Jump to content

Grand Rapids Airport (GRR) News and Developments


joeDowntown

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, walker said:

Did anyone else notice on the map that all the runway names are going to change and not just the replacement new north runway?  So I did a little research to see what's going on.  There is a lot of science behind the runway naming convention.  Briefly stated runways are numbered based on the magnetic azimuth (compass reading) of their location.  The reason for the name changes is because the EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD HAS CHANGED!!!  If anyone cares, here is a high-level YouTube video explanation of the naming system:

runway numbering

 

Very interesting.

Has anyone seen the renderings of phase 2 of the terminal renovation, the new ticketing counter /baggage claims? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Any chance Lansing becomes obsolete in the next decade? Only 375k pax in 2017, down from 650k in 2000. 

I've flown Delta Connection between DTW and LAN before. Biggest waste of time as the flight is about 7 minutes long, but pack in all the airport nonsense and it could be driven in about half the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kwl said:

Any chance Lansing becomes obsolete in the next decade? Only 375k pax in 2017, down from 650k in 2000. 

I've flown Delta Connection between DTW and LAN before. Biggest waste of time as the flight is about 7 minutes long, but pack in all the airport nonsense and it could be driven in about half the time. 

I don't have any specialized knowledge on the issue, but I would suspect that Lansing will always serve a need given the Capital

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, arcturus said:

Ok let me be more clear .. why do the runways have different surfaces?  Put another way, why aren't all the runways asphalt or all cement.

Can they use asphalt because  smaller planes land on that runway? I always thought runways were made out of concrete too (and quite thick). 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, arcturus said:

Ok let me be more clear .. why do the runways have different surfaces?  Put another way, why aren't all the runways asphalt or all cement.

 

2 hours ago, joeDowntown said:

Can they use asphalt because  smaller planes land on that runway? I always thought runways were made out of concrete too (and quite thick). 

Joe

:dontknow: I dunno.  It was concrete for most of its existence and then it was replaced with asphalt in 2015 according to the attached press releases.  I suspect Joe is right in that going forward its use is limited to smaller planes.

  the original reconstruction announcement

And the announcement of the completion and re-opening

Don't know the lady but maybe Tara Hernandez, the PR person at the airport, might know.  Her e-mail address is at the top of the press releases. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, walker said:

 

:dontknow: I dunno.  It was concrete for most of its existence and then it was replaced with asphalt in 2015 according to the attached press releases.  I suspect Joe is right in that going forward its use is limited to smaller planes.

  the original reconstruction announcement

And the announcement of the completion and re-opening

Don't know the lady but maybe Tara Hernandez, the PR person at the airport, might know.  Her e-mail address is at the top of the press releases. 

 

My guess is it needed to be replaced and asphalt was cheaper. And because the length of it greatly restricts the size of planes that can use it anyway, asphalt was the way to go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8R/26L (the south runway) and 17/35 (the north/south runway) are built to handle air carriers; in other words, they handle the regular GRR passenger traffic which consists of a good deal of regional jets, and of late more and more 737 and A320 family traffic. 757s are not an uncommon occurrence at the airport these days either. They're built to withstand the weight of large jets, and to provide adequate room for takeoff and landing (8R/26L is 10,000 feet long, I believe; 17/35 might be a bit shorter). 8L/26R is a much shorter runway suitable for general aviation (your cessna/diamond star/beechcraft propeller-driven planes) and perhaps a bit of business traffic. I'd be impressed if GRR ever reached the point where they needed a second air carrier runway on the north side of the field...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. We flew out of ORD to DEN recently (because it's still too *&^%^#@% expensive for the 5 of us to fly out of GRR most times) and  we flew in a pretty big plane, American Airlines, 49  rows (I know because were in the back row) and 6 seats across. I swear I never thought that plane would leave the runway at ORD. Anyone know what the longest runway at ORD is? We used the whole damn thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Interesting discussion. We flew out of ORD to DEN recently (because it's still too *&^%^#@% expensive for the 5 of us to fly out of GRR most times) and  we flew in a pretty big plane, American Airlines, 49  rows (I know because were in the back row) and 6 seats across. I swear I never thought that plane would leave the runway at ORD. Anyone know what the longest runway at ORD is? We used the whole damn thing. 

ORD's longest runway is 10L/28R at 13,000 feet. 3,000 feet longer than GRR's longest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

Interesting discussion. We flew out of ORD to DEN recently (because it's still too *&^%^#@% expensive for the 5 of us to fly out of GRR most times) and  we flew in a pretty big plane, American Airlines, 49  rows (I know because were in the back row) and 6 seats across. I swear I never thought that plane would leave the runway at ORD. Anyone know what the longest runway at ORD is? We used the whole damn thing. 

This really does need to be addressed if we want GRR to be taken seriously. Unless you're flying bargain airlines, the standard ticket out of here and back is outrageous and direct flights where you're not flying into Chicago or Detroit are nearly impossible to come by. I recently flew to Orlando and there wasn't a single direct flight available with any airline and tickets were still close to $400 each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GRLaker said:

This really does need to be addressed if we want GRR to be taken seriously. Unless you're flying bargain airlines, the standard ticket out of here and back is outrageous and direct flights where you're not flying into Chicago or Detroit are nearly impossible to come by. I recently flew to Orlando and there wasn't a single direct flight available with any airline and tickets were still close to $400 each.

What am I missing here?  Air traffic the first 5 months of the year was up 12%  over last years record numbers.  Should the airport continue at that pace (and there's nothing to suggest it won't)  It will end 2018  between 3.2-3.3 million passengers.  That puts its passenger traffic in the same ranks as places like Louisville, and over places like Buffalo.  It already surpassed Birmingham, and Rochester.   All of which are cities with larger metro areas.    Planes are so full airlines are adding routes, and using bigger planes for existing routes.  I would think that GRFI is taken pretty seriously.  If you sample fares at similar sized cities the prices out of Ford aren't that much higher.  The difference for a lot of those similar sized cities is that they aren't postioned  two hours in either direction from global mega hubs. 

There will always be some trickle to those airports for price and at times convenience.  GRR is a business heavy airport.  I made Delta platinum status in 2014.   To hit that means I was flying A LOT.  When I flew out of Grand Rapids I almost never was upgraded to first class because there were so many travelers that had higher status than I did.  When I flew back to GR or connected from any other airport I was always upgraded.   The travel heavy industries in the area keep the airport business buoyed, and likely do inflate prices.   There is simply no real incentive for the airlines out of GRR to go after the  leisure traveler segment more aggressively.  Because of that I would think it 's one of the more profitable airports for airlines to operate out of.   If they weren't able to fill planes at those prices we'd either see a reduction in prices, or a reduction in amount of seats available.  Right now the reverse is happening so I can only assume that business must be great out of Ford. 

Not to mention the savings to go to DTW or ORD only make sense if you're traveling with four or five people.  Traveling for one or two people to O'hare to get on a $320 flight vs. paying $420 out of GRR doesn't make sense as you'll spend more than the difference on gas and parking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MJLO said:

What am I missing here?  Air traffic the first 5 months of the year was up 12%  over last years record numbers.  Should the airport continue at that pace (and there's nothing to suggest it won't)  It will end 2018  between 3.2-3.3 million passengers.  That puts its passenger traffic in the same ranks as places like Louisville, and over places like Buffalo.  It already surpassed Birmingham, and Rochester.   All of which are cities with larger metro areas.    Planes are so full airlines are adding routes, and using bigger planes for existing routes.  I would think that GRFI is taken pretty seriously.  If you sample fares at similar sized cities the prices out of Ford aren't that much higher.  The difference for a lot of those similar sized cities is that they aren't postioned  two hours in either direction from global mega hubs. 

There will always be some trickle to those airports for price and at times convenience.  GRR is a business heavy airport.  I made Delta platinum status in 2014.   To hit that means I was flying A LOT.  When I flew out of Grand Rapids I almost never was upgraded to first class because there were so many travelers that had higher status than I did.  When I flew back to GR or connected from any other airport I was always upgraded.   The travel heavy industries in the area keep the airport business buoyed, and likely do inflate prices.   There is simply no real incentive for the airlines out of GRR to go after the  leisure traveler segment more aggressively.  Because of that I would think it 's one of the more profitable airports for airlines to operate out of.   If they weren't able to fill planes at those prices we'd either see a reduction in prices, or a reduction in amount of seats available.  Right now the reverse is happening so I can only assume that business must be great out of Ford. 

Not to mention the savings to go to DTW or ORD only make sense if you're traveling with four or five people.  Traveling for one or two people to O'hare to get on a $320 flight vs. paying $420 out of GRR doesn't make sense as you'll spend more than the difference on gas and parking.

Good observations. When flying solo (and for business), there's no way I'm flying out of Detroit of Chicago to save a little bit of money ($50-100 - time is money on the company dime). But when my family goes on vacation (when every other family is going on vacation), the cost difference becomes painful ($150-$250 per ticket X 4). Maybe as the airport continues to grow, get more attention, and attract new routes, it'll also attract a few more "destination" carriers and the price will come down a bit for certain destinations?

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, BLUESCRUBS said:

https://www.mlive.com/expo/news/erry-2018/07/9bd13f583b9385/airport_master_plan.html 

Write up on the new Master Plan...

Crazy that the large parking garage hit capacity 51 times between November and March. Anyone know how many packing spots are in that ramp??

This article from when they added the roof says it holds 4140 cars:

https://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2015/03/roof_over_ford_airports_parkin.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an infrastructure guy, I am surprised they would dive into a 3rd terminal AND expand the existing one. Seems almost uneccsary unless there is demand for MANY more flight offerings. I also confirmed from a source that they are looking at customs asap to get international flights as mentioned and that they were in discussions for hotel/gas station but sounds like the control tower would have to happen first according to the article. I am sure it will be taller and since it would have to be moved to the other side, would probably be a lot more visible around.

 

Overall very exciting but can believe there’s still no mention of tunneling under the north runway for direct access to 96 or  built with the new commercial runway mentioned, hope that happens would cut drivetime down a lot to downtown and releave 28th at 96 quite a bit

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2018 at 7:48 AM, BLUESCRUBS said:

https://www.mlive.com/expo/news/erry-2018/07/9bd13f583b9385/airport_master_plan.html 

Write up on the new Master Plan...

Crazy that the large parking garage hit capacity 51 times between November and March. Anyone know how many parking spots are in that ramp??

For fear of stating the obvious it looks like they simply underestimated the growth back in the planning stages.  2 years prior to completion if you were to tell people the daily passenger numbers 5 years later would be nearly 3000 more per day you would of probably be laughed out of the room.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, arcturus said:

For fear of stating the obvious it looks like they simply underestimated the growth back in the planning stages.  2 years prior to completion if you were to tell people the daily passenger numbers 5 years later would be nearly 3000 more per day you would of probably be laughed out of the room.  

I remember at one point people saying it would be a folly and a major drain on the airport for years to come. Guess no one expected that much growth at the time (we were in the recession). 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2018 at 8:59 AM, kwl said:

Any chance Lansing becomes obsolete in the next decade? Only 375k pax in 2017, down from 650k in 2000. 

I've flown Delta Connection between DTW and LAN before. Biggest waste of time as the flight is about 7 minutes long, but pack in all the airport nonsense and it could be driven in about half the time. 

If GR adds direct flights to Cancun, that is only going to continue to strip traffic away from Lansing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jdkacz said:

If GR adds direct flights to Cancun, that is only going to continue to strip traffic away from Lansing.

Probably a little but it’s not going anywhere, it’s still serves way more ppl than most of the commercial airports in the state and since it’s the Capitol, will probably always have chicago, mini, dc served. They lose out more to DTW than anything, I worked there and we all would drive an hour to DTW vs 10 min to LAN as do many of the msuthe Msu students. I find it more interesting that our metro area has two airports with Muskegon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GR8scott said:

Probably a little but it’s not going anywhere, it’s still serves way more ppl than most of the commercial airports in the state and since it’s the Capitol, will probably always have chicago, mini, dc served. They lose out more to DTW than anything, I worked there and we all would drive an hour to DTW vs 10 min to LAN as do many of the msuthe Msu students. I find it more interesting that our metro area has two airports with Muskegon.

I believe Muskegon only has flights to and from Chicago. I think I've only ever met one person who has actually flown in there, but they were coming from another small airport that only served Chicago, so it was basically the same price as flying to GRR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.