Flight Blog

 

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (left) speaks at this mornings news conference. Robert Spence, Chairman of the Airport Board, looks on.

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (left) speaks at this morning's news conference. Robert Spence, Chairman of the Airport Board, looks on.

One year ago today the Airport opened its new passenger terminal and closed the old terminal at the west end of Kearney Street. This morning, at a joint news conference, we were pleased to welcome the newest entity to lease space in the old terminal: the Missouri Army and Air National Guard.

The guard will occupy 25,000 square feet in the south end of terminal. As previously announced, the online travel company Expedia will occupy 59,000 square feet in the north end. For all practical purposes, the old terminal is now fully occupied.

The guard lease will initially run through September of 2010. The guard will then have the option of renewing the lease annually through 2015. The total annual lease amount: $158,500.00.

The Expedia lease is initially for five years, with the option of five, 3-year extensions. The total annual lease amount: $450,760.00. Since federal aviation money largely paid for the old terminal, the Federal Aviation Administration had to approve both lease agreements.

The combined airport income from these two leases: $609,260.00.

These leases are very important to the Airport because they generate a revenue stream that is not related to aviation. This is especially important in today’s uncertain economy because the aviation industry is extremely volatile. Non-aviation related revenue helps make up the difference when airline revenue is down. In the big scheme of things, non-aviation related revenue can make it easier for the Airport to keep operating costs down for the airlines.

 


May 03 2010 United & Continental Merge BY sgf-adminTAGS United

 

unitedJust over a month ago we were speculating about a possible merger of United and U.S. Airways. Those merger talks were going hot and heavy when the plug suddenly got yanked. The next think you know United is standing at the alter with Continental. Wow...it's the sort of drama that goes on at high school proms!

So what does it mean for our airport? Before diving into that, keep in mind that this marriage must be approved by the federal government. Will a Democratic administration be as receptive to an airline merger as a Republican one (Republicans were in charge when Delta and Northwest merged a couple of years ago)?

Assuming the deal is blessed by the feds, let's look at what the two airlines bring to the table. This discussion will mainly deal with just North American operations:

United:

  • 3,300 flights a day
  • Hubs: Los Angles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, Washington Dulles
  • Code share: Star Alliance

Continental:

  • 2612 flights a day
  • Hubs: Houston Intercontinental, Cleveland, Newark
  • Code share:  Star Alliance

Check out the North American route maps: United and Continental.

The first thing to point out is that both airlines are members of the Star Alliance. So some Springfield customers are already taking Continental via code share with United.

As for hubs, it seems doubtful that there will be much change, except for Cleveland, which could be pared back. The most obvious question concerning Springfield is whether the combined airline will start service between Springfield and Houston? That will depend on at least two things: 1) will the new airline's analysis of Springfield traffic justify the service, and 2) will the new airline want to compete with American for Springfield customers that currently connect through Dallas on their way to smaller Texas cities? That's an oversimplification, but it gives you an idea of the questions the airline will ask.

Bottom line? Barring a huge restructuring of the airline's combined networks, we don't see much change on the horizon.

 


Apr 30 2010 Old Terminal Changes BY sgf-adminTAGS Misc.

 

The old passenger terminal, which has sat empty for nearly year, is coming back to life. This week construction crews for Expedia began extensive interior renovations. When they're done, Expedia will use about two-thirds of the building. The Internet travel company leased part of the terminal in February and plans to move in later this year. The old place looks kind of creepy right now...it ought to look a lot better when the construction is done.

The first photo shows the north end of the old terminal lobby. The ticket counters used to be along that wall on the right.

The second photo show walls being torn out walls near the gate side restaurant.

 


 

Before reading this blog entry, be sure to read the accompanying entries, Cameroon Monkeys and Leaky Windshields , Misperception #1: Airport Uses City Tax Money, Misperception #2: Airport Sets and Controls Ticket Prices, Misperception #3: The Airport Can Order Airlines to Fly Wherever We Want! , and Misperception #4: New Terminal Wasn't Needed...

"The airport is too small to land "big" airplanes!"

I got a renewed taste of this charge a couple of weeks ago while doing a call-in radio talk show. Fellow called in and said the new terminal was a waste of money...should have been spent building new runways so big airplanes could land in Springfield.

For the record, the runways at this airport are long enough to land any airplane under certain conditions. Runway 14/32 is 8000 feet long and runway 2/20 is 7000 feet. These runways are long enough to handle any plane under typical flight conditions for this airport. Let me explain...

The need for 10,000+ foot runways is generally driven by international flights on wide-body commercial jets (like the Boeing 747). Those flights are typically fully loaded with passengers, baggage and filled-to-the-brim fuel tanks. With all that weight they need 10,000+ feet to take-off. The same airplane, on a domestic route, wouldn't be nearly as heavy and could easily use our runways.

I think the only airplane we've ever been concerned about is the Antonov An-225. It's the largest plane in the world. Built in the Ukraine in the late 1980's, there's only one in existence and it's used to haul cargo. A couple of years ago there was talk that the Antonov would ferry Army helicopters to the repair depot in Springfield. A fully loaded Antonov would find 8,000 feet a bit spare! Apparently plans changed because the Antonov never showed up.


 

Before reading this blog entry, be sure to read the accompanying entries, Cameroon Monkeys and Leaky Windshields , Misperception #1: Airport Uses City Tax Money, Misperception #2: Airport Sets and Controls Ticket Prices, and Misperception #3: The Airport Can Order Airlines to Fly Wherever We Want!

"The new terminal wasn’t needed and it's a huge waste of tax money!"

This misperception is wielded like a weapon. The accuser stands tall, spinning the ball and chain above their head while saying, “I don’t like the new terminal and you’re wasting my tax dollars!”

Well, first of all, the new terminal wasn’t built with tax money. The total cost of project was $117 million.  $97 million of that total will be paid off with airport revenue—that’s money that the airport generates. The remaining $20 million came from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The money that the FAA distributes comes mainly from fees on airline tickets, aviation fuel and cargo shipments.

As for need….

People who say the terminal wasn’t needed almost always put it in this context: “The new terminal wasn’t needed because the old terminal was never crowded.”

There are several points to make, here’s the first: you don’t build transportation facilities for down times, you build them for peak times. Here’s another way of putting it...

The state highway department is currently spending several million dollars to improve the horribly congested intersection of highways 60 and 65 in Springfield. Suppose it’s four years ago, before construction began, and you’re driving your car through the intersection at 3:00 in the morning. You look around and say to yourself, “Why do they want to spend all that money on this intersection? There’s no traffic out here!"

New terminal critics use the same sort of logic. They went out to the old terminal during a lull and decided a new terminal wasn’t needed.

The old terminal was built in 1964 and was added on to at least five times. Over the years it served well, but by 2005 it had reached its limits—especially in its abilities to handle security, plane parking, and passenger numbers.

Expanding the old terminal was given lots of thought, but a study concluded that it would actually be cheaper to build a new one. Why? The old terminal is landlocked. Major industry sits to the east. Taxiways and runways sit to the west. Expanding to the south and north would have robbed the private aviation community of space and would end up making the terminal longer (from north to south) and less functional.

These are difficult concepts to explain—not because they can’t be understood, but because they are out of sight and unknown to airport customers and the general public.

The old terminal lobby: March 18, 2008
The old terminal lobby: March 18, 2008. That line you see was the line for security screening. It was nearly a 30 minute wait, and reached nearly to the north lobby entrance.
 

 

You had to be out there, behind the scenes, standing on the tarmac, witnessing aircraft operations at six in the morning, to see that the old terminal was not up to the task. You had to stand in the baggage screening rooms, watching security screeners do their vital work in cramped conditions, while the sheer volume of baggage grew from year to year. You had to witness the staggering passenger growth and watch ticket counter lines snake out the front door. You had to see the parked airplanes waiting for a turn to use the loading gates at six in the morning. 

Here’s the bottom line: the old terminal was at the end of it’s life span; it was functionally obsolete. The new terminal will serve us well until the mid 21-century. In the transportation business you have to look to the future and act now. If you don’t, you’re criticized later for doing nothing.