DOCSLIB.ORG

Inter-Office Memo Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inter-Office Memo Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority Inter-Office Memo Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority Date: May 8, 2008 To: Statistics Recipients From: Tom Medland, Director Air Service Business Development Subject: RENO-TAHOE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MARCH 2008 PASSENGER STATISTICS SUMMARY Total passengers at RNO for the month of March 2008 declined 9.5% as compared to March 2007. Year-to-date, 1.2 million total passengers flew in and out of RNO representing a 3.6% decline versus first quarter 2007. Airlines at RNO reported a 75% load factor for the month versus 81% in March 2007. Domestic charter passengers declined for the first time this year with Allegiant (Harrah’s charter program) reporting a total of 6,202 passengers and a 4% decrease compared to March 2007. Several factors have contributed to a poor March 2008 performance. Although RNO daily departures were up to 87 flights per day, an increase of 5 daily departures compared to March 2007, total passengers declined almost 46,000 passengers as a result of 2008 being a non- bowling year (20,000 fewer), Hearth, Patio and Barbeque exposition (13,000 attendees) not in Reno in 2008, and March Ski and Spring Break traffic being soft due to poor snow conditions which averaged only 25% of the average March snowfall. The month of March also saw a decline in air cargo of 14.5%. A total 9,519,983 pounds, or 4,317.5 metric tons, of air cargo was handled during the month of March. A slowing economy, high fuel costs, a regional business shift to ground transportation and a shift away from premium products being shipped via air has resulted in a significant decrease in total air cargo for the month. Year-to-date air cargo declined 3.7% versus first quarter 2007. TOTAL PASSENGERS During the month of March, 435,495 passengers flew through RNO, 9.53% fewer than the same period last year. The decrease in March traffic is attributed to the continuing soft economy and economic downturn as well as a significant drop in convention demand. Convention business declined in March due to the absence of Hearth, Patio & Barbeque and 2008 being a non-bowling year. Spring break and ski traffic was soft due to a less- than-average (25% of average) March snowfall. Additionally, several airlines cancelled an unusually high number of flights to and from RNO (AA-6, UA-2, and WN-2) during the month of March. Year-to-date RNO traffic dipped 3.6% to 1,224,926 total passengers compared to first quarter 2007. TOTAL CARGO The total 9,519,983 pounds, or 4,317.5 metric tons, handled during the month of March represents a 14.46% decrease compared to the same month one year earlier. This decrease is due to the slowing economy and increased fuel costs. RNO air cargo carriers reported that due to the softening economy regional businesses are utilizing more trucking services and accepting lengthier delivery times to save money. In addition, air cargo carriers reported a record 11 million pounds of freight in March last year which created an exceptionally high base month. DHL is the single cargo carrier to show a positive increase of one percent in freight due to networking changes (shifting cargo volume from FedEx to DHL). Year-to-date first quarter 2008 air cargo dipped 3.77% for a total of 30,538,593 pounds. AIRLINE LOAD FACTORS RNO airlines reported an average 75.2% load factor for the month of March compared to an 81% load factor in 2007. The March load factor was negatively impacted by RNO’s two newest carriers Allegiant and ExpressJet who reported exceptionally low load factors of 62% and 60% respectively. In addition, Southwest reported a load factor which was 10 points lower than their March 2007 load factor and 12 points lower than their system load factor. Southwest attributed their load factor to the soft economy, higher fares, a non- bowling conference season, and a poor March ski month. Airline Reno LF System LF Difference Delta Connection* 85.3% 81.9% 3.4 Delta 87.6% 84.5% 3.1 Allegiant 61.9% 90.8% -28.9 American 89.0% 85.0% 4.0 Alaska 82.3% 80.8% 1.5 Continental 82.4% 82.6% -0.2 US Airways 72.4% 84.5% -12.1 United 76.4% 82.7% -6.3 Southwest 64.1% 76.5% -12.4 Aloha** 65.4% n/a n/a ExpressJet 60.5% 72.5% -12.0 *Delta Connection Inc. carrier includes Skywest and ExpressJet **Aloha System LF not available AIRLINE MARKET SHARE Southwest Airlines maintains the largest market share of 46.8% of RNO’s market. United Airlines and Alaska Airlines follow in sequence holding 12.8% and 8.9% market share respectively. The market share redistribution among RNO’s airline’s are a result of increased frequency to Los Angeles with Delta Connection flights, Alaska / Horizon Air providing additional Seattle service and the addition of six new destinations (Bellingham, Spokane, Tucson, LA/Ontario, Long Beach and San Diego) and two new air carriers (Allegiant Air and ExpressJet). Airline MAR. 2008 MAR. 2007 Change Alaska 8.90% 8.03% 0.87 Allegiant 0.59% n/a n/a Aloha 1.20% 1.03% 0.17 American 7.86% 7.31% 0.55 Continental 3.74% 3.43% 0.31 Delta 5.26% 5.49% -0.23 Delta Connection 2.44% 1.26% 1.18 Express Jet 2.12% n/a n/a Southwest 46.78% 47.39% -0.61 United 12.78% 13.47% -0.69 US Airways 6.91% 9.01% -2.10 Non-Scheduled 1.42% 1.35% 0.07 *Delta Connection Inc. carriers **Annual comparison not available DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CHARTER PASSENGERS During the month of March, Allegiant (Harrah’s charter program) reported 6,202 charter passengers flying in and out of RNO, 4.2% less than one year earlier. Harrah’s explained this reduction in passengers as a reflection of the competition among other Harrah’s properties for the same clientele resulting in passenger shifts to other Harrah’s destinations amplified by poor ski conditions in Reno-Tahoe. Year-to-date charter passenger traffic reflects an 8.8% increase. SCHEDULED DEPARTURES AND SEATS Monthly scheduled departures increased 2.4% totaling 2,598 departures in the month of March, sixty-four (64) more monthly departures than one year earlier. Monthly seats in March decreased 2% to 307,910 monthly available seats. The reduction in seats is attributable to the percentage increase of regional jet (RJ) aircraft at RNO from 19% to 28.7% year-over-year. TOTAL OPERATIONS Total airport operations consisting of air carrier arrivals and departures, air taxi flights, general aviation landings and take-offs, and military aircraft operations decreased by 21.4% in the month of March compared to one year earlier. Significant reductions in military and general aviation operations, impacted by high fuel costs, contributed to the decrease in total airport operations for the month. The commercial air carrier segment increased 13.3% year-over-year. KTB TOTAL PASSENGERS MARCH 2008 Jan Feb 490,000 Mar Apr May 470,000 June July Aug 450,000 Sept Oct Nov Dec 430,000 410,000 PASSENGERS 390,000 370,000 350,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2006 2007 2008 PASSENGERS¹ PASSENGERS¹ Month 2006 2007Percent Change 2008 Percent Change January 409,643 395,878 -3.36% 385,612 -2.59% February 401,220 393,086 -2.03% 403,819 2.73% March 465,381 481,370 3.44% 435,495 -9.53% 1st Q Total 1,276,244 1,270,334 -0.46% 1,224,926 -3.57% April 410,562 406,237 -1.05% May 409,498 421,078 2.83% June 445,018 458,338 2.99% 2nd Q Total 1,265,078 1,285,653 1.63% July 466,271 465,487 -0.17% August 452,866 473,858 4.64% September 399,922 398,219 -0.43% 3rd Q Total 1,319,059 1,337,564 1.40% October 383,099 397,367 3.72% November 361,711 375,463 3.80% December 395,472 377,583 -4.52% 4th Q Total 1,140,282 1,150,413 0.89% TOTALS 5,000,663 5,043,964 0.87% 1,224,926 -3.57% ¹Per Landing Reports % change YTD Reno-Tahoe International Airport TOTAL CARGO MARCH 2008 Jan Feb 15.00 Mar Apr 14.00 May 13.00 June July 12.00 Aug Sept 11.00 Oct 10.00 Dec 9.00 8.00 CARGO POUNDS (in millions) 7.00 6.00 2006 2007 2008 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC CARGO (IN POUNDS) PERCENT Month 2006 2007 2008 METRIC TONS CHANGE January 9,545,594 10,293,920 11,231,880 5,093.8 9.11% February 8,515,885 10,313,441 9,786,730 4,438.4 -5.11% March 10,126,307 11,129,070 9,519,983 4,317.5 -14.46% 1st Quarter 28,187,786 31,736,431 30,538,593 13,850 -3.77% April 8,665,756 9,653,603 May 9,363,233 10,718,860 June 9,772,322 10,483,160 2nd Quarter 27,801,311 30,855,623 July 9,580,355 10,377,947 August 11,153,394 11,736,465 September 10,256,974 10,311,212 3rd Quarter 30,990,723 32,425,624 October 10,408,180 10,813,406 November 10,859,489 10,646,261 December 14,242,702 12,772,059 4th Quarter 35,510,371 34,231,726 TOTALS 122,490,191 129,249,404 30,538,593 13,849.7 -3.77% % change YTD Reno-Tahoe International Airport Jan Feb Mar MONTHLY ENPLANED PASSENGERS Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Month 2006 2007 2008 DIFFERENCE Nov January 206,675 198,737 195,981 -1.39% Dec February 197,016 193,576MARCH 200,851 2008 3.76% March 229,093 237,470 221,875 -6.57% April 205,569 204,156 May 201,560 206,369 June 218,312 226,577 July 230,715 229,238 August 222,404 232,031 September 201,599 199,578 October 191,580 198,499 November 177,581 184,384 December 191,404 181,472 TOTALS 2,473,508 2,492,087 618,707 -4.20% 250,000 PASSENGERS¹ 240,000 230,000 220,000 210,000 200,000 PASSENGERS190,000 180,000 170,000 160,000 150,000 Monthly Enplaned Passengers ¹Per Landing Reports January February March April May 2006 June 2007 July 2008 August September October November December Reno-Tahoe International Airport MONTHLY DEPLANED PASSENGERS MARCH 2008 PASSENGERS¹ Month 2006 2007 2008 DIFFERENCE Jan January 201,391 195,544 189,631 -3.02% Feb February 201,290 197,089 202,968 2.98% Mar March 233,269 240,490 213,620 -11.17% Apr April 201,208 198,794
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hull Loss Accidents
    Hull Loss Accidents Western Built Commercial Jets (>60,000 lbs) 1960 thru 2005 10 . 0 0 8.00 5.64 6.00 es per million departures 4.00 2.16 1.47 2.00 1.29 0.89 Hull Loss Rate in loss 0.00 60's 70's 80's 90's 2000's Source: Boeing, AvSoft Figure 1 The Fleet - 2006 Type Western Built Eastern Built Total Turbojets 17,609 1,839 19,448 Turboprops 4,774 1,710 6,484 Business Jets 12,724 Figure 2 Major Accidents Business Jets 1 January to 31 December 2006 Date Operator Aircraft Location Phase Fatal 2 January Avcom Hawker 700 Kharkov, Ukraine Approach 3 24 January Goship Air Citation V Carlsbad, CA, USA Landing 4 15 February Jet 2000 Falcon 20 Kiel, Germany Landing 0 16 February Lech Air Citation I Busckin, Iraq Descent 6 2 June International Jet Charter Lear 35 Groton, CT, USA Approach 2 26 June Great Ideas Corp Hawker F3 Barcelona, Venezuela Landing 0 5 July Vigojet Sabreliner Mexico City, Mexico Landing 0 19 July Tomco II Citation Encore Cresco, IA, USA Landing 2 28 August Netjets Hawker 800 Carson City, NV, USA Descent 0 30 December Fact Air Sabreliner Culiacan, Mexico Approach 2 Source: Ascend Figure 3 Major Accidents Commercial Turboprops (> 14 seats) 1 January to 31 December 2006 Date Operator Aircraft Location Phase Fatal 2 January Ruenzori Airways Antonov 26 Fataki, DR Congo Climb 0 24 January Aerolift Antonov 12 Mbuji Mayi, DR Congo Landing 0 5 February Air Cargo Carriers Shorts 360 Watertown, WI, USA Enroute 3 8 February Tri Coastal Airlines Metro II Paris, TN, USA Enroute 1 11 March Air Deccan ATR 72 Bangalore, India Landing 0 18 March
    [Show full text]
  • INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on AIR LAW (Montréal, 20 April to 2
    DCCD Doc No. 28 28/4/09 (English only) INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AIR LAW (Montréal, 20 April to 2 May 2009) CONVENTION ON COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT TO THIRD PARTIES AND CONVENTION ON COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO THIRD PARTIES, RESULTING FROM ACTS OF UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE INVOLVING AIRCRAFT (Presented by the Air Crash Victims Families Group) 1. INTRODUCTION – SUPPLEMENTAL AND OTHER COMPENSATIONS 1.1 The apocalyptic terrorist attack by the means of four hi-jacked planes committed against the World Trade Center in New York, NY , the Pentagon in Arlington, VA and the aborted flight ending in a crash in the rural area in Shankville, PA ON September 11th, 2001 is the only real time example that triggered this proposed Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft. 1.2 It is therefore important to look towards the post incident resolution of this tragedy in order to adequately and pro actively complete ONE new General Risk Convention (including compensation for ALL catastrophic damages) for the twenty first century. 2. DISCUSSION 2.1 Immediately after September 11th, 2001 – the Government and Congress met with all affected and interested parties resulting in the “Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act” (Public Law 107-42-Sept. 22,2001). 2.2 This Law provided the basis for Rules and Regulations for: a) Airline Stabilization; b) Aviation Insurance; c) Tax Provisions; d) Victims Compensation; and e) Air Transportation Safety. DCCD Doc No. 28 - 2 - 2.3 The Airline Stabilization Act created the legislative vehicle needed to reimburse the air transport industry for their losses of income as a result of the flight interruption due to the 911 attack.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida's Geographic Advantage Aircraft Range
    Florida Air Cargo System Plan - Task 4 Appendix G FLORIDA’S GEOGRAPHIC ADVANTAGE Airports with historically significant air cargo activity typically have geographic locational advantages which have made them successful in supporting the air cargo industry. Airports with air cargo hub activity typically are in a central location and may vary in scale from regional hubs to national and international hubs. In addition, airports with air cargo hub activity benefit from dense populations and manufacturing activity in the hub airport’s market area to bolster additional cargo tonnages. A few of the world’s largest cargo airports, however, function as intercontinental air cargo hubs but are located in relatively remote parts of the world away from dense populations. As discussed in a previous section, airports with air cargo activity may have a functional role as either gateways to international destinations, intercontinental national or regional hubs or as origin and destination cargo airports. In some instances the airport may function in more than one functional role. An airport’s location on the globe, as well as available customer base, are key factors air cargo carriers consider when choosing which airports to operate at. Attracting cargo carriers to airports is a difficult challenge fraught with competition from other airports, ensuring sufficient cargo demand and having adequate facilities and services. This section of the report discusses the following: • Aircraft range • Great circle route by aircraft • Polar routes by aircraft • Remote intercontinental air cargo hubs • International gateways • Potential Intercontinental Air Cargo Hub Scenarios AIRCRAFT RANGE Improvements in aircraft manufacturing and design have led to aircraft that can fly longer distances and still transport a significant amount of payload.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Network Configurations of Cargo Airlines
    Spatial network configurations of cargo airlines by Aaron B. Scholz No. 20 | APRIL 2011 WORKING PAPER SERIES IN ECONOMICS KIT – University of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg and National Laboratory of the Helmholtz Association econpapers.wiwi.kit.edu Impressum Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften Institut für Wirtschaftspolitik und Wirtschaftsforschung (IWW) Institut für Wirtschaftstheorie und Statistik (ETS) Schlossbezirk 12 76131 Karlsruhe KIT – Universität des Landes Baden-Württemberg und nationales Forschungszentrum in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Working Paper Series in Economics No. 20, April 2011 ISSN 2190-9806 econpapers.wiwi.kit.edu Spatial network configurations of cargo airlines Author: Aaron B. Scholz Institute for Economic Policy Research (IWW) Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Kaiserstr. 12, 76131 Karlsruhe (Germany) Tel.: (+49) 721 608 44226 Fax: (+49) 721 608 48923 Email: [email protected] Abstract The paper evaluates the spatial dimension of air cargo networks by means of concentration and centrality measures. Three groups of carriers are analyzed, namely combined carriers, their pure freighter operations and pure cargo airlines. Differences in their spatial network configuration are observed between the three groups. Combined carriers operate very centralized networks with high concentrations at a small number of airports. Hub-and-spoke schemes are their predominant network configuration. The freighter fleets of combined carriers have lower centrality and concentration scores but hub-and-spoke schemes are still the predominant network configuration. Pure cargo airlines operate the least concentrated and centralized networks. Round-trip configurations are wide spread among pure cargo airlines to cope with imbalances of demand. Keywords: Air cargo transport, network configuration, centrality, spatial network configuration.
    [Show full text]
  • LOUISVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY AVIATION STATISTICS 2018 2017 % Change 2018 2017 % Change 2018 2017 % Change 2018 2017
    LOUISVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY AVIATION STATISTICS January-18 CURRENT MONTH FISCAL YEAR TO DATE CALENDAR YEAR TO DATE TWELVE MONTHS TO DATE 2018 2017 % Change 2018 2017 % Change 2018 2017 % Change 2018 2017 % Change PASSENGERS: Scheduled: Enplaned 122,523 115,467 6.11% 1,027,554 964,226 6.57% 122,523 115,467 6.11% 1,742,424 1,667,900 4.47% Scheduled: Deplaned 122,210 117,852 3.70% 1,026,470 967,673 6.08% 122,210 117,852 3.70% 1,737,875 1,671,796 3.95% Total Scheduled Passengers 244,733 233,319 4.89% 2,054,024 1,931,899 6.32% 244,733 233,319 4.89% 3,480,299 3,339,696 4.21% Charters: Enplaned 248 303 -18.15% 1,615 1,651 -2.18% 248 303 -18.15% 2,664 2,117 25.84% Charters: Deplaned 65 153 -57.52% 1,476 1,512 -2.38% 65 153 -57.52% 2,648 1,977 33.94% Total Charter Passengers 313 456 -31.36% 3,091 3,163 -2.28% 313 456 -31.36% 5,312 4,094 29.75% Total Enplaned Passengers 122,771 115,770 6.05% 1,029,169 965,877 6.55% 122,771 115,770 6.05% 1,745,088 1,670,017 4.50% Total Deplaned Passengers 122,275 118,005 3.62% 1,027,946 969,185 6.06% 122,275 118,005 3.62% 1,740,523 1,673,773 3.99% Total All Passengers 245,046 233,775 4.82% 2,057,115 1,935,062 6.31% 245,046 233,775 4.82% 3,485,611 3,343,790 4.24% *CARGO (lbs): Mail: Enplaned 13,718,726 10,214,569 34.31% 85,618,903 63,893,113 34.00% 13,718,726 10,214,569 34.31% 150,411,779 116,460,334 29.15% Mail: Deplaned 10,976,199 8,299,734 32.25% 68,864,243 53,286,131 29.23% 10,976,199 8,299,734 32.25% 122,206,381 96,930,563 26.08% Total Mail 24,694,925 18,514,303 33.38% 154,483,146 117,179,244 31.83%
    [Show full text]
  • FAA DOT/TSC CY1997 ACAIS Database Report Date : 12/18/97 Page : 1
    Source : FAA DOT/TSC CY1997 ACAIS Database Report Date : 12/18/97 Page : 1 CARGO CARRIER CODES LISTED BY CARRIER NAME CARCD Carrier Name CARCD ----- ------------------------------------------ ----- KHC 135 AIRWAYS, INC. KHC WRB 40-MILE AIR LTD. WRB ACD ACADEMY AIRLINES ACD AER ACE AIR CARGO EXPRESS, INC. AER VX ACES AIRLINES VX IQDA ADI DOMESTIC AIRLINES, INC. IQDA UALC ADVANCE LEASING COMPANY UALC ADV ADVANCED AIR CHARTER ADV ACI ADVANCED CHARTERS INT ACI YDVA ADVANTAGE AIR CHARTER, INC. YDVA EI AER LINGUS P.L.C. EI TPQ AERIAL TRANSIT COMPANY TPQ DGCA AERO CHARTER, INC. DGCA ML AERO COSTA RICA ML DJYA AERO EXPRESS, INC. DJYA AEF AERO FLIGHT SERVICE, INC. AEF GSHA AERO FREIGHT, INC. GSHA AGRP AERO GROUP AGRP CGYA AERO TAXI - ROCKFORD, INC. CGYA CLQ AERO TRANSCOLOMBIANA DE CARGA CLQ G3 AEROCHAGO AIRLINES, S.A. G3 EVQ AEROEJECUTIVO, C.A. EVQ XAES AEROFLIGHT EXECUTIVE SERVICES XAES SU AEROFLOT - RUSSIAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES SU AR AEROLINEAS ARGENTINAS AR LTN AEROLINEAS LATINAS, C.A. LTN ROM AEROMAR C. POR. A. ROM AM AEROMEXICO AM QO AEROMEXPRESS, S.A. DE C.V. QO ACQ AERONAUTICA DE CANCUN S.A. DE C.V. ACQ HUKA AERONAUTICAL SERVICES, INC. HUKA ADQ AERONAVES DEL PERU ADQ HJKA AEROPAK, INC. HJKA PL AEROPERU PL 6P AEROPUMA, S.A. 6P EAE AEROSERVICIOS ECUATORIANOS, C.A. EAE KRE AEROSUCRE, S.A. KRE ASQ AEROSUR ASQ MY AEROTRANSPORTES MAS DE CARGA, S.A. DE C.V. MY ZU AEROVAIS COLOMBIANAS LTD. (ARCA) ZU AV AEROVIAS NACIONALES DE COLOMBIA, S. A. AV ZL AFFRETAIR LTD. (PRIVATE) ZL UCAL AGRO AIR ASSOCIATES UCAL RK AIR AFRIQUE RK CC AIR ATLANTA ICELANDIC CC LU AIR ATLANTIC DOMINICANA LU AX AIR AURORA, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trans-Texas Corridor and the Texas Airport System: Opportunities and Challenges (FHWA/TX-06/0-4644-1)
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-06/0-4644-1 Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date The Trans-Texas Corridor and the Texas Airport System: October 2004; Revised May 2006 Opportunities and Challenges 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Kelsey A. Thompson, Michael S. Bomba, C. Michael Walton, 0-4644-1 Jordan E. Botticello 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Austin 0-4644 3208 Red River, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78705-2650 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report Research and Technology Implementation Office August 2003–August 2004 P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Evaluation and Integration of Texas Airports into the Trans-Texas Corridor 16. Abstract The proposed Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) will allow for faster and safer movement of people and goods throughout Texas, relieve congestion on existing roadways, divert hazardous materials away from urban areas, and stimulate economic growth and development along its path. However, to become fully integrated with the Texas transportation network, the TTC must also consider connections with the state’s extensive airport system. While the TTC could produce significant opportunities for commercial services and general aviation airports, many of its planners and engineers are not familiar with the special land-use and connectivity needs of airports.
    [Show full text]
  • The World Bank Group
    ANNEX A: ADDITIONAL TABLES Table A-1. Top ten air cargo carriers (million FTK) 2006 2005 1 FedEx 15,145 14,408 5.1% 2 UPS 9,341 9,075 2.9% 3 Korean Air 8,764 8,072 8.6% 4 Lufthansa 8,091 7,680 5.4% 5 Singapore 7,991 7,603 5.1% 6 Cathay Pacific 6,914 6,458 7.1% 7 China Airlines 6,099 6,037 1.0% 8 Air France-KLM 5,868 5,532 6.1% 9 Cargolux 5,237 5,149 1.7% 10 Eva Air 5,160 5,285 -2.4% Source: Air Cargo World Table A-2. Ranking of US cargo carriers Rank Carrier 2005 1 FedEx 10,028 2 Atlas/Polar 5.890 3 UPS 5,776 4 Northwest 2,257 5 American 2,216 6 United 2,020 7 Kalitta 1,562 8 Delta 1,341 9 Continental 941 10 Evergreen 829 11 Gemini 826 12 World 680 13 ABX 618 14 Tradewinds 489 15 US Airways 344 16 Omni 344 Source : Air Cargo Worldwide 63 64 AIR FREIGHT: A MARKET STUDY WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR LANDLOCKED COUNTRIES Table A-3. Ranking of airfreight carriers, 2005 Cat Company Country Millions % Change FTKs 2005 -2004 1 I Federal Express United States 14,408 -1.2 2 I United Parcel Service United States 9,075 23.4 3 C Korean Air South Korea 8,072 -2.3 4 C Lufthansa Germany 7,680 -4.5 5 C Singapore Singapore 7,603 6.4 6 C Cathay Pacific Hong Kong 6,458 9.9 7 C China Airlines Taiwan 6,037 7.0 8 F Atlas Air United States 6,002 8.4 9 C Air France France 5,532 2.7 10 C EVA Air Taiwan 5,285 -3.5 11 F Cargolux Luxembourg 5,149 10.3 12 C JAL Japan 4,817 -2.2 13 C British United Kingdom 4,767 -0.2 14 C KLM Netherlands 4,646 2.4 15 C Emirates UAE 4,192 14.5 16 C Northwest United States 3,210 4.6 17 C Martinair Netherlands 3,026 -3.5 18 C American United
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation Job Fair Spring 2019 Fox Valley Technical College
    Aviation Job Fair Spring 2019 Fox Valley Technical College ORGANIZATION NAME COMPANY PROFILE POSITIONS RECRUITING Air Cargo Carriers, LLC In business since 1986. Cargo 135 airline with numerous location A&P Technicians 4940 S Howell Ave. throughout the US and Puerto Rico. Fleet of 26 Turboprop aircraft. Milwaukee, WI 53207 Terri Peterson [email protected] (414) 482-1711 Air Wisconsin Airlines In the Air Airman trainees, First Officers, A&P 8770 West Bryn Mawr Ave Operating as a regional airline in the United States since 1965, Air Technicians, Avionics, Inspectors Suite 705 Wisconsin Airlines performs flying services for United Airlines as United Chicago, IL 60631 Express throughout the Midwest and East Coast, operating CRJ-200 regional jets. With service to approximately 70 cities throughout North Fernando Mendoza America, we carry an estimated 6 million passengers a year and help [email protected] unite the world by bringing passengers from their hometowns large and (773) 706-8794 small to hubs that provide them with a gateway to countless travel destinations. Headquarters Air Wisconsin Airlines W6390 Challenger Drive Suite 203 Appleton, WI 54914 Safety At Air Wisconsin, the safety of our customers, crews and coworkers matter most. Every employee takes responsibility for promoting safety in all aspects of his/her work. Our safety record is exemplary and we continuously look for ways to enhance our safety programs. Smart Choices We take pride in striving to build a stable airline within an industry that’s traditionally filled with highs and lows. Rather than focusing on the fast dollar, we focus on our future.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Cargo Market Analysis Central Florida Regional Freight Study
    Air Cargo Market Analysis Central Florida Regional Freight Study technical report prepared for MetroPlan Orlando FDOT District 5, Lake-Sumter MPO, Space Coast TPO, and Volusia TPO prepared by Aviation Analytics Cambridge Systematics July 16, 2012 www.camsys.com Air Cargo Market Analysis Central Florida Regional Freight Study prepared for MetroPlan Orlando DOT District 5, Lake-Sumter MPO, Space Coast TPO and Volusia TPO prepared by Aviation Analytics with Cambridge Systematics date March 2013 Air Cargo Market Analysis Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Air Cargo Profile .................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Air Cargo Airports......................................................................................... 2 2.2 Air Cargo Service Providers ......................................................................... 4 Integrated Express Carriers .......................................................................... 4 All-Cargo Carriers ......................................................................................... 5 Commercial Service Passenger Carriers ..................................................... 5 Freight Forwarders ........................................................................................ 6 2.3 Regional Air Cargo Facilities and Activity ................................................ 8 Air Cargo Facilities .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    Baltimore/Washington International Airport Air Cargo Assessment final report prepared for Maryland Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Economic Development Research Group November 2003 www.camsys.com final report Baltimore/Washington International Airport Air Cargo Assessment prepared for Maryland Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300 Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 November 2003 Baltimore/Washington International Airport Air Cargo Assessment Table of Contents About This Report ................................................................................................................. vii 1.0 Role of Air Cargo in the Nation’s Freight Movement System.............................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Evolution of the Intermodal Freight Transportation System........................... 1-1 1.3 Modal Specialization and the Air Cargo Market............................................... 1-3 1.4 Changing Market Requirements.......................................................................... 1-9 1.5 Air Cargo Gateways .............................................................................................. 1-15 2.0 BWI Air Cargo Activity and Market Potential......................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Air Cargo Alliances: Walking on a Thin Line
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DSpace at Open Universiteit Nederland Air cargo alliances: Walking on a Thin Line A study on the impact of air cargo alliances Open University of the Netherlands Faculty : Management Major : Master of Science in Management First supervisor : dr. C.J. Gelderman Second supervisor : dr. P.W. Th. Ghijsen N.S.C. van Vliet Student number: 85 01 98 029 May 2010 Air cargo alliances; walking on a thin line. 1 Content Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Purpose of this study and research questions 5 1.2 Methodology 6 2 Literature study 7 2.1 The air cargo industry 7 2.2 Theoretical foundation of the creation of strategic alliances 8 2.3 Definition 9 2.4 Alliances within the air cargo industry 9 2.5 Reasons for the foundation of air passenger alliances 10 2.6 Conditions to successfully create an alliance 13 2.7 Types of alliances 14 2.8 Levels of cooperation 15 2.9 Expected benefits 16 2.10 Realized benefits 18 2.11 Drawbacks and risks 20 2.12 Tentative answers to the research questions 20 3 Methodology 23 4 Research findings 25 4.1 Air France – KLM Cargo 25 4.2 Lufthansa Cargo 28 4.3 Malaysia Airlines Cargo (MASkargo) 30 4.4 Cargolux 33 4.5 Key cargo figures 37 5 Conclusions, discussion and recommendations 39 5.1 Conclusions 39 5.2 Discussion 41 5.2.1 What are the reasons for airlines to join or create an 41 air cargo alliance? 5.2.2 How do these reasons differ from the foundations of 43 other alliances, especially compared to air passenger airlines? 5.2.3 How could these differences be explained and what 46 are the consequences? 5.2.4 What is the impact of air cargo alliances on carriers? 47 5.2.5 Limitations 51 5.3 Recommendations 51 Literature 53 Appendix A Interview guide 57 Appendix B List of respondents 60 Appendix C Other cooperation forms alliance members 61 Appendix D Additional information from case studies 64 Air cargo alliances; Walking on a Thin Line.
    [Show full text]