Richmond International Airport

[MicoMiles]

I was unaware that RIC was giving annual subsidies to the discount airlines. I knew there was an initial grant given to AirTran for being the first low cost carrier to come to Richmond which helped pay for their marketing efforts... is there somewhere where I can read more about the subsidies that are RIC specific?

What kind of demand do you think would justify direct flights to destinations in the west? Also, I'd be curious to see how many Richmond area passengers opt to fly from other airports (IAD) west so that they can have a direct or cheaper flight. I know we drove to Dulles to fly out to Denver last summer...

The demand for west coast flights out of RIC must work both ways. For example, let say all of us in this forum would like to see RIC-LAX flight. From our end of the flight, we must be able to fill (or at least try to fill) a particular type of aircraft capable of flying to the west coast on a daily basis. The return segment (LAX-RIC) must prove the same. Questions to think about is: Is there a great demand out of LAX to fly to RIC on a non-stop basis AND which airline is best suited or willing to provide this service? The same question will apply to all of the other west coast cities we would all like to see service to. There are a lot of behind-the-scenes logistics involved with west coast flights. If the passenger loads don't add up with the costs of operating the flight, the service will never happen and the airlines have the numbers to prove it. If Southwest ever decides to come to RIC, I think they will be the first airline to offer some sort of service to the west with their point-to-point system. Southwest provides a daily Las Vegas flight out of Norfolk every day. From my understanding, that flight is always full.

I do not know how the grants are split up amongst the airlines but I know that some airport officials do not like the term subsidies. Having subsidies to specific airlines always seem to bring up "airline favoritism". Some airlines get support from the airport while others are left tending for themselves. If a airport wants a LCC, there may be a possiblity that the airport may have to pay for the service. Subsidies are a part of the daily business environment. You can read a lot about this type of information from aviation news and journals. I myself read "Airport Business".

[burt]

...^^^just a minor correction from your statement above. DCA is the 2nd busiest airport in VA, not ORF. DCA is in Arlington, VA. I know this from experience by receiving a traffic summons by Arlington County Police at DCA. Though an Arlington County judge dismissed it.

You're right, Shak. ORF (except for February when RIC forged ahead) is number 3 among passenger loads at Virginia Airports. I'm not sure which is number 1 -- Reagan National or Dulles.

Since Jet Blue came on the scene, I would venture to say Williamsburg-bound traffic has increased considerably at RIC. Connection at JFK from across the country via Jet Blue is more economical than several other routes terminating at NN/Wmsburg or ORF. I've often wondered why RIC has not pursued designation as Wmsburg's terminal rather than NN. The Peninsula city is nearer by about 15 miles, but traffic is lighter on I-64 eastbound resulting in similar and less hectic driving time -- about 45 minutes from RIC to The Colonial Capital.

While the Chamber of Commerce and other business interests have spent big bucks attracting traffic to RIC, I am not aware of subsidies from local governments.

Central Virginia, representing about 2 million including Metro Richmond and extending as far as Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Williamsburg and Emporia, feed RIC and will do so with more frequency when destination cities are added.

If ORF can sustain a low-cost Southwest Las Vegas flight, so can RIC. If Southwest continues to ignore RIC perhaps Jet Blue, USAirways or other lines will test the market. For a number of years twice-a-week charter flights carried full loads of gamblers and tourist to the Bahamas, and later Cancun, from RIC.

I think RIC is on the cusp.

Edited April 10, 2007 by burt

[MicoMiles]

"If ORF can sustain a low-cost Southwest Las Vegas flight, so can RIC. If Southwest continues to ignore RIC perhaps Jet Blue, USAirways or other lines will test the market. For a number of years twice-a-week charter flights carried full loads of gamblers and tourist to the Bahamas, and later Cancun, from RIC. "

As much as I would like to see RIC gain more non-stop flights to the west coast or anywhere else, the O & D passenger loads for RIC are pretty much known by all the airlines serving RIC. Just because "we think" RIC can support daily flights to the west coast will in no way influence any airline to "test market" the area. Test marketing an area/city requires money from the airlines (gate & landing fees, aircraft support, crew fees, advertising, etc...) Cities may also have to burden some of the advertising costs. With the financial distress some airlines are in right now, they would rather put their planes on profitable routes rather than experiment.

I too remember Braniff and USA3000 offering flights out of RIC. Yes, there was a strong momentum at first, but eventually, the chartered flights were pulled due to either low passenger loads or increased costs of maintaining the chartered flight. From my past readings from the Richmond Times Dispatch, didn't USA3000 pull out of RIC with no real explanation? I remember seeing USA3000 offering incredibly low R/T airfares to South Florida.

[burt]

You may be right about direct Los Angles service, but I still believe a Las Vegas route would be profitable.

You're not alone in holding out little hope for increased traffic at RIC; at least one major local travel agency executive agrees. The reasoning is proximity to Reagan and Dulles. On the other hand, North Carolina airports don't seem to suffer from competition among themselves in Raleigh, Greensboro and Charlotte.

I'm upbeat about fairly rapid growth at RIC.

Edited April 10, 2007 by burt

[MicoMiles]

You may be right about direct Los Angles service, but I still believe a Las Vegas route would be profitable.

You're not alone in holding out little hope for increased traffic at RIC; at least one major local travel agency executive agrees. The reasoning is proximity to Reagan and Dulles. On the other hand, North Carolina airports don't seem to suffer from competition among themselves in Raleigh, Greensboro and Charlotte.

I'm upbeat about fairly rapid growth at RIC.

Burt,

I too would love to see Vegas added to the RIC route map!!!

In regards to the NC airports, out of the 3 you mentioned, Greensboro has suffered due to its proximity to Raleigh more than Charlotte. AirTran pulled out of Greensboro (Piedmont Triad Airport) in Sept 2004 after 8 years due to low passenger loads. The good news about Greensboro is that it will become the Mid-Atlantic Hub for FedEx.

http://www.greensboroedp.com/BizTransFedEx.asp

They have also attracted a new LCC to the airport:

http://www.allegiantair.com/aaNews20070315a.php

DCA is indeed a Virginia airport....... something I did not know....

[burt]

Greensboro must be celebrating in the streets over the Fed Ex news. It will generate 20,000 jobs in the Triad; that's pretty damned impressive. They've also landed a factory to build small planes at the Triad airport, I've heard.

I believe LLC Allegiant flies the Roanoke/Florida routes.

[eandslee]

Greensboro must be celebrating in the streets over the Fed Ex news. It will generate 20,000 jobs in the Triad; that's pretty damned impressive. They've also landed a factory to build small planes at the Triad airport, I've heard.

I believe LLC Allegiant flies the Roanoke/Florida routes.

Boy! I sure wish Richmond would have landed the FedEx hub for the east coast! That would have been SWEET! See, these are the things that Richmond needs to be better at attracting! Surely, we would have been competitive!

[eandslee]

MicroMiles, thanks for your words above - you have a knack for explaining these types of things. I also try to keep a close eye on the airline/airport industry and also read Airport Business. I would like your opinion on one thing though...what are the chances that RIC would/could/will build a parallel runway? I know that using this type of runway configuration is best during these modern times, but do you think that RIC is currently at a disadvantage for not having a parallel runway? Could this fact alone have caused a company like FedEx to look elsewhere for an eastern hub? I know that runway length plays a huge role as well. Thanks in advance.

[jbjust]

I would rather not be a Fedex hub, frankly. That doesn't add to Richmond's attractivness to business or the usefulness of its airport, but would add tremendously to the air traffic noise around Richmond.

[MicoMiles]

MicroMiles, thanks for your words above - you have a knack for explaining these types of things. I also try to keep a close eye on the airline/airport industry and also read Airport Business. I would like your opinion on one thing though...what are the chances that RIC would/could/will build a parallel runway? I know that using this type of runway configuration is best during these modern times, but do you think that RIC is currently at a disadvantage for not having a parallel runway? Could this fact alone have caused a company like FedEx to look elsewhere for an eastern hub? I know that runway length plays a huge role as well. Thanks in advance.

RIC should consider a parallel runway to runway 16-34 for the future. Many factors have to be considered including the availability of land to support a parallel runway, noise abatements, existing infrastructure, etc..... Runways and their support taxiways are quite expensive and RIC alone cannot burden the costs. From my understanding, the FAA will also have to study the feasibility of a parallel runway and may offer a grant to pay for such. RIC and the city of Richmond cannot just build a runway without prior approvals. I have read that some runways currently in operation around the U.S. have taken up to 10 years+ from conception to completion. Overall, I do not believe RIC is at a disadvantage since there is already a 6600ft+ and 5300ft+ runways. Both should be able to handle mainline aircraft landings depending on weather conditions.

To handle future traffic, the parallel runway should be, IMO, at least 10,000 feet in order to accomodate larger aircraft. I don't think we will see 2 aircrafts landing at the same time like we see at LAX or ATL since parallel landings require a runway separation of at least 1000ft or more. But if RIC does have the land mass to support a 1000ft separation buffer, then it should be considered. Norfolk only has 1 mainline runway and is working towards building a parallel runway. San Diego, which has 20 times more traffic than RIC, only has a single runway yet it is a very successful airport. That airport is now completely landlocked at all sides and cannot expand at all.

[burt]

I think one of RIC's runways is 9000+ feet.

Am I wrong, Eric?

[eandslee]

Thanks for your explanation. I happened to find an article in Virginia Business that mentioned that RIC was looking to buy land for a parallel runway. I wonder what ever became of that desire/money allocated for such?

Article entitled, "Capital Improvements"

A quote from the article:

The airport is now being run by acting Executive Director Robert C. Brammer. He is charged with overseeing a second phase of improvements worth $192 million. These include $80 million to create a two-level terminal-and-road system with the remainder going to extend a runway, expand a runway, buy land to build a parallel runway, expand cargo ramps and build new passenger gates.

Edited April 10, 2007 by eandslee

[eandslee]

MicroMiles, based on your assessment of which runway should have a parallel, I have drawn in a parallel runway (depicted in the preliminary illustration below). Is this what should be built if possible?

Looks interesting...I need to do more research to see if there is actually land available to pull off such a runway.

[eandslee]

I think one of RIC's runways is 9000+ feet.

Am I wrong, Eric?

No, you're not wrong, but I think he is saying that in addition to the runway that is 9003 ft long, there is also a runway that is 6607 feet long and another 5326 foot long runway (used mostly for private planes), that could handle traffic.

[eandslee]

After further research, I think that in my drawing above the new parallel runway would cross the railroad track near the end of the runway. Therefore, the only other way to configure a parallel runway with runway 16-34 would be to build the runway on the other side of runway 16-34 in the following manner:

[MicoMiles]

After further research, I think that in my drawing above the new parallel runway would cross the railroad track near the end of the runway. Therefore, the only other way to configure a parallel runway with runway 16-34 would be to build the runway on the other side of runway 16-34 in the following manner:

eandslee,

I too agree with your parallel runway configuration though I would put the parallel runway on the right side of the VA Air National Guard Buildings so that dual landings could take place when required.

[wrldcoupe4]

Hmm putting it to the right of the Air Guard bldgs would require removal of a section of a neighborhood nearby.

[MicoMiles]

Hmm putting it to the right of the Air Guard bldgs would require removal of a section of a neighborhood nearby.

Thats why feasability studies are conducted to see if a parallel runway would be beneficial. Existing structures, roadways and neighborhoods will always be taken into account. Questions to consider: Can RIC in its current runway configuration handle inbound/outbound traffic for the next 15 to 20 years without significant delays based on future airport passenger projections? Would it be beneficial to the airport and city to displace part of an established neighborhood, more importantly people, over a potentially noisy 10,000ft runway? How would a new runway affect noise levels within the surrounding area as well as the environment itself. I am quite sure that many people (NIMBY's) living near RIC would oppose such a project.

Placing a parallel runway the way eandslee described in his RIC diagram would probably not support the required taxiway needed between runways. There needs to be a taxiway between the runways for aircrafts to "run-off" to when taxi-ing off a runway after landing. In large airports, inbound aircrafts are often told to "hold short" on markers on the taxiways so that they can allow outbound aircraft to take off without the worry of runway deviation. Also, the VA Air National Guard building and apron would be too close for a parallel runway. The building and apron would have to be relocated (lots of tax payer money!!)

This is why the FAA requires long, drawn out studies before giving the go-ahead for construction on a new runway.

[wrldcoupe4]

Parking rate going up at Airport?

Richmond International Airport officials are considering raising the rate for garage parking by $2 a day -- from $10 to $12 -- to finance construction of a $55 million garage....The $2 increase in the daily rate for garage parking could take effect July 1, or the regional commission could decide to phase in the increase with a $1 hike in July, followed by a $1 increase in mid-2008.

Officials said the rate increase is needed to issue bonds for construction of a fourth garage by 2009.

It seems like they just finished building a parking deck!

[burt]

I wish I could recall details, but a number of years ago (a decade or so), there was considerable discussion about a new runway and other improvements at RIC versus a brand new regional mega airport on the Peninsula to serve Eastern Virginia. The person who had the final say was apparently pretty powerful and was adamantly opposed to big improvements at RIC.

Seems to me I also read that a new parallel runway of at least 10,000 feet was possible without infringing on CSX freight/passenger tracks, but would require bridging a road running parallel to the tracks.

[eandslee]

eandslee,

I too agree with your parallel runway configuration though I would put the parallel runway on the right side of the VA Air National Guard Buildings so that dual landings could take place when required.

So, you're talking about doing something like this:

Seems like a whole lot of distance between the two runways. Are other parallel runways typically this far away from each other? When I've landed at Atlanta, for example, it doesn't seem like each runway is really that far apart, but then again, it could be just my eyes playing tricks on me.

[Merrittk92]

So, you're talking about doing something like this:

Seems like a whole lot of distance between the two runways. Are other parallel runways typically this far away from each other? When I've landed at Atlanta, for example, it doesn't seem like each runway is really that far apart, but then again, it could be just my eyes playing tricks on me.

With the wingspan of the new Airbus 380 coming in at 100 yards from wingtip to wingtip you might want to put as much space between runways as pssible!

[eandslee]

With the wingspan of the new Airbus 380 coming in at 100 yards from wingtip to wingtip you might want to put as much space between runways as pssible!

This is true...however, as much as I'd like to see the Airbus 380 land in Richmond, I don't foresee that in the near future. In all seriousness though, you do have a point because we should build a new runway that will accommodate future aircraft such as the Airbus 300. Even though I doubt a landing of one in the near future in Richmond, this doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the future. So, I guess a fair amount of space between runways will be necessary.

[wrldcoupe4]

Airtran Committed to Richmond

Despite lower performance than elsewhere, Airtran remains focused on building passenger levels at RIC. Also worth noting:

AirTran is trying to buy Milwaukee-based Midwest Airlines, which has rejected a $389 million takeover bid that expires May 16.

Richmond would get three nonstop flights if the Midwest deal goes through, said AirTran spokeswoman Judy Graham-Weaver.

[MicoMiles]

Airtran Committed to Richmond

Despite lower performance than elsewhere, Airtran remains focused on building passenger levels at RIC. Also worth noting:

AirTran will continue to commit to RIC as long as the "grant subsidies" continue.........IMO from my past readings, "average" passenger levels below 75% - 80% may require the airport/city/commission to purchase a number of unsold seats at a specified price as part of airport/airline service agreements.

The AirTran article above is definitely an awareness program meant to stir up business for AirTran. The article is a "Wake Up" call to Richmond travelers to start using AirTran.............or else.

I found the last paragraph of the article quite interesting:

"One thing in Richmond's favor is that the growth has slowed down for AirTran," Hoffer said. "There are not at present any greener fields out there to relocate aircraft."

I would beg to differ since many, many airports around the country are catering to AirTran to serve their airport. AirTran officials could easily relocate their aircrafts to more profitable routes (or new cities) and simply reduce the number of flights out of RIC. Its also evident that Delta's plan of utilizing 757 service and lowering their fares is definitey affecting AirTran. If AirTran leaves, fares will go up even with JetBlue serving RIC.