Richmond International Airport

[ancientcarpenter]

2 hours ago, Niccckk said:

And just like that, after us saying Breeze should add it, we got LAX service again baby. 

 

Hmmm, I wonder else we should start talking about here... Anyone feeling RIC to Havana? Listen up, Breeze! 

Edited January 17, 2023 by ancientcarpenter

[eandslee]

2 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

Hmmm, I wonder else we should start talking about here... Anyone feeling RIC to Havana? Listen up, Breeze! 

Yep…now it’s time to start talking International travel!  I think we’ll see an announcement for a route (or a few routes) to international destinations this year on Breeze.  Don’t expect anything to Europe though. Probably more like destinations in the Caribbean.  Would love to see a route to CUN…and/or MEX.  Maybe if we talk about it some more, we might just see it!

Man, I hope it’s this easy for all routes we are longing for!  Chat it up folks!

[mintscraft56]

On 1/12/2023 at 10:18 PM, I miss RVA said:

Thanks so much for taking the time to answer these questions. With your permission - a few follow-ups:

Regarding landing costs: that's been a HUGE problem for RIC for DECADES. I mean DECADES. As far back as I can remember from when I started flying as a young adult (and I just turned 60 this past October) - RIC was CONSTANTLY pricing itself out of the overall market and losing out to the DC airports and to some extent even to ORF. But two questions:

1.) What needs to happen for RIC to get those costs down and to be REALLY competitive with the other airports? I'm sure having a plethora of discount carries (like we currently have) has helped a lot. But I was always of the understanding that traffic volume and service frequency being SO much higher at, say, DCA, is what kept the costs lower for basically the same flight to the same destination than RIC. "If only RIC had as many flights to _____________ (pick the destination) as DCA, it wouldn't cost so much to fly out of RIC. Well - how the hell do we GET as many flights as a DCA or ORF when we can't sell tickets because they're so much higher than the other airports? WHY has that NEVER been worked out? What makes it work in other cities - is it strictly market size that drives those costs?

2.) How do these costs impact whether or not a carrier selects a specific airport as a location out of which to base flight operations? I'm not talking full-blown hub, like Delta in ATL or American at CLT - just a focus-city operation? Again, does market size impact this?

3.) RIC has a pretty robust master plan on the books that calls for a significant expansion of the physical plant -- involving both the extension of the longest runway to over 9,000 feet and building a parallel to it. The plan also calls for constructing a second terminal with a third concourse. Obviously - traffic isn't there yet to do this organically. Would having this plan in place - particularly if the CRAC were to take steps in the direction of actually putting the plan into action (if sufficient federal funding, for example, came in that made it possible to handle the runway portion) -- make any difference? In other words - even without a terminal building expansion, if RIC had parallels in place - would that help tip the scales in any way to attracting carriers here, particularly with an eye toward establishing a focus-city base?

As a layman - I may be miles off course on this - but I honestly thing that there MUST be things that the CRAC/RIC could do to overcome a location disadvantage. Okay - so we're in the middle - so what? If the airport had greater capacity - if the powers that be could work out some kinds of deals regarding costs, could that not incentivize carriers to NOT bypass Richmond in favor of other airports? I just can't accept that our location is a death knell. There HAS to be a workaround to negate that.

What's more - (and this one would likely take a few decades to resolve) - Hampton Roads does have a market-size advantage over the RVA metro - most of that came about in the 70s, 80s, and 90s when Virginia Beach boomed (and other municipalities in the Tidewater regions also grew, just not at the supercharged rate that VAB grew) - and Richmond city absolutely hemorrhaged population. Looking at trends - it's not to say that a 450K-500K gap in total population can be made up "easily" ... but TRENDS are that Virginia Beach's growth has slowed dramatically, Norfolk is losing population, Richmond city has regained about 2/3 of the population it lost and has been growing at a double-digit clip, and the RVA metro is actually growing FASTER than the Hampton Roads metro. Yes - at current growth rates, it would take a couple of decades for RVA metro to catch up/pass Tidewater. And it will be a while before anyone catches VAB (she got SUCH a big jump over a 30-plus year period) - but Richmond COULD surpass Norfolk by the end of the decade - and there are SOME studies that city planners have used that indicate that RVA city could hit 340,000 by the year 2037 if certain things break the city's way and can be sustained over the next 15 years.

How does this impact what we are discussing?

Thanks again for taking the time to provide answers and insight!

To hit on the population portion, I would say its more or less all about location. 

Our population here is growing at a small rate, and is expected to either continue or decline within the coming years, ofc with multiple factors in mind. However, while our population wreseles itself, our location is extremely good for air traffic, we have water access,  we are the center of the 7 cities, we have military, we have alot of jobs, we are between both Atlanta, and Philadelphia/New York City for any layover flights, we have a cruise terminal, we are a Major Vacation spot on the East Coast (especially for summer), we also facilitate the NATO command center for what seems to be our whole side of the hemisphere, ect. 

Richmond and its surrounding areas lack a few of our major drivers in air traffic due to its inland location and low military affiliation. However, its no doubt that you guys also have major drivers for your own flight activity. Depends how you look at it, but ultimately it affects what can and cannot be done with our airports and city overall. 

Though, Richmond is not out of the game either ofc, its only a matter of time!

Edited January 17, 2023 by mintscraft56

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, mintscraft56 said:

I would say its more or less all about location. 

Though, Richmond is not out of the game either ofc, its only a matter of time!

1.) Well said, my friend. No doubt our CRE gurus would back up the following: what's the time-honored mantra among mantra among realtors, explaining the three most important things when it comes to real estate? "Location, location, location."

2.) Agreed - I think it is only a matter of time. And it's important to point out that my contention is NOT that ORF picked up a focus city/flight ops - I'm not at all bothered that Norfolk has one. But I AM VERY MUCH bothered that with all we have going for us, that RIC has been passed over time and again. As the gentleman who worked for Breeze pointed out - he was very much surprised that Avelo chose PHF over RIC to establish a flight ops/focus city. He pointed out something else that I think we can't let slip through the cracks: no doubt Breeze approached both Norfolk and Richmond - and aside from the other factors involved, ORF had one advantage from Breeze's standpoint: NO COMPETITION. He pointed to the fact that RIC actually DOES have quite a bit of competition that may have dissuaded Breeze from setting up flight ops/focus city here. That makes a huge difference.

To your point of drivers that Hampton Roads has that Central Virginia doesn't: All good points. HOWEVER - even with all of that - it doesn't change the fact that if you take the two D.C. airports out of the equation, RIC is the Commonwealth's busiest airport, hands down. No - it's not a slam dunk as in RIC is a million passengers clear of ORF -- but it's not neck-and-neck either. And regarding Breeze - as our friend who worked for them notes: RIC will continue to see significant expansion in service and destinations -- and even if ORF maintains an edge in total flights -- Breeze will continue to expand service here to the point that the traffic difference between the two airports will be incremental relative to the whole.

He also added that he could see Breeze establishing international destinations out of RIC before doing so out of ORF if for no other reason that while neither airport has FUNCTIONAL international infrastructure in place at the moment, RIC has gotten the jump (and funding!) on re-establishing their international ops - which conventional wisdom would say that RIC should be out of the gate first in getting international destinations back on the roster, which will be a boost to traffic.

Again - my point is not to kvetch about what ORF has. Mazal Tov to you!! My point is that my discomfort is with RIC NOT having something like a focus city - particularly when it IS the Commonwealth's busiest airport (outside of NOVA) and that there is a fantastic master plan on the books calling for SIGNIFICANT expansion of the entire physical plant here (a complete second terminal with a third concourse, parallel runways, rail link to downtown, etc., -- in other words - EVERYTHING that would be needed to land a full-blown HUB).

[blopp1234]

Just flew in to RIC from Atlanta (connected via Phoenix) and thought I could provide a few updates.

 

For starters, my flight to Atlanta on Friday and back to Richmond today was 100% full, not a spare seat on the 199 seat B757. Secondly, RIC was far busier than I thought for around 4:00 in the afternoon, usually mornings and evenings are the busiest at non hubs but there was quite a bit of foot traffic in Concourse B, as well as the main terminal building. It seems to have the same amount of traffic as Terminal 3 at Phoenix Sky Harbor this morning at a non peak hour, which is great.

 

The tarmac expansion near concourse B appears to be almost finished. The concrete has been poured, but the area is still fenced off. Should be done by springtime though. 

There also appears to be work starting on the international customs area as there is a construction tarp covering it, as well as any work being done in the area, so I couldn’t get a great picture, but hey progress!

Also great news about Breeze announcing flights to LA. If they can figure out their reliability issues with the A220-300, then I wouldn’t think we’d have to wait long for service frequency increases on that route. I’d love to see more than just Caribbean tourist destinations for international routes though. I’d love to get something like Mexico City or another large Central American city that Breeze may be looking at. RIC had over 7,000 passenger in 2019 that flew to Mexico City, and Breeze has been known to start routes with less but time will tell. 
 

One thing I will note is that Concourse B in particular is starting to feel dated compared to some terminals at other airports. If you take a look at terminal 3 at Phoenix or even Atlanta, it’s clear that parts of the airport could use updates. That plus adding more food options (we don’t even have Starbucks for Pete’s sake) would go a long way towards making RIC feel bigger and be nicer. Maybe we could get a Starbucks or Dunkin’ if the consolidated TSA checkpoint gets built (something to finally break the monopoly Caribou Coffee has at RIC).

[Si7i]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

1.) Well said, my friend. No doubt our CRE gurus would back up the following: what's the time-honored mantra among mantra among realtors, explaining the three most important things when it comes to real estate? "Location, location, location."

2.) Agreed - I think it is only a matter of time. And it's important to point out that my contention is NOT that ORF picked up a focus city/flight ops - I'm not at all bothered that Norfolk has one. But I AM VERY MUCH bothered that with all we have going for us, that RIC has been passed over time and again. As the gentleman who worked for Breeze pointed out - he was very much surprised that Avelo chose PHF over RIC to establish a flight ops/focus city. He pointed out something else that I think we can't let slip through the cracks: no doubt Breeze approached both Norfolk and Richmond - and aside from the other factors involved, ORF had one advantage from Breeze's standpoint: NO COMPETITION. He pointed to the fact that RIC actually DOES have quite a bit of competition that may have dissuaded Breeze from setting up flight ops/focus city here. That makes a huge difference.

To your point of drivers that Hampton Roads has that Central Virginia doesn't: All good points. HOWEVER - even with all of that - it doesn't change the fact that if you take the two D.C. airports out of the equation, RIC is the Commonwealth's busiest airport, hands down. No - it's not a slam dunk as in RIC is a million passengers clear of ORF -- but it's not neck-and-neck either. And regarding Breeze - as our friend who worked for them notes: RIC will continue to see significant expansion in service and destinations -- and even if ORF maintains an edge in total flights -- Breeze will continue to expand service here to the point that the traffic difference between the two airports will be incremental relative to the whole.

He also added that he could see Breeze establishing international destinations out of RIC before doing so out of ORF if for no other reason that while neither airport has FUNCTIONAL international infrastructure in place at the moment, RIC has gotten the jump (and funding!) on re-establishing their international ops - which conventional wisdom would say that RIC should be out of the gate first in getting international destinations back on the roster, which will be a boost to traffic.

Again - my point is not to kvetch about what ORF has. Mazal Tov to you!! My point is that my discomfort is with RIC NOT having something like a focus city - particularly when it IS the Commonwealth's busiest airport (outside of NOVA) and that there is a fantastic master plan on the books calling for SIGNIFICANT expansion of the entire physical plant here (a complete second terminal with a third concourse, parallel runways, rail link to downtown, etc., -- in other words - EVERYTHING that would be needed to land a full-blown HUB).

I do like to follow Richmond's threads just to see what's going on up the river. It will be very interesting to see how both RIC and ORF develop in such close proximity. Just looking over both threads the discussions are strikingly similar. It is also interesting seeing both airports have similar development plans and current build-outs. ORF finalized its new concourse A expansion and is courting through anchors for an attached 150-room airport hotel proposal and will be entering into construction within the next three years. ORF has been denied a parallel runway due to its proximity to a naval base but will be resubmitting within the next five years and could always see denial again. My assumption is that ORF officials were waiting for the airport to break the 4 million passenger mark which it did in 2022.  Overall ORF may have a larger population draw but faces larger competition than RIC. ORF competes with both NAS (AMC Passenger Terminal which operates international flights daily to Africa and Europe) and large disincentive for the military use of ORF and of course PHF. 

It does seem as though RIC has an upper hand on including outside transportation planning if I am not mistaken, and has the head start on construction. From news reports ORF did not expect the passenger growth it has seen in 2022 and not playing catch up with construction and planning, even taking out a burger king to consolidate an area for transitions for international flights and domestic ones. RIC also seems to always stay ahead of ORF in passenger numbers by looking at historical data. So if ORF is breaching 4 million I can only imagine what RIC's counts will be this year. I think both airports continuing to grow is a great thing and ultimately brings more attention to both regions. 

I feel like in a perfect world there would just be one mega airport between the two regions with rail transit. 

[eandslee]

Great report and excellent photos to accompany your report!  Wow!  Please continue to do these when you get the chance…especially, if you witness some noticeable changes/good or bad mentions. 
 

I was thinking that Concourse B would probably need a makeover over soon. Concourse A is probably the better looking of the two concourses right now given that it just received an expansion. Great report on the International Customs area!  I know work is ongoing and (I think) should be complete by Spring.   Finally, love to hear reports that flights to and from RIC are full!  This is what is needed. 
 

Thanks so much!!

[blopp1234]

Adding onto the previous post I had. The PDEW numbers are out for Q3 2022 and following todays announcement of LA service, the largest markets without direct nonstop service to RIC are as follows:

 

Seattle- 67 PDEW

Austin- 60 PDEW

San Diego- 56 PDEW

Salt Lake- 51 PDEW

St Louis- 49 PDEW

Kansas City- 45 PDEW

San Antonio- 43 PDEW

Portland- 35 PDEW

Indianapolis- 33 PDEW

Memphis- 28 PDEW

 

[eandslee]

47 minutes ago, blopp1234 said:

Adding onto the previous post I had. The PDEW numbers are out for Q3 2022 and following todays announcement of LA service, the largest markets without direct nonstop service to RIC are as follows:

 

Seattle- 67 PDEW

Austin- 60 PDEW

San Diego- 56 PDEW

Salt Lake- 51 PDEW

St Louis- 49 PDEW

Kansas City- 45 PDEW

San Antonio- 43 PDEW

Portland- 35 PDEW

Indianapolis- 33 PDEW

Memphis- 28 PDEW

 

Where do you get these statistics?  This kind of information is wonderful to know!  So, next target market for nonstop service…Seattle…then Austin. 

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, Si7i said:

I do like to follow Richmond's threads just to see what's going on up the river. It will be very interesting to see how both RIC and ORF develop in such close proximity. Just looking over both threads the discussions are strikingly similar. It is also interesting seeing both airports have similar development plans and current build-outs. ORF finalized its new concourse A expansion and is courting through anchors for an attached 150-room airport hotel proposal and will be entering into construction within the next three years. ORF has been denied a parallel runway due to its proximity to a naval base but will be resubmitting within the next five years and could always see denial again. My assumption is that ORF officials were waiting for the airport to break the 4 million passenger mark which it did in 2022.  Overall ORF may have a larger population draw but faces larger competition than RIC. ORF competes with both NAS (AMC Passenger Terminal which operates international flights daily to Africa and Europe) and large disincentive for the military use of ORF and of course PHF. 

It does seem as though RIC has an upper hand on including outside transportation planning if I am not mistaken, and has the head start on construction. From news reports ORF did not expect the passenger growth it has seen in 2022 and not playing catch up with construction and planning, even taking out a burger king to consolidate an area for transitions for international flights and domestic ones. RIC also seems to always stay ahead of ORF in passenger numbers by looking at historical data. So if ORF is breaching 4 million I can only imagine what RIC's counts will be this year. I think both airports continuing to grow is a great thing and ultimately brings more attention to both regions. 

I feel like in a perfect world there would just be one mega airport between the two regions with rail transit. 

Really good information and perspective. 

I've often thought that RIC would do well to also try to develop some kind of attached airport hotel. Somewhat surprised that such an endeavor has yet to be undertaken.

Okay - so ORF has already applied for a parallel but has been denied. I wonder if RIC has even applied yet? Yes - there are plans for a parallel here - it's front-and-center in the airport's master plan. These applications go where - to the FAA?

To the powers that be at RIC and the CRAC - if ORF has already been submitting applications for a parallel, it's time to wake up and get RIC's application filed and get moving on this. If ORF beats us to the punch in constructing a parallel - we're going to be in a heap of trouble from a competitive standpoint. We can't sit back and wait - if ORF is being proactive, then WE need to be proactive as well!

Let's make this happen, folks!

[I miss RVA]

5 hours ago, blopp1234 said:

Just flew in to RIC from Atlanta (connected via Phoenix) and thought I could provide a few updates.

 

For starters, my flight to Atlanta on Friday and back to Richmond today was 100% full, not a spare seat on the 199 seat B757. Secondly, RIC was far busier than I thought for around 4:00 in the afternoon, usually mornings and evenings are the busiest at non hubs but there was quite a bit of foot traffic in Concourse B, as well as the main terminal building. It seems to have the same amount of traffic as Terminal 3 at Phoenix Sky Harbor this morning at a non peak hour, which is great.

 

The tarmac expansion near concourse B appears to be almost finished. The concrete has been poured, but the area is still fenced off. Should be done by springtime though. 

There also appears to be work starting on the international customs area as there is a construction tarp covering it, as well as any work being done in the area, so I couldn’t get a great picture, but hey progress!

Also great news about Breeze announcing flights to LA. If they can figure out their reliability issues with the A220-300, then I wouldn’t think we’d have to wait long for service frequency increases on that route. I’d love to see more than just Caribbean tourist destinations for international routes though. I’d love to get something like Mexico City or another large Central American city that Breeze may be looking at. RIC had over 7,000 passenger in 2019 that flew to Mexico City, and Breeze has been known to start routes with less but time will tell. 
 

One thing I will note is that Concourse B in particular is starting to feel dated compared to some terminals at other airports. If you take a look at terminal 3 at Phoenix or even Atlanta, it’s clear that parts of the airport could use updates. That plus adding more food options (we don’t even have Starbucks for Pete’s sake) would go a long way towards making RIC feel bigger and be nicer. Maybe we could get a Starbucks or Dunkin’ if the consolidated TSA checkpoint gets built (something to finally break the monopoly Caribou Coffee has at RIC).

GREAT report and GREAT photos, @blopp1234Thanks for taking and posting the pix and for the good intel on how things are shaping up at RIC!

Sky Harbor - I like that airport quite a bit. I've flown in/out of it a few times on visits to Phoenix. Always had very good experiences there.

REALLY HAPPY to see the international/customs component already starting to get underway at RIC. I agree with you - it would be FANTASTIC to get flights to Mexico City and not merely limit international destinations to Caribbean island tourist towns. Here's hoping we can get this up and running QUICKLY and be the first out of the gate to landing international destinations.

[Niccckk]

14 hours ago, blopp1234 said:

Maybe we could get a Starbucks or Dunkin’ if the consolidated TSA checkpoint gets built (something to finally break the monopoly Caribou Coffee has at RIC).

I 100% agree with their... monopoly over the airport. I think if they bring in a new coffee chain they should bring in a local coffee shop from the Richmond area. Although Starbucks or Dunkin would be nice.  Also completely off-topic, why does the Applebees still rope off the bottom seating area right next to the windows? It's like one of the best views of the airport!

Edited January 18, 2023 by Niccckk

[mintscraft56]

12 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Really good information and perspective. 

I've often thought that RIC would do well to also try to develop some kind of attached airport hotel. Somewhat surprised that such an endeavor has yet to be undertaken.

Okay - so ORF has already applied for a parallel but has been denied. I wonder if RIC has even applied yet? Yes - there are plans for a parallel here - it's front-and-center in the airport's master plan. These applications go where - to the FAA?

To the powers that be at RIC and the CRAC - if ORF has already been submitting applications for a parallel, it's time to wake up and get RIC's application filed and get moving on this. If ORF beats us to the punch in constructing a parallel - we're going to be in a heap of trouble from a competitive standpoint. We can't sit back and wait - if ORF is being proactive, then WE need to be proactive as well!

Let's make this happen, folks!

Yea, I dont see why yall would get denied over one too. RIC has a bigger advantage over us with both yearly passenger count and size overall. 

We applied for a double runway at ORF not long ago but the navy denied it (which I think is bonkers for the government to DENY city growth) So, if RIC applies yall should be able to get one. ITs not a bad idea, saying that you guys are, like us, gaining more flight paths and air lines. 

[blopp1234]

I think the reason ORF is trying so hard to get a parallel runway while RIC isn’t is that IRF only has 1 runway right now while RIC has 2. Another runway for RIC would mean 3 total runways, which traffic right now doesn’t warrant, while ORF only has one runway to support a similar amount of traffic as RIC. That single runway is beginning to max out for how many aircraft it can handle so in order for ORF to continue accommodating new flights, they need that second runway, which RIC already has in place.

 

I think more than anything right now, instead of putting money into a parallel runway, RIC should be investing in improving the existing airport. The money that would go towards a 3rd runway could be used to  help to start up new flights to new destinations, which in turn could create the demand for a 3rd runway, add new food options to the airport, improve the existing concourses to be more on par with modern airports such as Raleigh, Kansas City’s new terminal or Indianapolis. I think improving the customer experience at the airport and helping airlines startup new routes by minimizing risk for them will do a lot more to boosting route and passenger growth at RIC far more than a 3rd runway, which could follow if we invest in new routes. 
 

Ultimately, runways have loads of capacity, as air traffic controllers have shown, especially with ORF, how much capacity a single runway can have, much less 2 existing runways (ie. NY LaGuardia, Fort Lauderdale, New Orleans, Dallas Love, Austin, etc.)

 

Once again, this doesn’t mean that I don’t want or think RIC will eventually need the 3rd runway, but I think there are better ways to spend our money than throwing hundreds of millions at a runway that we don’t need to accommodate a lot of growth at the moment. Let’s put our money towards making sure airlines have sufficient and nice terminal/ concourse/ gate space and using funds to help start up new routes that will lead us to needing a new runway.
 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by blopp1234

[eandslee]

31 minutes ago, blopp1234 said:

I think the reason ORF is trying so hard to get a parallel runway while RIC isn’t is that IRF only has 1 runway right now while RIC has 2. Another runway for RIC would mean 3 total runways, which traffic right now doesn’t warrant, while ORF only has one runway to support a similar amount of traffic as RIC. That single runway is beginning to max out for how many aircraft it can handle so in order for ORF to continue accommodating new flights, they need that second runway, which RIC already has in place.

 

I think more than anything right now, instead of putting money into a parallel runway, RIC should be investing in improving the existing airport. The money that would go towards a 3rd runway could be used to  help to start up new flights to new destinations, which in turn could create the demand for a 3rd runway, add new food options to the airport, improve the existing concourses to be more on par with modern airports such as Raleigh, Kansas City’s new terminal or Indianapolis. I think improving the customer experience at the airport and helping airlines startup new routes by minimizing risk for them will do a lot more to boosting route and passenger growth at RIC far more than a 3rd runway, which could follow if we invest in new routes. 
 

Ultimately, runways have loads of capacity, as air traffic controllers have shown, especially with ORF, how much capacity a single runway can have, much less 2 existing runways (ie. NY LaGuardia, Fort Lauderdale, New Orleans, Dallas Love, Austin, etc.)

 

Once again, this doesn’t mean that I don’t want or think RIC will eventually need the 3rd runway, but I think there are better ways to spend our money than throwing hundreds of millions at a runway that we don’t need to accommodate a lot of growth at the moment. Let’s put our money towards making sure airlines have sufficient and nice terminal/ concourse/ gate space and using funds to help start up new routes that will lead us to needing a new runway.
 

 

Love this!  There is a lot of wisdom packed into your comments above!  Many busier airport survive with just two runways (as you mentioned).  Expanding number of gates, improving the current terminal/concourses…and might I add, making it easy and cheap for airlines to operate out of RIC would lead to drastically improved air service and options from RIC.  Moving the security to a single point allowing for free movement between the two concourses will also prove to be a HUGE improvement making it more attractive to do business at RIC.

RIC is thinking ahead on that parallel runway though, so that when the time comes to need one, everything is ready to go!

[Shakman]

18 hours ago, eandslee said:

Great report and excellent photos to accompany your report!  Wow!  Please continue to do these when you get the chance…especially, if you witness some noticeable changes/good or bad mentions. 
 

I was thinking that Concourse B would probably need a makeover over soon. Concourse A is probably the better looking of the two concourses right now given that it just received an expansion. Great report on the International Customs area!  I know work is ongoing and (I think) should be complete by Spring.   Finally, love to hear reports that flights to and from RIC are full!  This is what is needed. 
 

Thanks so much!!

Many airports I have been to across the States look very dated inside and out.  My opinion, an airport is the shining symbol of a metro area since it is the first structure arriving passengers see.  Great looking and well-functioning airport gives a great impression.  RIC should be no different.

Although much larger than RIC, has anyone seen Jewel at Singapore Changi Airport?      

Edited January 18, 2023 by Shakman

[I miss RVA]

@blopp1234& @eandslee-- I both agree AND disagree.

Agreement: Definitely, every effort should be made to reduce operating costs for the airlines, streamline passenger throughput (consolidating TSA security checkpoints), improving passenger experience (and there's a lot of work, no doubt, that can be done there).

Semi-agreement: I completely get the math re: ORF vs RIC and actual runways. RIC has two, ORF has one. Give RIC a parallel, we'll have three. Great. But that's only part of the equation and overlooks a HUGE part of flight ops that would completely separate the two airports:  RIC's current runway configuration of intersecting runways is prohibitive for simultaneous operations, depending how on any give day flight paths are aligned for takeoff and landing. Parallel runways, on the other hand, are proven to allow airports to double (if not more by a multiplier of "x") flight capacity by allowing simultaneous takeoffs and landings.  As for RIC's current runways - the longer of the two is slated to be EXTENDED in the master plan to beyond 9,000 feet (with the parallel built to the same length). The second runway is considerably shorter - 6,600 feet - and is essentially useless as a "main" runway that could handle anything other than a single flight operation on a given day (either takeoffs or landings).

ORF building a parallel runway will allow it to not merely increase flight capacity - but to handle simultaneous takeoffs/landings (as stated above) - which RIC, until it builds one, cannot do. Having the ability/capacity to handle simultaneous flight operations gives ANY airport a HUGE and I do mean HUGE advantage on competitor airports. You want to attract additional service? A parallel runway will go a LONG way toward attracting more flights to more destinations - and if ORF gets there first, we will -- ONCE AGAIN -- be behind yet another 8-ball of our own making (a VERY traditionally Richmond thing to do) simply because we don't have the willpower to take the risk and buck conventional wisdom. ( @eandsleeto your point of the wisdom of @blopp1234's post -- it's "conventional wisdom" my friend. And conventional wisdom tends to be risk averse. 

Disagreement:  I fully realize this argument will go nowhere simply because thinking outside the box is not the "conventionally wise" thing to do. But I maintain - if you WAIT for demand - IT WON'T COME. We don't have the "draws" that other cities have to generate "demand" simply because of who/what/where they are. D.C. has that "draw" because it's the nation's capital. Cities like Miami, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco - among others - are natural draws whether as tourist towns, ports of entry, large business centers. Salt Lake City and Phoenix are examples of cities that have the advantage of location. Orlando has Disney and the Space Coast. Dallas and Houston are HUGE business centers, and cities like Charlotte and Austin aren't far behind.

Pray tell, exactly WHAT advantage does RVA have that serves as a natural "draw" that in-and-of-itself is sufficient to create the kind of demand that the risk-averse will finally say "the time is FINALLY here for that parallel - we FINALLY have enough demand. And if you come back at me with "history" or "charm" or "character" or "historic architecture" I ABSOLUTELY WILL ask you WTF are you smoking and then refer you to a qualified psychiatrist for a thorough evaluation! I'm sorry - but those are NOT the kinds of draws that are sufficient enough on their own to generate the level of demand  we're talking about relative to air traffic.

I guess I look at things WAY differently than is deemed conventionally wise for the RVA mindset - because I don't see expenditures to build a parallel runway as a "waste" of money for something "we don't need". I look at is as an INVESTMENT that will, in and of itself, GENERATE the need. Again - as we've talked about with mass/rapid transit - it's been proven time and again, all over the world, that extending transit lines into areas where there is no "need" actually BUILDS DEMAND. I'm of the mindset that we need to be PROACTIVE rather than being REACTIVE. WAITING for demand (that honestly will never come on its own) is a REACTIVE approach. I would far rather take a PROACTIVE approach and BUILD the demand.

Put another way: how many of us on here own stocks? Do we "need" stocks to "justify" spending money on something that is little more than a piece of paper that carries with it a "promise of potential return" at some point in the future? Are we not "sacrificing" today's money (that could be spent on other things) in order to have a better return/gain down the road? What IMMEDIATE benefit do we get from owning a piece of paper that represents only POTENTIAL future return? That stock that we purchase is a commodity -- its worth is not actualized in the immediate-term; its worth is actualized ONLY at some point in the future. And that's what an INVESTMENT is! An taking a risk by spending money in the immediate term for the potential return of future gain. How, then, is stepping up to the plate and spending money NOW for a commodity that holds tremendous potential for significant future ROI?  Let's be honest: aside from the "size" of the investment, the source of the money spent on said investment (personal vs public funds) and the recipients of the benefit of actualized future ROI (personal gain vs public gain by better air service) there's absolutely NO difference between investing in stocks and investing in a parallel runway. 

And as for the cost: just like stock prices (generally) rise the longer one waits to jump on board to purchase successful stocks: waiting another 20-30 years to invest in the parallel runway before we "need" it will only drive up the cost astronomically. Guaranteed, it will cost five times to build a parallel runway 20-30 years from now that it would if we bit the bullet and built it out today.

BUILD IT - AND THEY WILL COME!

I hope I live long enough to witness all of this - and I hope I'm wrong about what I'm about to say - but I will bet the house that 20-30 years from now, we still won't have a parallel runway at RIC and everyone will keep saying "we don't need it yet..."  This was exactly how we fumbled at the goalline in 1978 - and it's what cost us Piedmont's hub.  CLT wasn't afraid to take the risk - they bit the bullet, said "I do" and the marriage between airport and hub has helped create what is now the 11th busiest airport in the country with more than 50 million passengers annually - and they have even more expansion plans in the works. Mark my words. Again, I pray I'm wrong - but I've seen this movie play out here too many times over the past 50 years. I know what I'm talking about, and I see us setting ourselves up to lose out to Norfolk in the long run - just like we lost out to Charlotte over four decades ago.

Yeah - I know most everyone will think I'm deluded and full of scheitze - but I'm a firm believer that in the HYPER-competitive world of urban and regional planning, you PROACTIVELY INVEST in the future, rather than SPENDING REACTIVELY to accommodate the present.

Edited January 19, 2023 by I miss RVA

[I miss RVA]

JUMPIN' JEHOSAPHAT!!! 

BREAKING NEWS -- THIS JUST IN FROM AXIOS:

Breeze is launching RIC-to-LAX service beginning May 18!!!!!!!!!!! 

The new three-day-per-week direct service will fly on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Alrighty boys - get those Dodgers tickets lined up and book some flights to sunny SoCal!!

From today's Axios Richmond:

https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2023/01/18/richmond-to-la-nonstop-flight

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by I miss RVA

[eandslee]

12 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

JUMPIN' JEHOSAPHAT!!! 

BREAKING NEWS -- THIS JUST IN FROM AXIOS:

Breeze is launching RIC-to-LAX service beginning May 18!!!!!!!!!!! 

The new three-day-per-week direct service will fly on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Alrighty boys - get those Dodgers tickets lined up and book some flights to sunny SoCal!!

From today's Axios Richmond:

https://www.axios.com/local/richmond/2023/01/18/richmond-to-la-nonstop-flight

 

Uh….we mentioned this yesterday. Old news. You must have missed this when we posted it. It’s okay…we’ll give you a pass this time!  In your defense, it was mentioned on the previous page. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by eandslee

[I miss RVA]

31 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Uh….we mentioned this yesterday. Old news. You must have missed this when we posted it. It’s okay…we’ll give you a pass this time!  In your defense, it was mentioned on the previous page. 

Holy moly!! I know how I missed it too - I clicked on the "last" page and didn't scroll back to the previous page to see if anything new had popped up.

Well holy buckets!! Talk about being a day late and SEVERAL dollars short! 

Okay - now that I've gone back to the previous page and read the posts - VERY encouraged that RIC has the largest number of Breeze destinations of any non-base airport.  Love the quote - folks are saying on Twitter - "just make (RIC) a base already".  God-knows - we'd all love that - but as our friend who worked for Breeze when they launched their focus city out of ORF informed us - don't hold your breath. That likely ain't gonna happen.

Now - I wonder how long it will take the LAX route to bump up to 5x per week?

Edited January 18, 2023 by I miss RVA

[eandslee]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

Holy moly!! I know how I missed it too - I clicked on the "last" page and didn't scroll back to the previous page to see if anything new had popped up.

Well holy buckets!! Talk about being a day late and SEVERAL dollars short! 

Okay - now that I've gone back to the previous page and read the posts - VERY encouraged that RIC has the largest number of Breeze destinations of any non-base airport.  Love the quote - folks are saying on Twitter - "just make (RIC) a base already".  God-knows - we'd all love that - but as our friend who worked for Breeze when they launched their focus city out of ORF informed us - don't hold your breath. That likely ain't gonna happen.

Now - I wonder how long it will take the LAX route to bump up to 5x per week?

Based on the stats that I’ve seen, LAX is the destination of the most RIC travelers per day without nonstop service (up until this announcement yesterday), so I can see this being a heavily traveled route for Breeze. I can actually see this changing to daily service no later than next year if Breeze has the bandwidth to service this route daily. 
 

Also, I’m the one on Twitter who said they should just move the base to RIC (I’m everywhere!!  Muhhahahaha!).  

Edited January 18, 2023 by eandslee

[I miss RVA]

24 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Based on the stats that I’ve seen, LAX is the destination of the most RIC travelers per day without nonstop service (up until this announcement yesterday), so I can see this being a heavily traveled route for Breeze. I can actually see this changing to daily service no later than next year if Breeze has the bandwidth to service this route daily. 
 

Also, I’m the one on Twitter who said they should just move the base to RIC (I’m everywhere!!  Muhhahahaha!).  

So with RIC picking up SFO, PHX, LAS and LAX - come may we will have gone from zero transcon destinations to four in how many months?

Interesting that of the 10 direct Breeze destinations from RIC - no fewer than SEVEN are to NFL cities! 

[eandslee]

38 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

So with RIC picking up SFO, PHX, LAS and LAX - come may we will have gone from zero transcon destinations to four in how many months?

Interesting that of the 10 direct Breeze destinations from RIC - no fewer than SEVEN are to NFL cities! 

I feel like I’m in a dream and I’m going to wake up and all of this is not going to be true. I mean, really, just reading what you just posted is amazing to me. RIC has nonstop service to LAX, PHX, LAS, and SFO!!  If you were to have told me this would be the case 3 years ago I would have told you that you were smoking something!  Yet, here we are (and you probably haven’t smoked anything special…or anything at all)!  Unbelievably awesome!

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, eandslee said:

I feel like I’m in a dream and I’m going to wake up and all of this is not going to be true. I mean, really, just reading what you just posted is amazing to me. RIC has nonstop service to LAX, PHX, LAS, and SFO!!  If you were to have told me this would be the case 3 years ago I would have told you that you were smoking something!  Yet, here we are (and you probably haven’t smoked anything special…or anything at all)!  Unbelievably awesome!

Tbh - if someone had told me that we'd have direct, non-stop service to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Vegas AND Phoenix even only 18 months ago, I would have asked what they were smoking or advised them to see a good psychiatrist.  And unfortunately, you're right - I haven't smoked anything more 'potent' as it were than the occasional good cigar in about two years. While it's 100% legal here - it's also a bit on the expensive side. It is what it is.

But man - I know what you mean. I keep trying not to overthink this and allow myself the get my hopes set too high - meaning hopes that RIC -- and by extension RVA -- are on the verge of a REAL breakthrough, if that makes sense. I say that with a ton of trepidation because what I've mentioned several times is always tugging at the back of my brain - don't get the hopes up too high - lest they be dashed by miniscule incremental growth come 2030, GOD-FORBID.

But here's hoping - and here's hoping that what we are witnessing is, indeed, just the beginning of an EPIC breakthrough for RIC and RVA together. 

[I miss RVA]

Here's the Richmond Times-Dispatch's reporting  on the new LA service. A couple of nuggets really stood out in the article:

Check out the following quotes:

The new nonstop service “is a very big deal,” said Brian Anderson, president and CEO of ChamberRVA. “Our ability to fly direct to the West Coast is important for tourism and economic development.”

Absolutely 100% spot-on correct. Richmond's lack of quality air service -- in the form of direct flights to LOTS of destinations (and leaving the ENTIRE western U.S. out of the lineup put us being a number of very large 8-balls) has, undoubtedly, held us back for DECADES in terms of economic and population growth - not to mention raking in tourist dollars. Yes - I know - people can take connecting flights. Blah blah blah. RIC NEEDS DIRECT SERVICE COMPARABLE TO OTHER SIMILARLY-SIZED (or somewhat larger) AIPORTS FOR US TO BE COMPETITIVE!  Relying on connecting flights is another classic example of what I call "SETTLING" when it comes to actualizing RVA's tremendous growth potential.

Here's the other quote:

“The number one thing that can make or break an economic development deal is direct flights. It’s been an impediment for us in Richmond,” said Jennifer Wakefield, president and CEO of the Greater Richmond Partnership. “The airport has done a fantastic job of securing new and additional sites, but we still have a lot of work to do.”

As we've discussed in many other threads, Jennifer Wakefield and the Greater Richmond Partnership are proving they actually "get it" - and that they are NOT willing to settle. Their mindset (which is, borrowing from Style Weekly, NOT a "very Richmond thing to do") is, plain and simple, keep both feet on the gas pedal for growth. Pull out ALL the stops. Full court press. Push hard and make amazing things happen. I like her (and the GRP) a LOT!

Finally, Colleen Curran, the reporter covering this story (and she did an OUTSTANDING job reporting this!) writes something that maybe slips under our radar screen - but is extremely impactful. Kudos to her for pulling out this important fact nugget:

Several greater Richmond-based Fortune 1000 headquarters have facilities in Los Angeles, including Performance Food Group, CarMax, Owens & Minor, Markel Corporation and Altria.

I would argue that having this Los Angeles connection is every bit as important as having the connections we have to New York or Chicago. NYC in particular. Opening up the West to Richmond - as in getting a GREAT starting western U.S. roster of L.A.., S.F., Phoenix and Las Vegas (plus Denver - I forget who has the Denver direct route), REALLY sets the table for us to add other vital western destinations. Seattle and Portland immediately come to mind. This will be VITAL to both the city's and the airports growth in the coming years and throughout the remainder of the decade.

This is already up there IMNSHO as RVA's "impact story of the year" material. 

https://richmond.com/business/local/breeze-airways-adding-nonstop-flights-from-richmond-to-los-angeles-tickets-starting-at-99/article_2a04f5ea-965c-11ed-b3f0-7b303f31fdaa.html#tracking-source=mp-in-article

Edited January 19, 2023 by I miss RVA