What A Surprise: Secondary Airports Losing Traffic, Floundering
Jane L. Levere writes in the NYT that airports serving smaller cities around the USA aren't doing so well:
The fate of Lambert-St. Louis International Airport may be a portent for other airports serving smaller cities around the United States.Once the main hub of Trans World Airlines, the airport offered as many as 475 departures a day. But now, there are just 256 daily departures, leaving half the concourses at the older of its two terminals vacant and the airport scrambling to find new, revenue-generating uses for the space.
Already, airports in Pittsburgh (a former hub for US Airways), Cincinnati (a much-downsized Delta Air Lines hub) and Oakland, Calif., have lost a significant amount of their business as airlines concentrate more of their flights on bigger-city airports.
As airlines continue to consolidate and cut back on their use of smaller, regional jets, more airports will be in the same difficult position -- looking for new uses for unoccupied terminals, hangars and other specialized buildings.
"This is an issue many airports are wrestling with," said Lois S. Kramer, an airport consultant based in Boulder, Colo., and principal author of a report on reuse of airport buildings commissioned last year by the Transportation Research Board, a division of the National Research Council. "Nobody wants to talk about it, but vacant space at airports is more widespread than one would think."
Now maybe this is just one of those things -- smaller getting squeezed out by bigger. But, Levere apparently failed to pose the question on my mind...could it possibly have anything to do with...travelers' aversion to getting violated by government-hired thugs in the name of security?
My comment I left at the NYT:
Flying anywhere means there's a good chance of being sexually molested by a government worker pretending to be doing so for security purposes. (Of course, the way we actually stop terrorists is not by having unskilled workers grope our genitalia at the airport but through targeted intelligence by highly trained intelligence officers -- using actual probable cause.)I have, on a number of occasions, avoided flying places I would have gone (a scientific conference, an event for a friend) because the thought of the TSA ordeal was just too much.
Oh, and before anyone says this is necessary security, it's nothing of the kind. The TSA, in its entire $60-plus billion history, has not caught a single terrorist. It's a jobs program and a funding program for Michael Chertoff and others who benefit financially from the nudiescanners and other aspects of this obscene program.
via @DebWilker
In my experience, the smaller the airport, the fewer the TSA agents, and the less likely you are to be groped.
I attribute this to the "everybody knows everybody" in a small town. It is easier to molest a faceless, nameless "other" than your neighbor, your banker, or your high school principal.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 11, 2012 6:20 AM
So if you want to fly without getting groped, book a series of short hops from one small airport to another?
nonegiven at July 11, 2012 6:48 AM
Even apart from the groping, the TSA has hurt airline traffic. The problem is the sheer amount of time it takes to get through the security process. It used to be that, if you weren't checking a bag, you could show up at the airport 15 minutes before flight time and make your flight; 30 minutes if you were checking a bag. Now, most airports advise travelers to be at the airport at least two hours before flight time. Interesting that Lambert was mentioned, since I've been through there many times. That airport has one of the slowest security lines, and during peak times two hours is cutting it very close. Three hours works better.
What all this means is: flying is less practical. For one thing, the increased time increases the travel radius over which it is more cost- and time-effective to use some other form of transportation. For example, it takes me seven hours to drive to Indianapolis. It used to take about 3-1/2 hours to get there by air, but now, with two hours to get through TSA, and another two hours waiting for a connection in Atlanta, it takes about seven hours altogether. Might as well drive; it costs less, I can take more stuff, and I don't have to rent a car when I get there.
For another thing, it makes travel less efficient because you have less time to spend at the destination. Back in the day, we used to do business day trips: fly to, say, Houston in the morning, participate in a meeting in the afternoon, fly back in the evening, and be home by bedtime. That's no longer possible; if you go at all, you have to spend at least one night. Even then, you may only get half a day to do business at the destination. If you want to get serious, it's at least a two-night trip. May as well just do a teleconference.
Cousin Dave at July 11, 2012 6:57 AM
One other thing: TSA really screwed over Delta in Cincinnati. Back in the day Comair built their marvelously efficient Terminal C at CVG, the world's first and only terminal built specifically to handle regional jets. Connections there were a snap. You got off your flight, walked into the gate area, and your connecting flight was just on the other side of the room. Hungry or thirsty? Food and drink was only a few steps away. The boarding process was quick; 30-45 minutes after landing, you were on your way again. They even had some international flights; connecting via CVG was my favorite route to Toronto, saving about two hours vs. going through Atlanta.
TSA made them close it because it wasn't "secure". Due to the way the gates were arranged, it was possible, if one was exceptionally clueless and not paying attention, to get on board the wrong airplane. So what? Everyone had already been through screening, either through CVG's main lobby or at their originating airport. But TSA got their panties in a wad, and Delta had to close it. That had a huge negative impact on Delta's regional jet operations, and it will discourage anyone from thinking about innovative terminal or gate layouts in the future.
Cousin Dave at July 11, 2012 7:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/11/what_a_surprise.html#comment-3259138">comment from Cousin DaveIt is a huge waste of time and life, Cousin Dave. I live 20 minutes from the airport. It used to be amazingly fast to hop a plane and was one of the amazements of modern life. The terrorists (and the power-mad thugs, and those making piles of money from their association with the scanners, etc.) have won.
I left a conference I was attending before the afternoon sessions were over so I could spend two hours sitting around the airport thanks to this meaningless show of security.
Amy Alkon at July 11, 2012 7:17 AM
Yeah, Lambert airport in St. Louis is one of the saddest places on earth. If not for Southwest airlines (which now has an entire terminal to itself there), there would be no reason for it to exist. It is a beautiful airport, architecture-wise and was state-of-the-art when first built in StL's glory days.
IRA Darth Aggie makes a good point about the TSA being ever so slightly more tolerable* in smaller airports. They are downright jolly in Milwaukee, and, in Austin, I'm pretty sure they're all just high anyway (except for two nasty ones that I now recognize by sight and avoid their lines). It's the bigger cities where I've experienced interrogations, confiscations, extra-invasive pat downs, long security lines, and rudeness.
*Disclaimer: I'm not saying being a "nice" TSA agent justifies what they do. Yet, if I have to travel (which I often do), I'd rather deal with someone who acts like a human being.
sofar at July 11, 2012 7:58 AM
"I left a conference I was attending before the afternoon sessions were over so I could spend two hours sitting around the airport thanks to this meaningless show of security."
Yeah, I'm taking a business trip out to SoCal next month. In order to arrive in time and have enough time on-site, I have to fly out there on Sunday (for which I won't be compensated), and take the redeye back Wednesday night. When I arrive back home after flying all night, I'll be going straight to the office. All because reasonable flight times aren't practical any more due to the TSA.
Cousin Dave at July 11, 2012 10:34 AM
While the article doesn't say, and while TSA probably does have some role, I think the issue is mainly a down economy followed by a death spiral of rising costs.
Costs of renting/operating a gate to the airline
Costs of a ticket to the passenger
Costs of extra fees to the passenger
jerry at July 11, 2012 10:48 AM
If I recall, and I'll ask a friend in the business to confirm, STL (Lambert-St. Louis International Airport) suffered some major damage in a storm/tornado a few years back. I think a lot of it HAD to be shut down, at least temporarily.
If that's the case, and they left that out, I think the reporting is a bit negligent. After all, they're using that airport as the case-study here.
Shannon M. Howell at July 11, 2012 1:32 PM
From a SWA flight attendant:
"... last year a tornado went through and did major damage to the main terminal. There are some areas sn the terminal still boarded up..."
That MIGHT just have something to do with having fewer flights, too.
Shannon M. Howell at July 11, 2012 1:50 PM
You're conflating cause and effect. If there was any demand, the terminal would be perfect now.
An example of that is the Mercedes-Benz Superdome post-Katrina. Post-Katrina they were saying that the New Orleans Superdome was going to be write-off from how trashed it was. It wasn't used in the months after Katrina. But the Saints home opener was held there on September 25, 2006.
Why? Probably because everyone was pulling for the Saints and the Superdome. Why didn't everyone pull for STL? Probably because there is no demand for the repair.
Back in the 80's I enjoyed flying military -- carry your bag out to the plan, you knew it and you were together. I flew civilian as needed but never had a real problem.
Post 9/11, I have flown four times. And the only reason is it would have essentially required to go from Ohio to CA or WA. Driving was not a reasonable option.
My last flight -- coming out of Seattle -- had me do the full pat down because I didn't want a 10Ml* bottle of clearly labeled, prescription, liquid to be x-rayed. Outbound to WA they essentially waved it through. Then as an added insult, for some reason the Seattle TSA showed up at the gate and checked our ID's to boarding passes again.
Unless it is a dire emergency -- I'm being paid millions to do something -- I refuse to fly commercial until the TSA and those rules go away.
With the added crap from the TSA -- has the amount of flyers dropped? Is there a correspondence between less flyers and more TSA crap?
And another comparison not obvious is the jet size flying. Pre 9/11 you would have a lot of the of birds carrying 300+ passengers birds for each flight. Now the are intermixing a bunch of 135+ change flights.
* To give you reference to the size -- the 10Ml vial could fit in a 1.5 Oz shot glass, and have room for more than 1 Oz. of liquor.
Jim P. at July 11, 2012 11:17 PM
Jim P.,
I agree that, if there was serious demand, much if not all of it would likely be open... depending on the extent of the damage.
However, when a bunch of damage happens at an airport, they can NO LONGER use the damaged parts until they are fixed. This would necessarily lead to at least a temporary drop in flights/revenue and re-working flight paths/schedules. In a bad economy, this sort of issue can cause permanent changes as it may not be cost effective to leave operations "dangling" during a fix.
That is why I think the reporting not having mentioned the damage was a serious omission. The damage was huge, from what my friends in the area tell me. So, flight paths/schedules would necessarily have to (at least for awhile) be adjusted. This MAY cause a downward spiral - at least until the economy improves massively.
But, to be clear, I'm not saying it WAS a cause, or even a partial cause (hence the "MIGHT" in all caps). However, to leave something like "oh yeah, the airport was majorly damaged" out of a report that cites the number of flights as evidence of decline, is disingenuous. Gates closed due to damage or repair will not have any flights. The airport capacity dropped, so comparing the number of flights is simply not useful.
Shannon M. Howell at July 12, 2012 11:57 AM
Leave a comment