DOCSLIB.ORG

Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Air Carriers Summary Tables

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Air Carriers Summary Tables ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲ ▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲ U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics Office of Airline Information Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Air Carriers Summary Tables twelve months ending December 31, 1999 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NORMAN Y. MINETA Secretary MICHAEL P. JACKSON Deputy Secretary BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS ASHISH K. SEN Director RICK KOWALEWSKI Deputy Director SUSAN J. LAPHAM Associate Director for Statistical Programs DONALD W. BRIGHT Assistant Director Office of Airline Information ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Office of Airline Information MARIANNE M. SEGUIN Acting Chief ADP Services Division JENNIFER FABRIZI Database Administrator Bureau of Transportation Statistics T100 Traffic Database Our mission is to lead in developing transportation data Office of Outreach and Communications and information of high quality and to advance their MARTHA COURTNEY effective use in both public and private transportation Editor decisionmaking. DORINDA EDMONDSON Our vision for the future: Data and information of high Graphic Specialist quality will support every significant transportation policy decision, thus advancing the quality of life and the DAVIDA BALDWIN economic well-being of all Americans. Editorial Assistant Cover design Recommended citation SUSAN J.Z. HOFFMEYER U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Air Carriers, Summary Tables: Twelve Months Ending December 31, 1999 BTS01-03 Washington, DC: 2001 All material in this report is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without special permission; citation as to source is required. CONTENTS Page Air Traffic Hubs (Map) ............................................................................................................... ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................. iii Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... v SUMMARY TABLES Table 1. Summary of Aircraft Departures and Enplaned Passengers, Freight, and Mail by Carrier Group, Air Carrier, and Type of Service .................................. 1-1 Table 2. Summary of Aircraft Departures and Enplaned Passengers, Freight, and Mail by State or U.S. Area and Type of Service ................................................ 2-1 Table 3. Aircraft Departures and Enplaned Passengers, Freight, and Mail in Total Operations, All Services at Large Air Traffic Hubs ............................................ 3-1 Table 4. Aircraft Departures and Enplaned Passengers, Freight, and Mail in Total Operations, All Services at Medium Air Traffic Hubs ....................................... 4-1 Table 5. Aircraft Departures and Enplaned Passengers, Freight, and Mail in Total Operations, All Services at Small Air Traffic Hubs ............................................ 5-1 i Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Air Carriers Se attle /Ta co December 31, 1999 ma WA Spokane Portland Eugene OR MT ND Boise ID MN Reno WY Sacramento SD San Francisco/Oakland NV Minneapolis/S t. P Manchester/ ME San Jose Salt Sioux Falls aul Hartford, CT/ La Concord ke City WI Springfield, MA/ Cedar Rapids/ Buffalo/ Los Angeles/ Milwaukee Westfield, MA UT Iowa City MI Niagara Falls VT Burbank/Long BeachCA NE NH Portland M Rochester adison Grand Rapids NY Las V CO Omaha IA egas Denver Chicago Syracuse Detroit MA Boston Des M Moline Albany oines Allentown/ Providence Ontario/Riverside/ Colorado S South Bend Cleveland Indio/ Bethlehem/ NJ CT San Bernardino prings Pittsburgh, P Palm S IL IN A/ PA Easton New York RI pr KS Wheeling, WV Islip ing Indianapolis Newark s Kansas Dayton Columbus City Harrisburg/York Philadelphia, PA/ St. Louis OH San Diego AZ Baltimore Camden, NJ Wichita MO Cincinnati WV Washington Atlantic City Phoenix Albuquerque Louisville DE NM OK Lexington/Frankfort Greensboro/ MD Amarill Richmond Tucson o/ Tulsa High Point/ DC Bor ge Fayetteville KY r Oklahoma City Winston Salem VA AR Nashville Norfolk/ Lubbock Knoxville Raleigh/Durham Memphis TN Virginia Beach/ Portsm outh/ El Paso Little Rock Charlotte NC Dallas/Ft. Worth Huntsville Chesapeake Midl and/O Greenville/Spartanburg ALASKA dessa Birm ingham Atlanta Columbia Shreve MS Myrtle Beach TX port AL SC Jackson/ GA Charleston Austin LA Vicksburg Savannah Houston Baton Rouge San Antonio Pensacola New Orleans Fair ba Mission/McAllen/ Jacksonville nks MARIANA Mobile, AL/ Edinburg Valparaiso Corpus Christi G Pascagoula, MS FL ISLANDS ulfport/Biloxi Anchorage Brownsville/ Tampa/St. Petersburg/ Orlando Harlingen/San Benito Clearwater/Lakeland Sarasota/Bradenton Ft. Myers West Palm Beach/Palm Beach Miami/Ft. Lauderdale HAWAII Guam LEGEND Lihue Large Hubs 29 Honolulu Medium Hubs 31 Kahului Small Hubs 56 PUERTO RICO & VIRGIN ISLANDS Kailua-Kona Hilo San Juan Charlotte Amalie INTRODUCTION Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Air Carriers: Summary Tables presents summary data for all scheduled and nonscheduled service by large certificated U.S. air carriers—including the vol- ume of passenger, freight, and mail enplanements, and aircraft departures for each airport served during the 12 months ending December 31, 1999. Large certificated air carriers hold Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) authorizing the performance of air transportation. Large certificated air carriers operate aircraft with seating capacity of more than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds. Data for commuter, intrastate, and foreign-flag air carriers are not included in this publication. SOURCE OF DATA The data in this publication are compiled from information reported to DOT by the large certifi- cated air carriers on BTS Form 41, Schedules T-100 and T-3. PRESENTATION OF DATA The data in this publication are presented in five tables. Tables 1 and 2 contain summary data by type of service for carrier groups and individual air carriers, and summary figures by area and state. Tables 3, 4, and 5 show activity in air carrier system operations at large, medium, and small air traffic hubs. Data are not broken out by domestic or international operations at airports; only U.S. system operations are shown. Air Traffic Hubs Air traffic hubs are designated as geographic areas based on the percentage of total passengers enplaned in that area. A hub may have more than one airport in it. This definition of hub should not be confused with the definition used by the airlines in describing their “hub-and-spoke” route structures. Individual communities fall into four hub classifications as determined by each community’s per- centage of the total enplaned revenue passengers in all services and all operations of U.S. certifi- cated route carriers within the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and other U.S. areas. Classifications for 1999 are based on 610,628,716 total enplaned revenue passengers. The percentage and number of enplaned passengers in the hub classifications for 12 months end- ing December 31, 1999 are: Hub classification Percent of total enplaned passengers Number of enplaned passengers Large (L) ................. 1.00 or more 6,106,287 or more Medium (M) ........... 0.25 to 0.999 1,526,571 to 6,106,287 Small (S) ................. 0.05 to 0.249 305,314 to 1,526,571 Nonhub (N) ............ Less than 0.05 Less than 305,314 iii During 1999 there were 116 air traffic hubs, representing 17 percent of the 693 total air traffic hubs and nonhubs in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and other U.S. areas. The dominance of hubs in air traffic patterns is demonstrated by the fact that 97 percent of all passenger enplane- ments were recorded at these hubs. The table below shows the number of hubs/nonhubs and the number and percentage of passenger enplanements at the hubs/nonhubs. Number of hubs/ Number of Passengers Passengers Hub classification nonhubs airports enplaned (percent) Large ................................... 29 69 458,665,099 75.11 Medium ............................... 31 48 96,394,866 15.79 Small ................................... 56 73 38,644,557 6.33 Nonhub ............................... 577 604 16,924,194 2.77 TOTALS ............................... 693 794 610,628,716 100.00 iv GLOSSARY* Aircraft departure—An aircraft takeoff made at an airport. Airport—A landing area regularly used by aircraft for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo. Air traffic hub—A geographic area based on the percentage of total passengers enplaned in that area. A hub may have more than one airport in it. This definition of hub should not be confused with the definition used by the airlines in describing their “hub-and-spoke” route structures. Air services—The total of scheduled and nonscheduled service. Carrier group—A grouping of large certificated air carriers determined by annual operating rev- enues as shown below: Carrier group Annual operating revenues Majors .............................................. Over $1 billion Nationals .......................................... $100 million to $1 billion Large regionals ................................ $20 million to $100 million Medium regionals ........................... Up to $20 million Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity—A certificate issued by DOT to an air carrier under Section 401 of the Federal Aviation Act authorizing the carrier to engage in air transportation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Airline Competition Plan Final Report
    Final Report Airline Competition Plan Philadelphia International Airport Prepared for Federal Aviation Administration in compliance with requirements of AIR21 Prepared by City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation Philadelphia, Pennsylvania August 31, 2000 Final Report Airline Competition Plan Philadelphia International Airport Prepared for Federal Aviation Administration in compliance with requirements of AIR21 Prepared by City of Philadelphia Division of Aviation Philadelphia, Pennsylvania August 31, 2000 SUMMARY S-1 Summary AIRLINE COMPETITION PLAN Philadelphia International Airport The City of Philadelphia, owner and operator of Philadelphia International Airport, is required to submit annually to the Federal Aviation Administration an airline competition plan. The City’s plan for 2000, as documented in the accompanying report, provides information regarding the availability of passenger terminal facilities, the use of passenger facility charge (PFC) revenues to fund terminal facilities, airline leasing arrangements, patterns of airline service, and average airfares for passengers originating their journeys at the Airport. The plan also sets forth the City’s current and planned initiatives to encourage competitive airline service at the Airport, construct terminal facilities needed to accommodate additional airline service, and ensure that access is provided to airlines wishing to serve the Airport on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. These initiatives are summarized in the following paragraphs. Encourage New Airline Service Airlines that have recently started scheduled domestic service at Philadelphia International Airport include AirTran Airways, America West Airlines, American Trans Air, Midway Airlines, Midwest Express Airlines, and National Airlines. Airlines that have recently started scheduled international service at the Airport include Air France and Lufthansa. The City intends to continue its programs to encourage airlines to begin or increase service at the Airport.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Informal Complaints to DOT by New Entrant Airlines About Unfair Exclusionary Practices March 1993 to May 1999
    9310-08 App C 10/12/99 13:40 Page 171 Appendix C Informal Complaints to DOT by New Entrant Airlines About Unfair Exclusionary Practices March 1993 to May 1999 UNFAIR PRICING AND CAPACITY RESPONSES 1. Date Raised: May 1999 Complaining Party: AccessAir Complained Against: Northwest Airlines Description: AccessAir, a new airline headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa, began service in the New York–LaGuardia and Los Angeles to Mo- line/Quad Cities/Peoria, Illinois, markets. Northwest offers connecting service in these markets. AccessAir alleged that Northwest was offering fares in these markets that were substantially below Northwest’s costs. 171 9310-08 App C 10/12/99 13:40 Page 172 172 ENTRY AND COMPETITION IN THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY 2. Date Raised: March 1999 Complaining Party: AccessAir Complained Against: Delta, Northwest, and TWA Description: AccessAir was a new entrant air carrier, headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa. In February 1999, AccessAir began service to New York–LaGuardia and Los Angeles from Des Moines, Iowa, and Moline/ Quad Cities/Peoria, Illinois. AccessAir offered direct service (nonstop or single-plane) between these points, while competitors generally offered connecting service. In the Des Moines/Moline–Los Angeles market, Ac- cessAir offered an introductory roundtrip fare of $198 during the first month of operation and then planned to raise the fare to $298 after March 5, 1999. AccessAir pointed out that its lowest fare of $298 was substantially below the major airlines’ normal 14- to 21-day advance pur- chase fares of $380 to $480 per roundtrip and was less than half of the major airlines’ normal 7-day advance purchase fare of $680.
    [Show full text]
  • Customers First Plan, Highlighting Definitions of Terms
    RepLayout for final pdf 8/28/2001 9:24 AM Page 1 2001 Annual Report [c u s t o m e r s] AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION RepLayout for final pdf 8/28/2001 9:24 AM Page 2 Officers Carol B. Hallett President and CEO John M. Meenan Senior Vice President, Industry Policy Edward A. Merlis Senior Vice President, Legislative and International Affairs John R. Ryan Acting Senior Vice President, Aviation Safety and Operations Vice President, Air Traffic Management Robert P. Warren mi Thes Air Transports i Associationo n of America, Inc. serves its Senior Vice President, member airlines and their customers by: General Counsel and Secretary 2 • Assisting the airline industry in continuing to prov i d e James L. Casey the world’s safest system of transportation Vice President and • Transmitting technical expertise and operational Deputy General Counsel kn o w l e d g e among member airlines to improve safety, service and efficiency J. Donald Collier Vice President, • Advocating fair airline taxation and regulation world- Engineering, Maintenance and Materiel wide, ensuring a profitable and competitive industry Albert H. Prest Vice President, Operations Nestor N. Pylypec Vice President, Industry Services Michael D. Wascom Vice President, Communications Richard T. Brandenburg Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer David A. Swierenga Chief Economist RepLayout for final pdf 8/28/2001 9:24 AM Page 3 [ c u s t o m e r s ] Table of Contents Officers . .2 The member airlines of the Air Mission . .2 President’s Letter . .5 Transport Association are committed to Goals . .5 providing the highest level of customer Highlights .
    [Show full text]
  • United Airlines-Us Airways Merger Hearing Committee
    S. HRG. 106–1015 UNITED AIRLINES-US AIRWAYS MERGER HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, BUSINESS RIGHTS, AND COMPETITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 26, 2000 PITTSBURGH, PA Serial No. J–106–92 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 73–290 WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:13 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 073290 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HR\OC\A290.XXX pfrm04 PsN: A290 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, BUSINESS RIGHTS, AND COMPETITION MIKE DEWINE, Ohio, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont PETE LEVITAS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director JON LEIBOWITZ, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:13 Sep 20, 2001 Jkt 073290 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\A290.XXX pfrm04 PsN: A290 C O N T E N T S STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBER Page Specter, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Newark International Airport Airline Competition Plan
    Newark International Airport Airline Competition Plan Submitted by: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Submitted to: The Federal Aviation Administration As required to be submitted by: The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment & Reform Act for the 21st Century, Pub. L. 106-181, Section 155 Ms. Woodie Woodward Acting Associate Administrator for Airports Federal Aviation Administration Room 600E, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 December 11, 2000 Re: Newark International Airport—Airline Competition Plan Dear Ms. Woodward: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (The Port Authority) is pleased to provide1 the Airline Competition Plan for Newark International Airport (EWR) as is required to be submitted by The Wendell H. Ford Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), Pub L. 106-181. The Port Authority is keenly interested in ensuring that residents and businesses in the region are provided with an airport system that provides the highest levels of customer service, generates substantial economic benefits, and provides a large and level platform for airlines to compete for passengers. We view competition as essential to our thriving airport system and are dedicated to allowing existing carriers the opportunity to expand operations and new airlines the opportunity to serve this great metropolitan area. No other airport operator has done more to optimize the operation and efficiency of its facilities to support airline competition. Although the Port Authority is only required by law to submit a competition plan for Newark Airport, that plan must be considered in the context of the overall system of four airports and a commercial heliport owned or operated by the Port Authority within the Port District, an area roughly 25 miles in diameter centering on the Statue of Liberty.
    [Show full text]
  • Vendor Report Date: 12/14/2020 03:12:39 PM All Records VENDORS.FRX Post Date from 12/01/2020 Thru 12/31/2020
    Page : 1 Vendor Report Date: 12/14/2020 03:12:39 PM All Records VENDORS.FRX Post Date From 12/01/2020 Thru 12/31/2020 AMOUNT VENDOR NAME ADDRESS CITY ST ZIP PHONE EXT W-9? 1099 E-V I.D. # 1105 3D Company, Inc. 3200 E CR 350 N Muncie IN 47303 178475.49 Y 104 539 Apparel, LLC 6520 Bird Key Dr. Noblesville IN 46062 2414.00 Y 198 A Rental Service, Inc 2520 S. Madison St Muncie IN 47302 122.94 Y 179 A-1 Graphics 2500 W 7th St. Muncie IN 47302 0.00 203 A.E. Boyce Co., Inc. 9401 Innovation Dr. Ste 400 Daleville IN 47334 800-382-8702 0.00 Y PO Box 669 806 Aaron Harris 0.00 Y 904 Accelerate Indiana Municipalites 125 W Market Indianapolis IN 46204 317-237-6200 0.00 Y -AIM Ste 100 155 Access Valuation, LLC 9247 N. Meridian St. Indianapolis IN 46260 0.00 Y Ste 260 145 Accurate Striping PO Box 35 Yorktown IN 47396-0035 -765-6000 0.00 Y 164 Accutech Systems 2620 N Accutech Way Muncie IN 47304 0.00 Y 189 Ace Sign Systems Inc 3621 Royerton Rd. Muncie IN 47304 765-288-1000 0.00 Y 119 ACT Environmental Services, Inc. 304 S. State Ave. Indianapolis IN 46201 0.00 Y 153 Active 911, Inc 4100 SW Research Way Ste B Corvallis OR 97333 541-223-7992 0.00 Y 105 Acuity Environmental Solutions 7965 E 106th St. Fishers IN 46038 317-570-4919 0.00 Ste 128 114 Advance Auto Parts PO Box 742063 Atlanta GA 30374-2063 765-288-5544 1705.94 Y 133 Advanced Endocare 8489 Fishers Center Dr Fishers IN 46038 0.00 131 Advanced Office Logistics 2044 W Haines Pass Greenfield IN 46140 0.00 Y M 112 Advanced Rescue Solutions 7098 Hickory Hollow Ct Plainfield IN 46168 317-281-3610 0.00 Y M 111 Advanced Signs & Graphics 3939 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Collision with Boarding Gate, Boeing 737-49R, Orlando, July 2, 2000
    Collision with boarding gate, Boeing 737-49R, Orlando, July 2, 2000 Micro-summary: This Boeing 737-49R collided with a boarding gate. Event Date: 2000-07-02 at 1142 EDT Investigative Body: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), USA Investigative Body's Web Site: http://www.ntsb.gov/ Cautions: 1. Accident reports can be and sometimes are revised. Be sure to consult the investigative agency for the latest version before basing anything significant on content (e.g., thesis, research, etc). 2. Readers are advised that each report is a glimpse of events at specific points in time. While broad themes permeate the causal events leading up to crashes, and we can learn from those, the specific regulatory and technological environments can and do change. Your company's flight operations manual is the final authority as to the safe operation of your aircraft! 3. Reports may or may not represent reality. Many many non-scientific factors go into an investigation, including the magnitude of the event, the experience of the investigator, the political climate, relationship with the regulatory authority, technological and recovery capabilities, etc. It is recommended that the reader review all reports analytically. Even a "bad" report can be a very useful launching point for learning. 4. Contact us before reproducing or redistributing a report from this anthology. Individual countries have very differing views on copyright! We can advise you on the steps to follow. Aircraft Accident Reports on DVD, Copyright © 2006 by Flight Simulation Systems,
    [Show full text]
  • Air Transport Pilot Supply and Demand Current State and Effects of Recent Legislation
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and EDUCATION AND THE ARTS decisionmaking through research and analysis. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service INFRASTRUCTURE AND of the RAND Corporation. TRANSPORTATION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY Support RAND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Browse Reports & Bookstore TERRORISM AND Make a charitable contribution HOMELAND SECURITY For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the Pardee RAND Graduate School View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS) dissertation series. PRGS dissertations are produced by graduate fellows of the Pardee RAND Graduate School, the world’s leading producer of Ph.D.’s in policy
    [Show full text]
  • Northwest Airlines and Waterloo Municipal Airport
    Midwest Transportation Consortium Seminar – February 2003 Waterloo Regional Airport Agenda • Waterloo Airport Overview • Issues Regarding Regional Airports • Airport Finance • State of Airline Industry • ALO - Economic Business Proposal • Economic Development, IT Airport Overview ALO - General Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO) • Located in NW Iowa • Consists of 2,600 acres (map) • Located 6 miles North of downtown Waterloo • 3 Runways • 1 airline – NWA • 2 FBO’s ALO (Con’t) • 3 Car Rental Agencies • ANG Unit • Industrial Park – Midport • Owned & Operated by City of Waterloo • Overseen by Airport Board Roughly 177,000 people live within 25 miles of Waterloo SPWSPW MCWMCW FODFOD ALOALO SUXSUX DBQDBQ SUX Waterloo25 Miles (177) 50 Miles (369) Cedar Rapids CIDCID 75 Miles (887) Des Moines DSMDSM 100 Miles (1,686) OTMOTM BRLBRL 17 “True North” – Core Competencies • Safety • Security • Build & Maintain Infrastructure • Promote and Market Business Development ALO Goals 1. Meet and Exceed “True North” core functions 1. Safety – Exceed FAR Part 139 requirements and inspections 2. Security – Exceed Part 1540 requirements and inspections 3. Build and Maintain Infrastructure – Implement 5 Year CIP and obtain discretionary funding 4. Promote and Market Business Development- Implement Marketing Plan Efforts Benchmark: Evaluations of FAA Security and Certification Inspections, completion of CIP projects, evaluation of business activity. Goal #2 Attract regional jet (RJ) service and lower air fares 2. 1. Work with Air Service Task Force (ASTF) to coordinate community financial support to entice new RJ service through marketing money, increased business commitment to travel ALO and the City of Waterloo to identify financial support. 2. Meet with NWA quarterly to review revenue hurdles, discuss service issues, and discuss future service.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Travel Consumer Report Is a Monthly Product of the Department of Transportation's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
    U.S. Department of Transportation Air Travel Consumer Report Issued: NOVEMBER 2000 Includes data for the following periods: Flight Delays September 2000 12 Months Ending September 2000 Mishandled Baggage September 2000 January-September 2000 Oversales 2nd Quarter 2000 January-June 2000 Consumer Complaints September 2000 (Includes Disability Complaints) January-September 2000 Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer/ TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Section Page INTRODUCTION ......................…2 Flight Delays Explanation ......................…3 Mishandled Baggage Table 1 ......................…4 Explanation ....................…..19 Overall Percentage of Reported Flight Ranking--Month ....................…..20 Operations Arriving On Time, by Carrier Ranking--YTD ....................…..21 Table 1A ......................…5 Overall Percentage of Reported Flight Oversales Operations Arriving On Time and Carrier Rank, Explanation ....................…..22 by Month, Quarter, and Data Base to Date nd Table 2 ......................…6 Ranking--2 Quarter ....................…..23 Number of Reported Flight Arrivals and Per- Ranking--YTD ....................…..24 centage Arriving On Time, by Carrier and Airport Table 3 ......................…8 Consumer Complaints Percentage of All Carriers' Reported Flight Explanation ....................…..25 Operations Arriving On Time, by Airport and Complaint Tables 1-5 (Month) ..............26 Time of Day Summary, Complaint Categories, U.S. Airlines, Table 4 .....................…9
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— Extensions of Remarks E248 HON
    E248 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð Extensions of Remarks February 23, 1999 H.R. 780, THE PASSENGER ENTI- many seats as possible are sold on their sity.'' The Department of Transportation's ac- TLEMENT AND COMPETITION EN- flights. Often, ticket holders do not show and tion under this authority stands to be im- HANCEMENT ACT carriers can maximize their revenue by having proved. The federal government should do its properly predicted how many seats it can job to expeditiously help the public. HON. JOHN D. DINGELL overbook to fill in this gap. While this may be The Secretary of the Department of Trans- OF MICHIGAN an intelligent practice for an airline, from time portation should take real action to advance IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES to time it can tremendously inconvenience a the pro-competition policy objectives of the Tuesday, February 23, 1999 ticket holder when the airline guesses wrongly. Congress. That action includes ensuring that Too many seats are sold, and the passengers the Department of Transportation's guidelines, Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to are all there to fly to their destinations as which it is currently developing to deal with introduce H.R. 780, the ``Passenger Entitle- promised. In this situation, some cannot fly predatory activity, are effective. And the Con- ment and Competition Enhancement Act of and must be ``bumped.'' gress ought not seek to delay the implementa- 1999.'' My legislation would simplify the current tion of a reasoned and appropriate rule- This legislation has two purposes. First, it bumping regulations. Should a passenger be will give airline passengers the rights they de- making.
    [Show full text]
  • Airlines Entry and Exit and Its Impact on Air Traffic Management: an Analytical Framework for Zero-Sum and Positive Sum Games
    Airlines Entry and Exit and Its Impact on Air Traffic Management: An Analytical Framework for Zero-Sum and Positive Sum Games By Tom Berry, Dipasis Bhadra, Jennifer Gentry, and Gregory Nelsoni ABSTRACT Passenger airline service can have a significant impact on a metropolitan region’s economy in terms of direct spending and employment, as well as on indirect spending related to industries such as tourism and the service sector. In the past decade passenger service levels have changed considerably in many markets due to a wide variety of events including increased competition, terrorism, and a downturn in the economy. Airlines have responded to these challenges in a variety of ways. Some of the traditional network carriers have been forced into bankruptcy in an attempt to reduce their costs and compete more effectively with the low cost carriers. In contrast, the low cost carriers have expanded service and enter new markets at a rapid pace. This paper examines the economic evolutionary process whereby a dominant carrier competes intensely in one market against a similar airline and retreats in another where new, lower cost entrants expand service. The relevant literature is examined for evidence pertaining to the market’s response to a network carrier’s financial distress, its impact on airport service levels, and implications on local economies. A zero sum case is explained using a recent example. A positive sum case is explored, where the positive contributions of the entering carrier exceed those left behind by the resident carrier. In the process, depending on the types of gains and nature of evolving airlines network, the patterns of air traffic may also change.
    [Show full text]