Grand Rapids Airport (GRR) News and Developments

[sparky05]

Whatever happened to Sparky? He always had good shots of the airport.

Awwww, you still remember me!

I'm still around. Just lurking more than posting. I've also run across this odd phenomenon at work called "being busy." It's really strange.

[fotoman311]

We flew to Florida this month (Ft. Myers).

DTW->RSW = $168

GRR->RSW = $232

Even with my family of 4, we decided it was worth the price difference.

1. Neighbors can drive us to/from the airport (so no parking fee)

2. We don't have to drive the long 2.5 hours home after that final flight on the way home

3. We can get to our flights 45 minutes early in GR vs. 90-120 minutes early in Detroit. That means less time sitting around waiting to board.

4. At least some of my money supports Grand Rapids

I'm flying to Philly later this spring. The cost difference between DTW and GRR is about $90. At that price, I'll still be flying GRR.

I think if the premium for my flight were under $100, I would definitely fly out of GRR for the convenience. But, at $190, it's a tougher decision (and the cheapest flights from GR stop at DTW anyways, ruining some of the time savings over driving to DTW). And when we flew to Omaha in January, we saved $200/ticket ($400 total) by flying out of Midway. Even when you factor in $.50/mile travel and the $50 parking, we still saved just over $200.

I was amused at the last option that Travelocity brought up for my trip to DC. GRR>Chicago>Seattle>Washington, DC via Alaska Airlines for ~$1000. Travel time of 15 hrs! That made me laugh.

[Allison Slater]

He would need to own a car to drive for $60. The problem is that without a car it's not quite so cheap to get to Detroit.

I'm encountering similar difficulty with flying in a friend from Pennsylvania. Neither of us drive, so we're being forced to use the more expensive GR airport. $300 round trip between Philly and GR!

[arcturus]

4. At least some of my money supports Grand Rapids

Unfortunately it also supports a continuation of the price disparity. The airlines would no doubt feel greater pressure to reduce fares should more elect to bypass GR altogether.

[suydam]

Unfortunately it also supports a continuation of the price disparity. The airlines would no doubt feel greater pressure to reduce fares should more elect to bypass GR altogether.

Before they'd reduce fares, I think they'd likely just pull out of GRR.

If you don't mind driving to DTW, MDW or ORD that's not a big deal.

I'm willing to pay a (small.. very small) premium to fly out of GRR just so I don't have to drive, park and drive 2 hours home after a long trip.

I'd rather get home to my family (or get home with my family) when I climb off the plane.

In my experience, smaller region airports (which GRR certain is) are always pricier than hubs. You deal with it, or you drive to a hub.

[arcturus]

Before they'd reduce fares, I think they'd likely just pull out of GRR.

If you don't mind driving to DTW, MDW or ORD that's not a big deal.

I'm willing to pay a (small.. very small) premium to fly out of GRR just so I don't have to drive, park and drive 2 hours home after a long trip.

I'd rather get home to my family (or get home with my family) when I climb off the plane.

In my experience, smaller region airports (which GRR certain is) are always pricier than hubs. You deal with it, or you drive to a hub.

As the 5th highest in air fares out of 100 it's clear GRR isn't just pricier, it's one of the priciest.

Why GR is so low on the affordability totem pole when there's lots of airports out there that are in the middle of nowhere (where you would expect higher prices with fewer choices to the traveler) seems puzzling until you figure the typical GRR traveler does indeed put up with the higher fare notwithstanding the relative ease to get to a hub.

Edited February 11, 2009 by arcturus

[d8alterego]

You know, this discussion on ticket prices just reinforces my belief that we need more transportation options (like high speed rail). Once again, how can we, as a world superpower, not have the most advanced form of transportation? The only thing we rely on for long distance travel is the airline industry and that, my friends, is so reliable. I'd call that a monopoly.

[suydam]

You know, this discussion on ticket prices just reinforces my belief that we need more transportation options (like high speed rail). Once again, how can we, as a world superpower, not have the most advanced form of transportation? The only thing we rely on for long distance travel is the airline industry and that, my friends, is so reliable. I'd call that a monopoly.

It's a stretch to call it a monopoly.

A monopoly would be if there was one carrier.

[jas49503]

you could also make a argument that air travel is the most advanced form of travel.

[d8alterego]

True, having multiple airlines makes it not a monopoly, but relying solely on the airlines to quickly get from A to B in this country seems to be a monopoly. The point is that we should have greater transportation options. It seems odd that us Americans aren't interested in a transportation option that, in some countries, makes a profit. Also, that one of our economic rivals, China, is building them like mad is something to consider and worry about when we don't even have one.

[gvsusean]

True, having multiple airlines makes it not a monopoly, but relying solely on the airlines to quickly get from A to B in this country seems to be a monopoly. The point is that we should have greater transportation options. It seems odd that us Americans aren't interested in a transportation option that, in some countries, makes a profit. Also, that one of our economic rivals, China, is building them like mad is something to consider and worry about when we don't even have one.

Well, economically it is not wise for us to put in an extensive railway system. 1) We have one of the worlds best highway systems (automobiles are fast at getting places) 2) We have a TON of airports. While I would love trains like Europe the infrastructure costs would be outrageous (we are so spread out)

[jas49503]

if we end up with a extensive nation wide rail network it is probably going to be process like what is happening in chicago right now with various metropolitan areas connecting their respective networks. the metra now goes all the way to milwaukee. If milwaukee had it's own commuter rail system(maybe it does I don't know) you now have the beginnings of what could be a very effective mode of regional transportation allowing someone to get from nearly anywhere in the region to another location using just trains. conceivably, you could take a train from Green bay to milwaukee. transfer to a Metra train where it could take you all the way to St. Joe. There you could link up with the commuter rail (that hasn't yet been established) serving west michigan and take it grand rapids or maybe lansing. combined with Amtrak for longer distances, I think that it would work very well. It is going to take a lot of time for the commuter rail networks to have enough stops and lines for this to work. It took decades for the Metra to reach milwaukee. I don't see any other way for it to happen as it costs too much to put in all new tracks and get rail service up and running all at once. it is going to take a series of many baby steps for this to happen.

this system is similar to what exists in switzerland. you have a lot of train changes but there is little wait between them because the trains run so often. it has the feel of many commuter trains systems linking the larger cities together. A main difference is that there is a central agency for it all.

[fotoman311]

if we end up with a extensive nation wide rail network it is probably going to be process like what is happening in chicago right now with various metropolitan areas connecting their respective networks. the metra now goes all the way to milwaukee. If milwaukee had it's own commuter rail system(maybe it does I don't know) you now have the beginnings of what could be a very effective mode of regional transportation allowing someone to get from nearly anywhere in the region to another location using just trains. conceivably, you could take a train from Green bay to milwaukee. transfer to a Metra train where it could take you all the way to St. Joe. There you could link up with the commuter rail (that hasn't yet been established) serving west michigan and take it grand rapids or maybe lansing. combined with Amtrak for longer distances, I think that it would work very well. It is going to take a lot of time for the commuter rail networks to have enough stops and lines for this to work. It took decades for the Metra to reach milwaukee. I don't see any other way for it to happen as it costs too much to put in all new tracks and get rail service up and running all at once. it is going to take a series of many baby steps for this to happen.

this system is similar to what exists in switzerland. you have a lot of train changes but there is little wait between them because the trains run so often. it has the feel of many commuter trains systems linking the larger cities together. A main difference is that there is a central agency for it all.

Edit: I just realized how off-topic this is from the subject thread. Ooops. Sorry.

I agree, I love the idea of the Midwest High Speed Rail Network. http://www.midwesthsr.org/promote_Strong.htm I haven't read a ton on it, but it appears that the trains on the main trunks would travel up to around 110mph. This would make a 300 mile, 5 to 5 1/2 hour trip in a car from Chicago to St. Louis take almost assuredly less than 4 - 4 1/2 hours with stops. And you're free to walk about the cabin, play games, whatever you want.

It would make visiting great cities like Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Madison, and many others so much easier without needing/having a car. (I didn't include Detroit because you wouldn't be able to get too far without a car once you arrived) It would be even better if you could easily take your bicycle as most of the cities I listed are bicycle friendly or moving to become moreso.

Edited February 13, 2009 by fotoman311

[d8alterego]

We may be going a bit off topic, but what I am highlighting is the fact that a majority of Americans can only use the airlines to go long distances quickly. I am sure that the airlines are very happy that we don't have a high speed rail network because that would be more competition for them. I would have to disagree and say that HSR networks would work in the NE and Midwest and that if given the chance, could make a profit. Take the old continental RR for example, it connected the Atlantic cities to the Pacific cities and made a profit. A 1200 mile trip (from Orlando to Detroit at 120mph) would take 10 hours or less. I think that would be well worth it because of the fact that you can get up and walk around the cabins, have your own family cabin if you have kids, and actually have a bed! Traveling could actually become enjoyable, imagine that. Currently, on Amtrak, it would take you at least 2 days to get from Orlando to Detroit. If you fly, you are most likely stuck in a cramped seat, you could possibly get trapped in a connecting airport, or be embarrased by your screaming 2 year old who is kicking the guy's seat infront of you. When I fly into Detroit from Orlando, it is usually a 5+ hour trip from leaving Orlando to arriving in Detroit; that's if I don't get trapped by weather or mechanical issues. Plus, did I forget to mention all the enjoyable kids I see on those flights who are cranky after a week at Disney? Yeah, fun times.

Personally, I'm not against airports but I would like to see more transit options available to us. For one thing, airline tickets would have to go down to compete against trains. That would be pretty good right? Also, when we are in a desperate need to jumpstart this collapsing economy, we should undertake a giant building project to improve our transit options and provide a lot of jobs for at least the next 5+ years. This should be a win/win situation for everyone, although I'm surprised at the level of importance it has been given.

[crinzema]

The Japaneses privatized their railroads, and look at their success. All we are looking to do is nationalize everything. Yes, their government funds for more railroad construction, but with yearly profits at 2 billion dollars and annual ridership steadily increasing, these companies could afford to do it on their own. But given their small country vs. ours, planes and automobiles are currently the best solution for America. Meanwhile, lets privatize Amtrak.

Edited February 13, 2009 by crinzema

[arcturus]

For Allegiant, Getaways Mean Profits

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123491669745604369.html

[snoogit]

The Japaneses privatized their railroads, and look at their success. All we are looking to do is nationalize everything. Yes, their government funds for more railroad construction, but with yearly profits at 2 billion dollars and annual ridership steadily increasing, these companies could afford to do it on their own. But given their small country vs. ours, planes and automobiles are currently the best solution for America. Meanwhile, lets privatize Amtrak.

Amtrak was a conglomeration of private railroads who were in such dire straits, they make the GM situation look benign. I don't think you can privatize passenger rail anymore in this country, doing so would just bury the train deeper into obscurity even now with fuel uncertainty at an all time high.

What is needed is investment in high speed trains. Right now we still chug along at half the speed of European and Japanese passenger rail. Building an infrastructure for 200 mph+ trains would drastically impact their ridership. Heck if I could get on a train in downtown GR that got me to chicago in a third of the time it took by car, and paying similar to the cost of fuel to do it, Trains would skyrocket in popularity.

[Raildudes dad]

Amtrak was a conglomeration of private railroads who were in such dire straits, they make the GM situation look benign.

Amtrak was created out of what was left of the passenger trains still being operated by what are today's freight railroads. Passenger trains went from being profitable in the 50's to losing money in the 60's. By that time only the Southern Railways' passenger operations were still profitable. The Southern carried on for a few more years but the popularity and convenience of the automobile turned their trains unprofitable and those trains were also taken over by Amtrak..

[Raildudes dad]

The Japaneses privatized their railroads, and look at their success. All we are looking to do is nationalize everything. Yes, their government funds for more railroad construction, but with yearly profits at 2 billion dollars and annual ridership steadily increasing, these companies could afford to do it on their own. But given their small country vs. ours, planes and automobiles are currently the best solution for America. Meanwhile, lets privatize Amtrak.

I'd suggest you read some of their financial reports http://www.jrkyushu.co.jp/english/summary.html. This particular private railway company, a subsidiary of Japan Railways reported it's first profit in 2003, 16 year after it began. Not a shining example for privatizing passenger rail. One of the other company's reports show passenger service to be a minor part of their business. Others company reports are only in Japanese

[jas49503]

Amtrak was a conglomeration of private railroads who were in such dire straits, they make the GM situation look benign. I don't think you can privatize passenger rail anymore in this country, doing so would just bury the train deeper into obscurity even now with fuel uncertainty at an all time high.

What is needed is investment in high speed trains. Right now we still chug along at half the speed of European and Japanese passenger rail. Building an infrastructure for 200 mph+ trains would drastically impact their ridership. Heck if I could get on a train in downtown GR that got me to chicago in a third of the time it took by car, and paying similar to the cost of fuel to do it, Trains would skyrocket in popularity.

I think that paying a cost similar to fuel would only happen if gas were like 6 dollars a gallon. even in europe where tons of people take the train a ticket isn't that cheap. I dont recall exactly what I paid for some of the tickets that I bought but for as far as they took me they were much more expensive than Amtrak. my tickets averaged around 125-150 dollars for one way. a few of those trains were the TGV though. I was also in france when our exchange rate was at its worst.

[GRnome]

I think that paying a cost similar to fuel would only happen if gas were like 6 dollars a gallon. even in europe where tons of people take the train a ticket isn't that cheap. I dont recall exactly what I paid for some of the tickets that I bought but for as far as they took me they were much more expensive than Amtrak. my tickets averaged around 125-150 dollars for one way. a few of those trains were the TGV though. I was also in france when our exchange rate was at its worst.

[wingbert]

Forbes just came out with a list of America's biggest "rip off" airports. They based their analysis on an average fare per mile calculation. Here's some interesting factoids:

#2 on the list --> Cherry Capital in Traverse City, MI

Tied for 11th --> Saginaw

Tied for 18th --> Lansing

Tied for 25th --> Chicago O'Hare

GR Ford didn't make the top 25.

See the airports --> Here

Read the article --> Here

The upshot? I guess just remember, it could be worse.

[aowwt]

Well we were close, #32 at $.35 per mile. Detroit is at $.32 per mile

[sparky05]

Bit of a different panorama angle for y'all:

[MJLO]

i'm so glad they are putting the ramp in!!! It's starting to look magnificent