Metro Orlando Airport News

[shardoon]

8 hours ago, Uncommon said:

Yay, come visit Orlando, tourists! A decade ago we welcomed 45 million and now we’re coming up on 80 million! By 2030, we’ll introduce 105 million people, each with their own rental car in a region and infrastructure ill-designed for this kind of explosive growth, and watch as crippling traffic, soaring housing costs, and bottom-feeder wages wreck the people that just want to live a decent life.

It’s not all good news.

So go move to Lakeland, Clermont, etc etc. This is what Orlando is, its economy runs on tourism. No different from Vegas. That will never change. If you are a transplant from somewhere else, you knew where you were moving. If you are a native to Orlando, there are many many places within the metro area that are not touched by tourism, such as Winter Park, Winter Garden, etc etc. 

[spenser1058]

3 hours ago, shardoon said:

So go move to Lakeland, Clermont, etc etc. This is what Orlando is, its economy runs on tourism. No different from Vegas. That will never change. If you are a transplant from somewhere else, you knew where you were moving. If you are a native to Orlando, there are many many places within the metro area that are not touched by tourism, such as Winter Park, Winter Garden, etc etc. 

You’d be surprised how much misinformation there is on this topic. Yes, we have a lot of people working in lower-income Jobs, but that’s because we have so many of those jobs available. Compare that with cities like Philadelphia and New Orleans (just to name two -many major cities and lots of rural areas also are in the same boat) whose poverty percentages are even higher.

Even more importantly (and I’m doing research on this now ) is that it seems Orlando’s impoverished workers have a path upward that other cities don’t tend to have.

In other words, instead of the multigenerational poverty that keeps families trapped with no hope for improvement, that’s not what’s happening in Orlando.

Why? A number of reasons:

(1) Our largest employers, like Disney, provide benefits like health care, make it possible to go to college (through the paid for Aspire program) and have thousands of management operations jobs for workers to move toward. Disney is also raising wages for its workers to the minimum $15/hr living wage as recommended by progressive politicians. Because there aren’t enough workers to go around, other companies and resorts tend to match Disney over time to ensure they can keep running.

(2) Because there are so many unskilled jobs available, most people can find a job. It can be tough because starting out it may require a lot of overtime but the jobs are there to provide a path upward. That compares with cities where there are not enough jobs for unskilled workers and poverty becomes intractable over time.

(3) Compared to other large inner-city school systems, OCPS and our other county school districts rank well for allowing the unskilled to provide their families with a good basic education. No, OCPS will never compete with the schools in tony suburbs like Westchester, NY or Grosse Pointe, MI, but they run circles around Chicago or Detroit. Schools like Valencia also schedule classes broadly both on campus and online to make them accessible to entry-level workers with 24/7 work hours.

(4) Does Florida provide the kinds of services to make sure all its citizens need to succeed? Of course not, but that’s not something Orlando can do. To fix that will require change in Tallahassee and the undoing of centuries of backward thinking typical in the Southern states (see Mississippi). As someone whose family has lived in the South since 1780, yep I know exactly what I’m talking about.

Finally, there’s more than a little old-fashioned snobbery in some of the reporting here. Families with little education who themselves come from backgrounds of entrenched poverty are not going to start out as rocket scientists or brain surgeons.

There have to be places where one can take care of Maslow’s basics and build a better future for one’s self and one’s family (biological,  logical or otherwise). With our welcoming diversity and acceptance of everyone, not to mention almost unlimited paths to get started, Orlando provides a path for success.

I know - generations ago my grandparents from Alabama and South Carolina came to Florida to work in the orange groves with grade school educations at best. Members of the family have gone on to great success thanks to the public schools, universities and careers at places like Hughes Supply and yes Disney.

Although the folks starting their journey today may come from different places and look a little different from those in my family, their goals are the same - a chance at success. Central Florida still does a darn good job at that.

The other question I have is, what is the alternative? Just tell the hundreds of thousands of workers  in the tourism economy to leave? We saw that in 2008 - want a repeat? Don’t forget all the tourism revenues support the white collar workers downtown so they’ll have to go also. 

We do need to diversify the economy so all our eggs are not in one basket. We have - how do you think the tens of thousands of tech jobs at CFRP and Seminole County came to be? It’s just that, uniquely in the hospitality industry, Orlando’s theme parks have been incredibly popular and the demand for them has continued to grow.

It was once assumed that Central Florida had reached its theme park max and that future growth would happen internationally in places like China. That would allow a chance to balance our economy with tech and other industries.

Then Harry Potter happened and the process started all over again. It’s safe to say there’s really not been anything quite like it before. Interestingly, unlike many cities who’ve seen jobs disappear to cheaper venues, losing tech, textiles, finance back offices, etc., it’s hard to move the Magic Kingdom. 

One can argue that in 1965 we should have said no to all this. The thing is, no one could ever have predicted the industry that grew here (we thought we were getting a technologically advanced city of the future, but then Walt had the temerity to die).

As shardoon notes, this is a very unique place as a result. Very few people who live here today didn’t know what our economy looked like when they got here. If it’s not your cup of tea, the only real choice at this point is to relocate.

Personally, I revel in the dynamism of my hometown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by spenser1058

[HankStrong]

All those words that Spense said.  That.

 

There are very few people who live anywhere who couldn't find a way to leave if they wanted to.  If you don't like it, you can change it.*

You basically get 3 options with most things in life:

1. Accept it, good or bad
2. Ignore it and bury your head in the sand
3. Reject it, fix it or if it is beyond your fixing (like changing Orlando's entire economic structure) they you move on

I understand there are a few other options sometimes and a lot of blends of partial answers, but basically it comes down to those 3.

 

 

*in the free first world (I know it's not true everywhere)

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by HankStrong

[Uncommon]

 

8 hours ago, shardoon said:

So go move to Lakeland, Clermont, etc etc. This is what Orlando is, its economy runs on tourism. No different from Vegas. That will never change. If you are a transplant from somewhere else, you knew where you were moving. If you are a native to Orlando, there are many many places within the metro area that are not touched by tourism, such as Winter Park, Winter Garden, etc etc. 

Except I’m not arguing what the economy runs on. Sure, low wages are a nasty side effect but they don’t really affect me at all. My initial post was about the pitfalls of Orlando’s boom: uncontrolled and unrestrained growth are NOT net positives. You suggested Vegas and Orlando are essentially in the same boat. Except they aren’t. Over the last 20 years or so, Las Vegas has averaged anywhere from 35 to 42 million visitors. Some years it went up, other years it went down, but it’s been fairly consistent and manageable.  (https://assets.simpleviewcms.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1/clients/lasvegas/Historical_1970_to_2018_4100bf49-5aba-4686-81bc-49cf15a2b411.pdf)

Contrast this with Orlando. I couldn’t find any definitive numbers for the early part of the decade but in 2005, around 49 million visitors came to Orlando (https://www.floridatrend.com/article/8396/number-of-visitors-to-orlando-down-in-2006). There was a slight drop in 2006 to about 48 million, and then every single year after that like clockwork, Orlando set a new record for visitors, culminating in a staggering 75 million last year. Predictions are by the end of 2029, nearly 105 million people will have visited Orlando. That’s absurd.

Your “go move” comment is irrelevant and unnecessary and unsolicited. I’m all for incremental, sustainable growth, in population, in wages, in visitors, in housing costs, etc. Stagnation is a terrible thing. But explosive growth isn’t good either, especially not in a region that wasn’t designed for it. This is all I was bringing out. If you disagree, I look forward to you explaining why.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Uncommon

[Uncommon]

7 hours ago, HankStrong said:

It's not all bad news either.

I agree with this. There is a lot to love about our city experiencing its renaissance. Still, there are some real concerns. Having just visited Austin and San Francisco in the past 5 months, a lot of my buddies in those areas echo the same exact things: this kind of crazy growth has not been entirely positive. Especially in Austin, the amount of traffic and homeless people I saw compared to when I visited in 2004 was shocking. They’re exactly the same issues I’m seeing now in Orlando.

[Uncommon]

3 hours ago, HankStrong said:

All those words that Spense said.  That.

 

There are very few people who live anywhere who couldn't find a way to leave if they wanted to.  If you don't like it, you can change it.*

You basically get 3 options with most things in life:

1. Accept it, good or bad
2. Ignore it and bury your head in the sand
3. Reject it, fix it or if it is beyond your fixing (like changing Orlando's entire economic structure) they you move on

I understand there are a few other options sometimes and a lot of blends of partial answers, but basically it comes down to those 3.

 

 

*in the free first world (I know it's not true everywhere)

 

Lol I’m confused, why are people giving me life lessons or suggestions or their philosophy on how to deal with the fact that I believe this sort of growth isn’t all positive? I’m merely pointing out my opinion, on an online forum designed to, you know, point out your opinion. I don’t see anyone telling others to move or deal with it or accept it because they think Church Street Plaza is an ugly building. So why do it here?

[AmIReal]

30 minutes ago, Uncommon said:

My initial post was about the pitfalls of Orlando’s boom: uncontrolled and unrestrained growth are NOT net positives.

I think a lot of the issue is that while our population is growing at a rapid, but manageable rate (under 3%) our visitor growth rate is double that- which does seem a bit unmanaged.

[spenser1058]

I’m not certain I’ve encountered a US city trying to curtail the number of visitors by design before ( Daytona seems to be doing it by default so perhaps that should be our model).

I’ve long maintained that one of the things I like best about our tourism industry is that it’s off on its own so that residents can mostly ignore it if they want to while benefiting  from the taxes and jobs it fuels to professionals in places like downtown and WG.

Oddly, there are a number of UP folks that want all those tourists downtown and I concede I’ve never quite understood that.

Transit will become more of an issue as the industry grows. The cities that have generally been successful in making major transit fixes have relied upon the federal government for assistance due to the cost. That obviously won’t work with the current configuration in DC or Tallahassee. We’ll just have to wait to see if the FEC market-based solution is viable and if expanded lines can occur. 

Meanwhile, RCID is working on expanding solar, wetlands mitigation, reduction of single-use plastic and alternative transportation on the Disney campus. That model may also be expanded through cooperation with Orange and Osceola counties. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

As to OIA, airports have been considered as one of the primary drivers of a successful economy for at least 60 years. Atlanta, for example, has long used the growth of Hartsfield-Jackson International as the primary mover in that city’s march to become the preeminent city in the Southeast. One need only go back to the ‘50’s before ATL, ummm, took off and it was an open question as to whether Birmingham or Atlanta (they were almost the same size back then) would come to represent the New South. Today, of course, that question seems quaint if not absurd.

 

Edited June 12, 2019 by spenser1058

[shardoon]

5 hours ago, Uncommon said:

 

Except I’m not arguing what the economy runs on. Sure, low wages are a nasty side effect but they don’t really affect me at all. My initial post was about the pitfalls of Orlando’s boom: uncontrolled and unrestrained growth are NOT net positives. You suggested Vegas and Orlando are essentially in the same boat. Except they aren’t. Over the last 20 years or so, Las Vegas has averaged anywhere from 35 to 42 million visitors. Some years it went up, other years it went down, but it’s been fairly consistent and manageable.  (https://assets.simpleviewcms.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1/clients/lasvegas/Historical_1970_to_2018_4100bf49-5aba-4686-81bc-49cf15a2b411.pdf)

Contrast this with Orlando. I couldn’t find any definitive numbers for the early part of the decade but in 2005, around 49 million visitors came to Orlando (https://www.floridatrend.com/article/8396/number-of-visitors-to-orlando-down-in-2006). There was a slight drop in 2006 to about 48 million, and then every single year after that like clockwork, Orlando set a new record for visitors, culminating in a staggering 75 million last year. Predictions are by the end of 2029, nearly 105 million people will have visited Orlando. That’s absurd.

Your “go move” comment is irrelevant and unnecessary and unsolicited. I’m all for incremental, sustainable growth, in population, in wages, in visitors, in housing costs, etc. Stagnation is a terrible thing. But explosive growth isn’t good either, especially not in a region that wasn’t designed for it. This is all I was bringing out. If you disagree, I look forward to you explaining why.

The thing is, this entire thread is simply about the growth of OIA. Since you stated Vegas and Orlando are very much different with growth management, I would like to point out that McCarren has more passengers than Orlando despite having less visitors and a less metro population.  Maybe its just OIA finally spreading its wings and meeting the air travel needs of the large population that lives here. You were the one equating that the larger airport is solely the result of the tourism industry. Sprawl or no sprawl, population centers have large airports.  Southwest, Frontier, Spirit, and Jetblue use Orlando as hubs, in some cases International Gateways. These passengers are not Orlando tourists. Lufthansa developed their Frankfurt route due to Siemens...... not the tourism industry.  

[Uncommon]

1 hour ago, shardoon said:

The thing is, this entire thread is simply about the growth of OIA. Since you stated Vegas and Orlando are very much different with growth management, I would like to point out that McCarren has more passengers than Orlando despite having less visitors and a less metro population.  Maybe its just OIA finally spreading its wings and meeting the air travel needs of the large population that lives here. You were the one equating that the larger airport is solely the result of the tourism industry. Sprawl or no sprawl, population centers have large airports.  Southwest, Frontier, Spirit, and Jetblue use Orlando as hubs, in some cases International Gateways. These passengers are not Orlando tourists. Lufthansa developed their Frankfurt route due to Siemens...... not the tourism industry.  

Nope, my initial comment was not solely about tourism. For the 4th time: unbridled growth = bad. OIA’s stark increase in passengers is just one element of it. The topic of this thread is ONE factor, not THE factor. If there was a thread on our ridiculously-booming population growth, I’d make the same comment. If there was a thread on the rising cost of housing, I’d make the same comment. If there was a thread about the increasing homeless population, I’d make the same comment. It just so happened to be a thread about our airport. It doesn’t change the fact that I believe Orlando is growing too much, too quickly. 

Also, I’m sure we can agree that the majority of passengers coming to Orlando ARE in fact tourists. Orlando isn’t Atlanta or Boston or Charlotte. Most of the people that come are probably not here for business. So yes, you’re partially right; I mostly equate the number of passengers with tourism. But again, tourism is not my issue. Anyway, this will go on in eternal circles. Agree to disagree.

[HankStrong]

It also doesn't help that going to Orlando as a domestic layover for anywhere other than maybe Miami or Puerto Rico is dumb.  Do McCarren's numbers include layovers?   I don't know and I'm genuinely asking.  It seems like LV could be a reasonable domestic layover stop for a dozen cities or more.

[shardoon]

2 hours ago, HankStrong said:

It also doesn't help that going to Orlando as a domestic layover for anywhere other than maybe Miami or Puerto Rico is dumb.  Do McCarren's numbers include layovers?   I don't know and I'm genuinely asking.  It seems like LV could be a reasonable domestic layover stop for a dozen cities or more.

I believe all airport numbers include layovers. This is why Atlanta is so high, a fraction of those people ever see the outside of the airport. Each 1.5 hour layover has a passenger counted twice, for arriving and departing. 

[aent]

18 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I’m not certain I’ve encountered a US city trying to curtail the number of visitors by design before ( Daytona seems to be doing it by default so perhaps that should be our model).

 

And Disney and Universal have been raising their prices a whole ton to try to curtail their ever increasing number of visitors. It just hasn't worked, people are willing to pay more to come to orlando.

[jrs2]

On 6/11/2019 at 11:40 PM, Uncommon said:

Yay, come visit Orlando, tourists! A decade ago we welcomed 45 million and now we’re coming up on 80 million! By 2030, we’ll introduce 105 million people, each with their own rental car in a region and infrastructure ill-designed for this kind of explosive growth, and watch as crippling traffic, soaring housing costs, and bottom-feeder wages wreck the people that just want to live a decent life.

It’s not all good news.

this is similar to a Daytona type of mentality;  locals that don't want any growth. and then you drive around the beachside neighborhoods and see these old houses that haven't been fixed or redone or updated in years or ever.  I get it.  But you gotta live out in the country and not a few blocks from prime real estate to have a legitimate gripe.  

12 hours ago, Uncommon said:

. But again, tourism is not my issue. 

I thought it was (based on your comment about OIA's growth not necessarily being all that good...

[jrs2]

23 minutes ago, aent said:

And Disney and Universal have been raising their prices a whole ton to try to curtail their ever increasing number of visitors. It just hasn't worked, people are willing to pay more to come to orlando.

is that why they raise those prices?  I never thought that and I don't think that's the reason.  Universal is monkee see, monkee do (got Micky Dolenz on the brain) to Disney.  I do know that Disney shuts down the parks when they reach capacity, so maybe you're right, but I still doubt it because with that logic  they would make their least popular parks cheaper to get into hoping to reach that capacity crowd level to make more $$$.

[spenser1058]

11 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

is that why they raise those prices?  I never thought that and I don't think that's the reason.  Universal is monkee see, monkee do (got Micky Dolenz on the brain) to Disney.  I do know that Disney shuts down the parks when they reach capacity, so maybe you're right, but I still doubt it because with that logic  they would make their least popular parks cheaper to get into hoping to reach that capacity crowd level to make more $$$.

*sings, “Here we come, walkin’ down the street”..*

I know the Mouse has made that case but the resulting change in attendance seems marginal at best. I’m still convinced it’s more revenue- than capacity-driven but since Disney doesn’t break those kinds of numbers down, I guess we’ll never know.

Edited June 13, 2019 by spenser1058

[AmIReal]

20 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I’m not certain I’ve encountered a US city trying to curtail the number of visitors by design before ( Daytona seems to be doing it by default so perhaps that should be our model)

However, the facts say Daytona is doing pretty well. They are in their 7th straight year of record number of visitors. But that's a conversation to be had in the "extended area" topic.

 

22 hours ago, Uncommon said:

My initial post was about the pitfalls of Orlando’s boom: uncontrolled and unrestrained growth are NOT net positives.

I'm a little surprised Uncommon would catch so much flak for what is an obvious comment- as long as you focus on the "uncontrolled" and "unrestrained" qualifiers. You can ask pretty much anyone on the street and they will complain about the number of tourist. Sure, on this forum we are better informed than most and we can all recognize the value we get from our visitors- I firmly believe they more than pay for themselves. Nonetheless, more tourists equals more employees equals more second tier services equals more sprawl. Until the robots takeover it will continue to be this way.

I do disagree that growth of OIA is a problem though. A symptom, yes.

[jrs2]

27 minutes ago, AmIReal said:

I'm a little surprised Uncommon would catch so much flak for what is an obvious comment- as long as you focus on the "uncontrolled" and "unrestrained" qualifiers. You can ask pretty much anyone on the street and they will complain about the number of tourist. Sure, on this forum we are better informed than most and we can all recognize the value we get from our visitors- I firmly believe they more than pay for themselves. Nonetheless, more tourists equals more employees equals more second tier services equals more sprawl. Until the robots takeover it will continue to be this way.

I do disagree that growth of OIA is a problem though. A symptom, yes.

Yeah, if too much tourism leads to uncontrolled growth, then I also agree that OIA's growth is a symptom.

The more I think about it, the more I see where Uncommon was coming from, in the above regard.  I just think that to have nice amenities you need money.  Every city gets that money from somewhere.  Orlando just gets most of it from tourism.  In the absence of getting more $$$ from other sources, it is what it is and I always hope for more tourism.  

[HankStrong]

[shardoon]

Bottom line, without the growth of the tourism industry and the economic windfall if gives the area, most flights out of Orlando would require a stop in Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, or Houston. I for one am happy that I have a world class mega airport at my doorstep that allows me to get a direct flight to so many places in the world and country.

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, HankStrong said:

how do I get one of those?  And also one of those famous geese...?

[spenser1058]

7 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

how do I get one of those?  And also one of those famous geese...?

Orlando Meats?

[HankStrong]

3 hours ago, shardoon said:

Bottom line, without the growth of the tourism industry and the economic windfall if gives the area, most flights out of Orlando would require a stop in Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, or Houston. I for one am happy that I have a world class mega airport at my doorstep that allows me to get a direct flight to so many places in the world and country.

We need more direct flights!  But it is getting better every year.

[spenser1058]

Icelandair  is pulling its  service to Reykjavik from Tampa, but not to worry - flights to and from MCO continue so you can still hang out with reindeer and polar bears at will. Score one for the home team!

Icelandair discontinues flights out of Tampa International Airport

https://www.tampabay.com/business/icelandair-pulling-out-of-tampa-international-airport-20190617/

 

(Via Tampa Bay Times)

[HankStrong]

It's a very nice place to visit.