90 8 3 0 3,028 R 16 Las Vegas, NV 37 57 5 1 2,950 17 Orlando, FL (MCO) 65 22 13 0 2,930 18 Dallas, TX (DAL) 95 0 3 2 2,788 OLUMBIA 19 Tampa, FL 62 9 28 1 2,677 C

– 20 San Antonio, TX 55 38 7 0 2,651 21 Miami, FL 90 4 5 1 2,538 22 Austin, TX 60 37 3 0 2,537

NALYSIS NALYSIS 23 Jacksonville, FL 61 26 12 1 2,447 A 24 Hartford, CT 91 7 2 0 2,436 25 Chicago, IL (MDW) 85 15 0 0 2,269

EMAND EMAND Top 25 domestic 64 27 7 2 103,876 D Total domestic 63 25 10 2 155,193 ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 37

AIRPORT USE – COLE COUNTY

Table B.3 shows passengers by domestic and international itineraries for TABLE B.3 COLE COUNTY - AIRPORT USE Cole County, as well as the true market estimate for passengers originating ORIGINATING TRUE AIRPORT RANK AIRPORT MARKET USE % from Cole County. There is an estimated 176,395 annual passengers to/from Domestic the Cole County community or 242 passengers daily each way. 1 STL 108,388 64 Approximately 93 percent or 164,375 passengers were domestic while the 2 MCI 40,831 24 3 COU 12,864 9 remaining seven percent or 12,020 passengers flew internationally. 4 SGF 2,293 2 Subtotal 164,375 100 Nine percent of domestic travelers used COU, while the majority of the International domestic passengers (64 percent) used STL, 24 percent used MCI, and two 1 STL 7,960 66 2 MCI 3,540 29 percent used SGF. Internationally only one percent of Cole County 3 SGF 375 3 passengers used COU with 66 percent using STL, 25 percent used MCI, and 4 COU 145 1 two percent used SGF. Subtotal 12,020 100 Domestic and international 1 STL 116,348 64 Overall, COU received nine percent of Cole County passengers. STL 2 MCI 44,370 25 received the majority of Cole County passengers with 64 percent, followed 3 COU 13,009 9 by MCI with 25 percent, and SGF with two percent. 4 SGF 2,668 2 Total 176,395 100

IRPORT A EGIONAL R OLUMBIA C

– NALYSIS NALYSIS A EMAND EMAND D ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 38

ORIGINATING AIRPORT FOR THE TOP 25 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS – COLE COUNTY

Table B.4 shows the top 25 domestic destinations for Cole County travelers, as well as the percentage of passengers by market and originating airport. Overall, Denver was the largest individual market with 9,999 passengers, or approximately nine percent of the total true market estimate from Cole County. Rounding out the top five markets were Atlanta, Washington National, New York LaGuardia, and Los Angeles. Six percent of passengers used COU for travel to the top 25 markets. Only one market had COU retention of 20 percent or greater: Tampa. Eleven markets had retention of less than five percent: Denver, Seattle, Little Rock, Dallas-Fort Worth, Newark, Chicago Midway, Las Vegas, Chicago O’Hare, Sacramento, Austin, and Hartford.

TABLE B.4 TOP 25 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS BY ORIGINATING AIRPORT FOR COLE COUNTY ORIGIN AIRPORT % TOTAL RANK DESTINATION STL MCI COU SGF PAX 1 Denver, CO 42 54 3 0 9,999 2 Atlanta, GA 64 12 19 5 7,194 3 Washington, DC (DCA) 64 24 7 5 6,961 4 New York, NY (LGA) 67 27 6 0 6,767 5 Los Angeles, CA 60 34 6 0 6,464 6 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 57 37 6 0 6,445 7 Fort Lauderdale, FL 80 12 6 2 6,108 8 Seattle, WA 35 62 2 2 4,922 9 Little Rock, AR 63 35 2 0 4,763 10 Dallas, TX (DFW) 45 39 3 13 4,287

IRPORT 11 Detroit, MI 88 4 7 1 3,675

A 12 Newark, NJ 95 4 1 0 3,645 13 New Orleans, LA 54 32 14 0 3,468 14 Chicago, IL (MDW) 100 0 0 0 3,345

EGIONAL 15 Orlando, FL (MCO) 68 20 11 0 3,334 R 16 Las Vegas, NV 39 55 4 1 3,306 17 Chicago, IL (ORD) 80 13 4 3 3,206 18 Sacramento, CA 90 8 3 0 3,028 OLUMBIA 19 Tampa, FL 66 8 26 0 2,969 C

– 20 Dallas, TX (DAL) 93 0 5 2 2,837 21 Miami, FL 90 4 5 1 2,672 22 Austin, TX 58 39 3 0 2,607

NALYSIS NALYSIS 23 San Antonio, TX 80 13 7 0 2,573 A 24 Jacksonville, FL 61 26 12 1 2,447 25 Hartford, CT 91 7 2 0 2,436

EMAND EMAND Top 25 domestic 66 26 6 2 109,460 D Total 64 25 9 2 176,395 ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 39

APPENDIX C. GLOSSARY

Airline codes Airport codes (continued) Destination airport 9K ...... Cape Air LGA ...... New York-La Guardia, NY Any airport where the air traveler spends four AA ...... American Airlines LHR ...... London-Heathrow, UK hours or more. This is the Federal Aviation CO ...... Continental Airlines MCI ...... Kansas City, MO Administration definition. DL ...... Delta Air Lines MCO ...... Orlando-International, FL F9 ...... Frontier Airlines MDW ...... Chicago-Midway, IL Diversion FL ...... AirTran Airways NRT ...... Tokyo-Narita, Japan Passengers who do not use the local airport for G4 ...... Allegiant Air ORD...... Chicago-O’Hare, IL air travel, but instead use a competing airport to UA ...... United Airlines PHX ...... Phoenix-Sky Harbor, AZ originate the air portion of their trip. US ...... US Airways SEA ...... Seattle, WA WN ...... Southwest Airlines SGF ...... Springfield, MO STL ...... St. Louis, MO Enplanement A passenger boarding a commercial aircraft. Airport catchment area (ACA)

The geographic area surrounding an airport ARC FAA from which that airport can reasonably expect to Acronym for Airline Reporting Corporation. Acronym for the Federal Aviation draw passenger traffic. The airport catchment area is sometimes called the service area. Administration.

IRPORT Average airfare

A The average of the airfares reported by the Hub Airport codes airlines to the US DOT. The average airfare ATL ...... Atlanta, GA An airport used by an airline as a transfer point.

EGIONAL does not include taxes or passenger facility It is part of a hub and spoke model, where R COU ...... Columbia, MO charges and represents one-half of a travelers moving between airports not served by DAL ...... Dallas-Love Field, TX roundtrip ticket. direct flights change planes en route to their DCA ...... Washington-National, DC OLUMBIA destination. Also an airport classification system C

DEN ...... Denver, CO

– CAGR DFW ...... Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX used by the FAA (e.g., non-hub, small hub, Abbreviation for compounded annual growth EWR ...... Newark, NJ medium hub, and large hub. rate, or the average rate of growth per year over NALYSIS NALYSIS FLL ...... Fort Lauderdale, FL A a given time period. IAH ...... Houston-Intercontinental, TX Initiated (origin) passengers

LAS ...... Las Vegas, NV Origin and destination passengers who began EMAND EMAND

D LAX ...... Los Angeles, CA their trip from within the catchment area.

ASSENGER ASSENGER P

PAGE 40

Load factor Originating airport Stimulated passengers The percentage of airplane capacity that is used The airport used by an air traveler for the first Additional/“new” passengers that are generated by passengers. enplanement of a commercial air flight. by the introduction of service or by decreases in airfares not included in the true market. Local market Passenger Facility Charge The number of air travelers who travel between Fee imposed by airports of $1 to $4.50 on True market two points via nonstop air service. enplaning passengers. The fees are used by Total number of air travelers, including those airports to fund FAA approved airport who are using a competing airport, in the MSA improvement projects. geographic area served by COU. The true market estimate includes the size of the total Acronym for Metropolitan Statistical Area. market and for specific destinations. MSAs have at least one urban cluster with a Pax

population of at least 50,000 plus adjacent Abbreviation for passengers. Turboprop aircraft territory that has a high degree of social and A type of engine that uses a jet engine to turn a economic integration with the core as measured PDEW propeller. Turboprops are often used on by commuting ties. Abbreviation for passengers daily each way. regional and business aircraft because of their

Point-to-point relative efficiency at speeds slower than, and Narrow-body jet altitudes lower than, those of a typical jet. Nonstop service that does not stop at an A jet aircraft with a single aisle designed for seating over 100 passengers. airline’s hub and whose primary purpose is to US DOT carry local traffic rather than connecting traffic. Acronym for US Department of Transportation.

IRPORT Nonstop flight A Air travel between two points without stopping Referred passengers Wide-body jet at an intermediate airport. Origin and destination passengers who began A jet aircraft with two aisles designed for their trip from outside the catchment area. EGIONAL

R seating greater than 175 passengers. Onboard passengers The number of passengers transported on one Regional jet A jet aircraft with a single aisle designed for OLUMBIA flight segment. C seating fewer than 100 passengers.

– Origin and destination (O&D) Retained passengers (retention)

NALYSIS NALYSIS passengers

A Passengers who use the local airport for air Includes all originating and destination travel instead of using a competing airport to passengers. In the context of this report, it

EMAND EMAND originate the air portion of their trip.

D describes the passengers arriving and

departing an airport. ASSENGER ASSENGER P

FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT

MEAD & HUNT, INC. ■ 152 GINGER HILL COURT ■ GLEN CARBON, IL 62037-3506

618.656.2848 ■ [email protected] ■ WWW.MEADHUNT.COM