Richmond International Airport

[eandslee]

Yeah, it's not good when Booty says the following:

"In my opinion, probably the most detrimental thing from an economic development standpoint that could happen to this community for many years to come would be to lose one of these low-fare carriers,"

If we can't fill up these flights, Richmond WILL lose them and if that happens I'll just give up! There will be no way in hell these airlines would ever come back after they leave, in AirTran's case, a second time!!! This is just unbelievable! Why can't Richmonders support these airlines?! All I've heard is complaining for so many years that we have no discount air carriers and when we get them, we don't use them. That's just plain backwards! I swear, Richmond always has a funny way of shooting itself in the foot! It never fails...it happens almost every time!!! This really pisses me off!

[Cadeho]

Well... I don't fly... so... maybe we have a bunch of us who wish the best ... for those who use them, but we're not going to... why fly when you can take the nice scenic route?

[burt]

Eric, read the more complete story in this morning's RTD edition. Comments from reps of Air Tran and Jet Blue don't make it sounds quite so gloomy. Both lines are apparently not as disapointed in passenger loads as some people and indicate that the "sluggishness" is not uncommon in new markets for the first year or so of operations.

And as I said in my above posting about Jet Blue, an average of 72 passengers per flight in a 100 seat plane doesn't sound like a drastic problem to me, especially after only 4 months of operations. What do you think?

Edited August 30, 2006 by burt

[eandslee]

Eric, read the more complete story in this morning's RTD edition. Comments from reps of Air Tran and Jet Blue don't make it sounds quite so gloomy. Both lines are apparently not as disapointed in passenger loads as some people and indicate that the "sluggishness" is not uncommon in new markets for the first year or so of operations.

And as I said in my above posting about Jet Blue, an average of 72 passengers per flight in a 100 seat plane doesn't sound like a drastic problem to me, especially after only 4 months of operations. What do you think?

I read the article and you're right, they (the airlines) didn't sound as worried, but I am worried still because we should be filling these flight up. 72 seats taken out of 100 is still leaving 28 seats available - that's way too many considering how Richmond just HAD to have discount air carriers and go figure, we're not using what we are giving. So, to me, it's still disappointing. We shouldn't give these airline even a hint of leaving due to sluggish sales. Like I said before, Richmond better not screw this one up! If we do, it will begin the demise of economic growth in the region - MARK MY WORD!

[burt]

Well, it stands to reason that if monthly traffic thru the airport continues to grow in the 11 to 15% range, a considerable number of those potential fliers will select walk-up fares offered by the two new carriers over their old favorites. If Jet Blue served LaGuardia instead of JFK, all its New York flights would be wait-listed. The airline and execs in Richmond have to market JFK as a perfect connection for trans-Atlantic flights and also assure flyers that ground travel into Manhattan isn't as bad as perceived.

[jbjust]

I flew into the airport today and saw that they've got the RICHMOND sign up on the terminal. Doesn't look nearly as cheesy as in the renderings I saw.

If somebody knows how to post a picture I can email the picture I took today.

[eandslee]

I flew into the airport today and saw that they've got the RICHMOND sign up on the terminal. Doesn't look nearly as cheesy as in the renderings I saw.

If somebody knows how to post a picture I can email the picture I took today.

I can post it...email me at [email protected] Sweet! I can't wait!

[jbjust]

Just sent it

[eandslee]

Just sent it

I got it and here it is! Thanks for the photo, jbjust! Anytime we can get airport photos, I treat them like gold! If you ever get any more please let us know!

[jbjust]

Pretty good for a cameraphone picture, huh?

[burt]

Pretty good for a cameraphone picture, huh?

ibjust, did you also see the reverse image of R I C H M O N D from inside the ticketing hall? I suppose it isn't in condition yet for people to take looks.

[jbjust]

You can't get inside the ticketing hall yet, but I don't think you would see those letters from the inside since the backing behind each letter appears to be opaque. The earlier renderings I saw made the RICHMOND look like it was stained glass or something but that's not the case.

[burt]

You can't get inside the ticketing hall yet, but I don't think you would see those letters from the inside since the backing behind each letter appears to be opaque. The earlier renderings I saw made the RICHMOND look like it was stained glass or something but that's not the case.

Yes, the opaque backing of the letters reverses the name image so that inside the R is over the D.

[urbanvb]

Pretty good for a cameraphone picture, huh?

very good. Actually I would have never guessed.

[wrldcoupe4]

An article last week already touched on it, but RIC saw July passenger traffic jump 10.7% over last July from 272,899 to 302,098.

For the year through July, RIC has seen Passenger traffic jump 14.62% to 1,866,352, Freight traffic jump 2.56% to 53,645,793 pounds, Mail traffic jump 9.27% to 11,606,394 pounds, and Cargo traffic jump 3.69% to 65,252,137 pounds.

Just as comparison, passenger stats for July 06 for Richmond, Norfolk, and NN-Williamsburg:

---------------total-----% Change

Richmond: 302,098 +10.7%

NN-Wburg: 113,890 +5.4%

Norfolk: 361,635 -6.96%

Does anyone know why Norfolk seen a more than 5% decrease in passenger for the year?

[burt]

Do you suppose Norfolk's loss has something to do with military personnel in flux due to Iraq? And perhaps the idling of the huge Ford plant has had some effect.

Did the entry of Southwest at ORF impact traffic as much as expected?

[eandslee]

Things that make you go, mmmmmmmmm:

Hints that airport might plan to expand

Officials remain mum, but the airport commission has increased the capital budget

BY CHIP JONES

TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Sep 10, 2006

Is Richmond's airport ready to expand?

The Capital Region Airport Commission quietly late last month upped its fund for capital spending by $6 million earmarked for unspecified "future development."

But commissioners and other airport officials would not say why they increased the capital budget, which typically pays for new property, equipment or building projects.

Commission Chairman Beverley "Booty" Armstrong declined to discuss plans for the beefed-up fund. Most of the capital budget is generated from revenue from parking, rental cars, and concessions....

More on the subject by clicking link below.

Possible Airport Expansion?

Edited September 10, 2006 by eandslee

[burt]

It looks as though the emphasis on expansion at RIC will be about more parking. I wish they would build a new, longer runway in addition to what is now there.

Talked to a friend in the travel industry and learned that at RIC Jet Blue is doing all right, but that Air Tran is struggling.

Several wealthy investers from Richmond have a big financial interest in Maxjet, a new Business Class only line operating out of Dulles on long distance flights. It offers full meals and other amenities at ticket prices lower than the competition. It does not fly in and out of RIC despite Booty Armstrong being one of the investers.

Edited September 10, 2006 by burt

[eandslee]

I wish they would build a new, longer runway in addition to what is now there.

There was talk of doing this several years ago, but I don't know what became of it. The main runway that is used right now at RIC is the smaller of the two built for commercial flights (runway 2/20 - 6607 feet long) and it runs in an almost north/south direction, while the longer of the two (runway 16/34 - 9003 feet long) runs in a northwest/southeast direction. Runway 2/20 was the one I was thinking that they were going to lengthen (I might be wrong on that), but like I said, I don't know what became of the talks. I'd really like to know what happened and if they still plan on extending the runway. We really need a runway that is longer than 10,000 feet to accomodate larger aircraft as the airport gets larger and busier. Land available at the end of the runways determine which one to extend. It might be easier to extend runway 16/34 as long as there is land available to do it. Here's a diagram of the airport for reference:

Richmond Airport Diagram

By-the-way, the current configuration of the runways at Richmond International is one that was adopted during the early days of aviation and catered to aircraft needing to take off and land with or against the direction of the wind. Today, this is not necessary and thus a new runway configuration was adopted that aligns multiple runways parallel to one another. Richmond really needs to take advantage of the space it has and build a parallel runway (preferably one that is parallel to runway 2/20).

Edited September 10, 2006 by eandslee

[burt]

Hey, Eric, that diagram is neat!!

Runway extensions might run into difficulty at the south end because of railroad tracks and the Pocahontas Pkwy, and it doesn't appear that there is much space to the north, either. Don't runways have to have at least 100 feet of over-run at each end of runways?

[eandslee]

Hey, Eric, that diagram is neat!!

Runway extensions might run into difficulty at the south end because of railroad tracks and the Pocahontas Pkwy, and it doesn't appear that there is much space to the north, either. Don't runways have to have at least 100 feet of over-run at each end of runways?

I'm not sure of the exact amount of over-run necessary, but it is about, around or at least 100 feet. there is the possibility to arrange roads so that they go under runways if there is a road that might block the extension of a runway (that sort of arrangement is set up at a lot of US major airports).

[eandslee]

There was talk of doing this several years ago, but I don't know what became of it.

I knew I wasn't smoking my shoes! From 1998:

"The Capital Region Airport Commission is requesting proposals (project #20-93-02) until 2 p.m. March 18 from qualified consulting engineering firms interested in development of the design of an extension of Runway 2/20. For complete proposal package, contact Becky Clarke, Capital Region Airport Commission, I Richard E. Byrd Terminal Drive, Richmond International Airport, VA 23250, fax (804) 236-2192."

http://www.aaae.org/news/200_Airport_Repor...ml?ReportID=147

[eandslee]

Hey, Eric, that diagram is neat!!

Runway extensions might run into difficulty at the south end because of railroad tracks and the Pocahontas Pkwy, and it doesn't appear that there is much space to the north, either. Don't runways have to have at least 100 feet of over-run at each end of runways?

Burt, from this photo you can see that there is plenty of land at the end of runway 2/20 (the south end) that could be used for a runway extension, but there is a two-lane road that would have to built to go under the runway near the end of the existing runway 2/20.

[burt]

Eric, let me make sure I've got my runways correct. Is 20 the runway nearest to the apron and terminal building? If so, I don't see how it could be extended very far given that CSX railway is already practically at its southern end. And we can be sure that as uncooperative as CSX is they're not going to put its tracks underground.

Seems to me #16-34, the longest and easternmost runway could expand southward, though all of the runway is not seen in this picture. A new parallel runway to it makes a lot of sense.

[eandslee]

Eric, let me make sure I've got my runways correct. Is 20 the runway nearest to the apron and terminal building? If so, I don't see how it could be extended very far given that CSX railway is already practically at its southern end. And we can be sure that as uncooperative as CSX is they're not going to put its tracks underground.

Seems to me #16-34, the longest and easternmost runway could expand southward, though all of the runway is not seen in this picture. A new parallel runway to it makes a lot of sense.

You are right about the railroad being there and perhaps CSX wouldn't cooperate. Perhaps they could extend the runway in the other direction. I don't know. All I know is that there was a proposal out there to extend 2/20 (the one closest to the terminal). The details of that extension (how they would do it) are somewhat baffling to me as well.