competition plan update for t.f. green airport …airline enplanements percentage of total southwest...

COMPETITION PLAN UPDATE

FOR

T.F. GREEN AIRPORT

(Federal Fiscal Year 2002)

Rhode Island Airport Corporation 2000 Post Road

Warwick, RI 02886-1533 (401) 737-4000

May 2, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1. Availability of Gates ..................................................................................................... 4

Number of Available Gates....................................................................................... 4 Gate-Use Monitoring Policy ..................................................................................... 5 Gate Utilization Standards and Performance ............................................................ 7

2. Leasing and Subleasing................................................................................................. 9 Subleasing Arrangements.......................................................................................... 9 Ground-Handling/Support Services .......................................................................... 9

3. Patterns of Air Service ................................................................................................10 4. Gate Assignment Policy ...............................................................................................16 Gate Assignment Policy ...........................................................................................16 Announcement of Gate Availability ........................................................................16 Policies for Reasonable Access to Entrant Carriers .................................................16

5. Financial Constraints....................................................................................................17

Funding Sources for Terminal Projects....................................................................17 Airline Rates and Charges Methodology .................................................................17 PFC Use for Gates and Related Terminal Projects ..................................................17

6. Airport Controls Over Capacity ...................................................................................20 Majority-In-Interest (MII) Clauses on Capital Projects ...........................................20 Projects Delayed or Prevented Due to MII ..............................................................20 Plans to Modify MII Clauses ...................................................................................21

7. Common-Use Gates .....................................................................................................22 Existing Common-Use Gates ...................................................................................22 Construction or Acquisition of Additional Common-Use Gates .............................22 Carriers Utilizing Common-Use Gates Exclusively ................................................22 International/Domestic Service Gate Utilization .....................................................22

8. Comparison of Airfare Levels......................................................................................23

Average Fare Comparisons ......................................................................................23 Summarized O&D Data by Carrier..........................................................................23 Summarized O&D Data by Market..........................................................................23

Rhode Island Airport Corporation T.F. Green Airport Competition Plan Update – Federal FY 2002 Page i

LIST OF TABLES

1. CY 2000 Airport Enplanements................................................................................... 1 2. Gate Assignments......................................................................................................... 4 3. Gate Utilization ............................................................................................................ 8 4. Patterns of Air Service ................................................................................................14 5. Approved PFC Program at the Airport .......................................................................18 PFC Quarterly Status Report – Quarter Ended June 30, 2001....................................19 6. O&D Data Summarized by Airport ............................................................................25 7. O&D Data Summarized by Carrier.............................................................................26 8. Short-Haul O&D Data Summarized by Market..........................................................27 9. Long-Haul O&D Data Summarized by Market ..........................................................28 10. All Stage Length O&D Data Summarized by Market ................................................29

Rhode Island Airport Corporation T.F. Green Airport Competition Plan Update – Federal FY 2002 Page ii

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

This section presents an introduction to the need and requirement for the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) to submit an updated Competition Plan for T.F. Green Airport (Airport) to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) adopted on April 5, 2000, requires certain large and medium hub airports to prepare and submit a Competition Plan to the FAA, as well as to provide annual updates to that Competition Plan. The airports that are required under this legislation to submit a Competition Plan (“covered airports”) are characterized as having one or two airlines controlling more than 50 percent of annual passenger enplanements. Beginning with federal fiscal year 2001, all covered airports are required to submit a Competition Plan or an update in order for a new Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) to be approved for collection or a grant to be issued under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) in that federal fiscal year.1 The statute provides for the periodic review of the Competition Plan for PFC purposes, and the FAA requires updated plans prior to acting on subsequent PFC applications. In addition, the FAA must have a current Competition Plan to issue each AIP grant (the FAA will consider a Competition Plan or an update to be current for an entire federal fiscal year). The official source of data for determining covered airports in any federal fiscal year is the U.S. DOT’s Air Carrier Activity Information System (ACAIS) database. As shown in Table 1 below, the Airport is a covered airport for federal fiscal year 2002, as Southwest and US Airways accounted for a combined 57.1 percent of enplaned passengers at the Airport in calendar year (CY) 2000. As a result, an updated Competition Plan for the Airport is required in order for a new PFC to be approved for collection or a grant to be issued under AIP during federal fiscal year 2002.

Table 1 CY 2000 Airport Enplanements Airline

Enplanements

Percentage Of Total

Southwest 820,469 30.6% US Airways 711,057 26.5% Other Carriers 1,152,678 42.9% Airport Total 2,684,204 100.0%

Sources: U.S. DOT Air Carrier Activity Information System (ACAIS) database, 9/25/01

Compiled by Ricondo & Associates, Inc. As stated in the Initial Competition Plan submitted for federal fiscal year 2001, the objectives of RIAC’s Competition Plan are to 1) encourage competitive air service at the Airport, 2) provide gates and other terminal facilities needed to accommodate new air service, and 3) ensure that access is provided to airlines wishing to serve the Airport on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms. These objectives are consistent with RIAC’s overall objectives to make the Airport the “airport of choice” for the Providence region. Specific initiatives to be undertaken or continued during the next 12 months to further the objectives of the Competition Plan are described below: Initiatives to Attract New Airline Service. Air service development is a top priority for RIAC.

RIAC’s budget for air service development in FY 2002 (the year ending June 30, 2002) was originally $90,000, similar to the amount budgeted in FY 2001. Due to the events of 9/11,

1 The federal fiscal year is the 12-month period ending September 30.

Rhode Island Airport Corporation T.F. Green Airport Competition Plan Update – Federal FY 2002 Page 1

INTRODUCTION

however, this budgeted line item was eliminated due to mandatory budget revisions. Once the impacts of 9/11 subside, it is RIAC’s intention to continue to budget for air service development.

RIAC has a marketing plan with priorities for expanded service, some by incumbents, some by new carriers. As a result, visits were made during the past 12 months to Air Canada, Northwest, and Southwest. RIAC also has regular contact with several charter companies regarding international service.

Airline Contacts and Presentations. Building on the recent successes in attracting new airline

service, RIAC intends to continue to develop analyses and meet with airlines to encourage additional competitive air service at the Airport. Specific targets of air service development for the next 12 months include:

Additional low-fare service to top origin-destination markets in the eastern United States.

New major airline service to key business markets in the western United States.

Advertising. The majority of the advertising undertaken by RIAC for the Airport is for

newspaper and radio advertisements emphasizing the relative ease and convenience of the Airport for regional travelers. RIAC places the majority of its newspaper advertisements in surrounding communities. RIAC intends to continue this type of advertising during the next 12 months to help increase the demand for new, competitive air service. RIAC has budgeted $330,000 for advertising in FY 2002, compared to $212,000 budgeted in FY 2001.

Potential Facilities Improvements. The 2002 Airport Project includes an update of the Airport’s

Master Plan. The updated Master Plan will define the future terminal and related facility improvements necessary to accommodate growth in aviation demand.

Use of PFC Revenue to Fund Facilities. Several projects at the Airport are being financed with

PFC funds. Ticket counter expansion is being partially funded by PFC revenue. The ticket counter expansion will directly affect the ability of the Airport to accommodate current and potential increase in competitive air service. Other projects being funded through the most recent PFC Application include noise-related land acquisition, ramp rehabilitation, and airfield maintenance facilities. The use of PFC revenue to finance these projects results in a lower rates and charges base, allowing for lower airline expenses at the Airport, which increases the potential for low-cost airline service.

Ensuring Access to Facilities. RIAC is committed to continuing to ensure access to facilities

required by airlines initiating or expanding service at the Airport. RIAC has the ability to expand existing terminal facilities to ensure access. Over the next 12 months, in connection with updating the Airport Master Plan, RIAC plans to assess requirements and options for providing additional terminal capacity at the Airport.

Ensuring Fair, Reasonable, and Nondiscriminatory Charges. Rates and charges for airlines

using the Airport are established pursuant to a rate-making methodology that is fair and reasonable by industry standards. The average airline cost per enplaned passenger at the Airport was $3.75 in the most recent fiscal year (FY 2001, ended June 30, 2001), which is well within the range for medium hub airports. RIAC is committed to maintaining reasonable and competitive airline user fees.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


INTRODUCTION

The sections that follow present RIAC’s responses to suggested guidelines for updating the Competition Plan for the Airport, as outlined in the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter 00-3 (May 8, 2000). This report also includes additional information requested by the FAA in its letter dated November 8, 2000 to be included in the first update to the initial Competition Plan submitted for federal fiscal year 2001.


1. AVAILABILITY OF GATES


This section presents responses to suggested guidelines for updating the Availability of Gates portion of the Competition Plan, as outlined in the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter 00-3 (May 8, 2000), and responds to gate availability issues raised in the FAA’s letter dated November 8, 2000. 1.1 NUMBER OF AVAILABLE GATES There are 13 gates available for preferential-use lease arrangement in the North Concourse (9 through 22, with the number 13 omitted in the numerical sequence) and eight gates available in the South Concourse (1 through 8). As shown in Table 2 below, airline tenants in the North Concourse include American, American Eagle, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, and United. Airline tenants in the South Concourse include Continental and US Airways. Cape Air operates out of designated Commuter Gate 1A, a small holdroom with access to stairs leading to the apron level. Certain commuter airlines (Continental Express, Delta Connection, Northwest Airlink, United Express, and US Airways Express) use the gates of their major airline partners. Air Ontario, providing nonstop service to Toronto, is handled by United and operates out of Gate 9.

Table 2 Gate Assignments Number

Airline Of Gates Gate AssignmentsNorth Concourse American 2 12, 14American Eagle 1 20Delta 3 16, 18, 22Northwest 1 11Southwest 4 15, 17, 19, 21United 2 9, 10 South Concourse Continental 2 7, 8US Airways 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Total Leased Gates

21

RIAC-Controlled Gates

0

N/A

Total Gates

21

Sources: Rhode Island Airport Corporation

Compiled by Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

During the past 12 months, Delta and Southwest requested an additional gate, which was readily accommodated by RIAC. Although the Airport currently does not have any unassigned gates for new or expanding airlines, all gates are leased on a preferential-use basis for flexibility. As discussed earlier in Introduction, RIAC is committed to continuing to ensure access to facilities required by airlines initiating or expanding service at the Airport. RIAC has the ability to expand existing terminal facilities to ensure access. Over the next 12 months, in connection with updating the Airport Master Plan, RIAC plans to assess requirements and options for providing additional terminal capacity at the Airport.



1.2 GATE-USE MONITORING POLICY

In its November 8, 2000 response to the initial Competition Plan, the FAA requested additional information regarding RIAC’s gate-use monitoring policy and assignment practices at the Airport be included in this updated Competition Plan.

The FAA requests more detail in the procedures employed by RIAC between July 2000 and June 2001 to monitor gate utilization, as well as any changes to these procedures to take effect after the next 12 months.

RIAC monitors gate utilization by requesting each airline to submit a gate use chart each time the airline’s schedule changes. These schedules are kept on file and can be used to determine scheduled activity at each gate, as well as the time frames projected for utilization by each airline of its leased gates.

The FAA requests the number and names of carriers during the last 12 months that

have 1) requested access or sought to expand service at the Airport, 2) how they were accommodated, and 3) length of time between request and access.

Delta Express, a low-fare airline within Delta, initiated service at the Airport in October

1996 with daily nonstop service to Orlando. In April 2001, Delta Express added nonstop service to Fort Lauderdale from the Airport. This additional activity was folded into Delta’s facilities at the Airport with virtually no time lapse in initiating service. This nonstop service to Fort Lauderdale was discontinued in October 2001; however, Delta Express continues to operate nonstop service to Orlando from the Airport.

Midway initiated service at the Airport in April 2001 with three daily nonstop flights to

Raleigh-Durham. This airline initially contacted RIAC to request access at the Airport, who directed the airline to carriers with available facilities. An agreement with American was quickly executed such that Midway began operations at the Airport within 30 days following its initial request to RIAC. Midway filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on August 13, 2001 and discontinued flights to nine destinations, including Providence.

Northwest Airlink initiated service at the Airport in August 2001 with two daily nonstop

flights to Minneapolis using Canadair regional jets. Its activity was folded into Northwest’s facilities at the Airport with virtually no time lapse in initiating service. This service was replaced by Northwest’s mainline service in February 2002 using larger AB-319 aircraft (two daily nonstop flights).

The FAA requests details on the procedures by which an airline may invoke the forced

sharing of preferential-use premises at the Airport.

The Airport’s facilities have never been leased or occupied to the extent that RIAC has had to invoke forced sharing of preferentially leased facilities to accommodate a new or expanding airline. However, the Airport Use and Lease Agreement provides for such a possibility. The terms of this agreement provide for the sharing of facilities as described below:

1. If an airline, including any airline seeking to expand its service or an airline seeking entry into the Airport, is in need of space or facilities at the Airport that cannot be met by use of then unleased premises, RIAC shall direct such airline to request the use of space or facilities of signatory airlines on a volunteer basis. The signatory airlines shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate such requests in a timely manner.



2. In the event (i) the Director receives a written request from an airline requesting space or

facilities of a type leased to signatory airlines as preferential use premises, (ii) the requesting airline demonstrates to the Director that it has contacted all signatory airlines and has exhausted all reasonable efforts to find reasonable accommodation for its proposed operations and the space or facilities it needs, and (iii) the Director determines that such requesting airline needs the requested space or facilities to accommodate passengers or aircraft, then, subject to the provisions of 4 and 5 below, Director may grant such requesting airline the right of temporary or shared use of all or a designated portion of lessee’s preferential use premises, including the use of related passenger loading bridges as may be required, whether owned by the lessee or RIAC.

3. In the event the Director determines that a requesting airline’s needs require granting such

requesting airline the right to share or temporarily use the preferential use premises of one or more signatory airlines, the Director shall serve written notice to all signatory airlines of that determination and notice of RIAC’s intention to make a further determination, in not less than 15 calendar days, as to how the requesting airline will be accommodated.

4. In accordance with the priorities set forth in paragraph 5 below, the Director may grant the

requesting airline the right of shared or temporary use of all or a designated portion of the lessee’s preferential use premises, as well as rights of ingress and egress, the right to use related passenger loading bridges and other appurtenant equipment which are reasonably necessary for the effective use of such premises, provided that:

a. such proposed user provides the lessee with indemnification and proof of insurance

satisfactory to the lessee; provided, however, that the lessee may not require any indemnification more favorable to it than that which it provides to RIAC hereunder;

b. such proposed user agrees to pay the lessee the sum of the following:

i. an amount equal to a pro rata share of the sum of the terminal rentals and any other applicable payments, fees or taxes payable by the lessee hereunder with respect to such areas during such shared or temporary use period as calculated herein;

ii. additional amounts sufficient to cover lessee’s direct costs and operation

maintenance expenses, if any, of such shared or temporary use, including a reasonable allocation of any capital and equipment costs for property and equipment owned by the lessee; and

iii. a reasonable administrative fee not to exceed 15% of the sum of items I and

ii above;

c. such proposed user enters into a written agreement with the lessee therefore, which agreement shall be submitted to RIAC for written approval prior to the effective date thereof. The lessee agrees to make reasonable efforts to facilitate the temporary or shared accommodation of the requesting airline’s scheduled operations, including the use of the lessee’s passenger loading bridges and other portions of the preferential use premises as may be reasonably necessary to accommodate the requesting airline. In the event that the requesting airline and the lessee are not able to agree to a form of written agreement to C above after reasonable efforts by both parties, the Director shall have the right, after consultation with both parties, to set the final terms of such written agreement, which shall provide no less protection of the lessee’s interests



than the lessee provides for RIAC, and be binding on both the requesting airline and the lessee.

5. In the event that, pursuant to paragraph 2 above, the Director determines that a requesting

airline is in need of facilities to accommodate passengers or aircraft, the Director will consider the following priorities in designating the specific preferential use premises for temporary or shared use by the requesting airline:

a. premises of signatory airlines shall be utilized in the reverse order of the magnitude

of the present utilization by such signatory airlines. In assessing the degree of such utilization by signatory airlines, the Director will consider all factors deemed relevant, which may include: (i) the average number of flight arrivals and departures per aircraft parking position per day; (ii) flight scheduling considerations; (iii) potential labor conflicts; (iv) aircraft parking position locations; and (v) other operational considerations.

b. the Director shall attempt to accommodate signatory airlines in designating the

specific preferential use premises of a signatory airline to be utilized by another airline.

c. in the event the lessee is required to share its premises, the lessee shall be given

priority in all aspects of usage of such shared premises over all other airlines.

6. During the use of the lessee’s preferential use premises or other related facilities by other airlines scheduled by RIAC, the lessee shall not be held liable by RIAC with regard to any claim for damages or personal injury arising our of or in connection with such requesting airline’s use of the preferential use premises or other related facilities, unless caused by the negligence of lessee, its employees or agents.

1.3 GATE UTILIZATION STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE Table 3 compares gate utilization (departures per gate) by airline at the Airport for July 2000 and July 2001. As shown, there were 5.7 daily departures per assigned gate at the Airport during a typical day in July 2001, equal to levels for July 2000. Gate utilization for Southwest and US Airways, the airlines with the highest shares of enplanements at the Airport, was higher than that for all assigned gates, indicating that these airlines are not “locking up” gates in excess of their operational requirements.


Table 3

Rhode Island Airport CorporationT.F. Green Airport

Competition Plan Update - Federal FY 2002

GATE UTILIZATION

July 18, 2000 July 18, 2001Daily

Daily Number of Departures Daily Number ofAirline Departures Assigned Gates per Gate Departures Assigned Gates

North Concourse

American 1 4 2 2.0 7 2American Eagle 12 1 12.0 11 1Delta 2 8 2 4.0 11 3Northwest 5 1 5.0 5 1Southwest 23 3 7.7 28 4United 3 8 2 4.0 8 2

Subtotal 60 11 5.5 70 13

South Concourse

Continental 4 11 2 5.5 13 2US Airways 5 38 6 6.3 36 6

Subtotal 49 8 6.1 49 8

Total 109 19 5.7 119 21

____________________1 Includes three daily departures by Midway during July 18, 2001.2 Includes Delta Express and Delta Connection (Comair).3 Includes United Express (Atlantic Coast).4 Includes Continental Express and Continental Connection (CommutAir).5 Includes MetroJet and US Airways Express (Allegheny, CommutAir, and Trans States).

Sources: Aviation Database: Airport Schedule Report for T.F. Green Airport, Week of July 16 - July 22, 2001, SH&E Compiled by Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

2. LEASING AND SUBLEASING

2. LEASING AND SUBLEASING

This section presents responses to suggested guidelines for updating the Leasing and Subleasing portion of the Competition Plan, as outlined in the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter 00-3 (May 8, 2000), and responds to leasing and subleasing issues raised in the FAA’s letter dated November 8, 2000. 2.1 SUBLEASING ARRANGEMENTS In its November 8, 2000 response to the initial Competition Plan, the FAA requested additional information regarding RIAC’s leasing and subleasing practices at the Airport be included in this updated Competition Plan.

The FAA wants confirmation that the lease period for the preferential-use lease is the same as the Airport Use and Lease Agreement.

The conditions of the preferential-use lease are included in the Airport Use and Lease Agreement. As a result, the lease period for the preferential-use lease is the same as the Airport Use and Lease Agreement.

The FAA requests information on the ability (if any) of RIAC to recapture preferential-use gates in the event the leased gates are underutilized.

The Airport Use and Lease Agreement is silent regarding the ability of RIAC to recapture preferential-use gates in the event the leased gates are underutilized. However, it does provide for the agreement to be terminated in the event that an airline discontinues its conduct of air transportation at the Airport for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days; or for a period of sixty (60) nonconsecutive days whenever occurring in the aggregate in any Fiscal Year.

The FAA requests more information on RIAC’s policy concerning gate subleases and resolving possible sublease disputes.

Prior to subleasing space to requesting airlines signatory airlines are required to obtain RIAC’s written permission to sublease such space. If the requesting airline feels the cost proposed by the signatory airline subletting the space is too high, the requesting airline may complain to RIAC, who, if in agreement that the rate is unreasonable, can deny the signatory airline the right to sublease the space unless a more agreeable cost structure is developed. Alternatively, RIAC can assist the requesting airline in negotiations with other carriers.

2.2 GROUND-HANDLING/SUPPORT SERVICES

No changes to the discussion included in the initial Competition Plan submitted for federal fiscal year 2001.


3. PATTERNS OF AIR SERVICE


This section presents responses to suggested guidelines for updating the Patterns of Air Service portion of the Competition Plan, as outlined in the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter 00-3 (May 8, 2000). Table 4 compares patterns of air service at the Airport during June 2000 and June 2001. As shown:

Number of Markets Served. A total of 53 nonstop and one-stop markets were served from the Airport in June 2001, compared to a total of 56 markets served in June 2000.

Number of Nonstop Markets Served/Average Daily Flights. A total of 23 markets were

served on a nonstop basis in June 2001, with a total of 143 daily nonstop flights; compared to 21 markets in June 2000, with a total of 134 daily nonstop flights.

Number of Small Communities Served. For purposes of these analyses, a “small”

community is either a small or nonhub air traffic hub as defined by the FAA (based on its percentage share of nationwide enplanements). As shown, three small communities were served with daily nonstop flights in June 2001 and June 2000; and five small communities were served on a one-stop basis from the Airport in June 2001, compared to nine small communities in June 2000. These small communities include:

June 2000

Albany (nonstop) Ashville Birmingham El Paso Huntsville Hyannis Jackson Martha’s Vineyard (nonstop) Nantucket (nonstop) Norfolk Rochester Syracuse

June 2001

Albany (nonstop) Charleston Hyannis Jackson Martha’s Vineyard (nonstop) Nantucket (nonstop) Savannah Syracuse

Number of Markets Served by Low-Fare Carriers. The nonstop markets served by a low-

fare carrier(s) in June 2000 and June 2001 include: Markets Served Nonstop in Both June 2000 and June 2001

Baltimore (two carriers) Chicago Kansas City



Nashville New York Orlando (two carriers) Phoenix Tampa

Additional Markets Served Nonstop in June 2001

Fort Lauderdale Raleigh/Durham

Eighteen one-stop markets were served by a low fare carrier(s) in June 2001, compared to 17 one-stop markets in June 2000. Added One-Stop Markets With a Low-Fare Carrier

Charleston Palm Beach

Dropped One-Stop Markets With a Low-Fare Carrier

Miami

Number of Markets Served by More Than One Carrier. Eighteen of the 53 nonstop and one-stop markets served from the Airport in June 2001 were served by more than one carrier, compared to 18 of the 56 markets served in June 2000.

Number of Nonstop Markets Added/Dropped in the Past Year. An analysis of nonstop

markets served at the Airport in June 2000 versus June 2001 provided the following comparison:

Fort Lauderdale and Raleigh/Durham were additional markets served nonstop from the

Airport in June 2001 compared to June 2000 (two daily flights and three daily flights, respectively).

The following nonstop markets had increased service at the Airport in June 2001

compared to June 2000:

Albany (one additional flight) Charlotte (one additional flight) Cincinnati (one additional flight) Cleveland (one additional flight) Orlando (one additional flight) Phoenix (one additional flight)

The following nonstop markets had decreased service at the Airport in June 2001

compared to June 2000: Baltimore (one less flight) New York (one less flight)



The net results of these changes were two additional daily nonstop markets served from the Airport in June 2001 versus June 2000 (a total of 23 and 21 daily one-stop markets, respectively); and nine additional daily nonstop flights from the Airport in June 2001 versus June 2000 (a total of 143 and 134 daily nonstop flights, respectively).

Number of One-Stop Markets Added/Dropped in the Past Year. An analysis of one-stop

markets served at the Airport in June 2000 versus June 2001 provided the following comparison:

The following eight additional one-stop markets were provided service from the Airport

in June 2001 compared to June 2000: Austin (one flight) Charleston (one flight) Dallas (one flight) Minneapolis (one flight) Palm Beach (three flights) Salt Lake City (one flight) St. Louis (one flight) Savannah (one flight)

The following 13 one-stop markets were no longer served from the Airport in June 2001


Ashville (one flight) Birmingham (one flight) Denver (three flights) El Paso (one flight) Huntsville (one flight) Las Vegas (one flight) Memphis (one flight) Mexico City (one flight) Nassau (one flight) Norfolk (one flight) Orange County (one flight) Rochester (one flight) Seattle (one flight)

The following one-stop markets had increased service at the Airport in June 2001


Atlanta (one additional flight) Fort Lauderdale (one additional flight) Hyannis (one additional flight) Indianapolis (one additional flight) Kansas City (one additional flight) Miami (one additional flight) New Orleans (three additional flights) Orlando (one additional flight) Phoenix (two additional flights)



The following one-stop markets had decreased service at the Airport in June 2001 compared to June 2000:

Chicago (one less flight) Houston (one less flight) Jacksonville (one less flight) Los Angeles (one less flight) Nashville (two less flights) Tampa (two less flights)

The net results of these changes were five less daily one-stop markets served from the Airport in June 2001 versus June 2000 (a total of 30 and 35 daily one-stop markets, respectively); and one less daily one-stop flight from the Airport in June 2001 versus June 2000 (a total of 59 and 60 daily one-stop flights, respectively).


TABLE 4



PATTERNS OF AIR SERVICE(Page 2 of 2)

Low FareDaily Flights Daily Flights Community Carrier Carrier

Markets Served Jun-00 Jun-01 Size 1 Name (Yes/No)

ONE-STOP MARKETS (Continued)

Hyannis 3 3 Nonhub Cape Air No0 1 Delta No

Indianapolis 0 1 Medium Northwest No1 1 US Airways No

Jackson 1 1 Small Southwest YesJacksonville 1 0 Medium Delta No

2 1 MetroJet/US Airways Yes1 2 Southwest Yes

Kansas City 0 1 Medium Delta No2 2 Southwest Yes1 0 United No0 1 US Airways No

Las Vegas 1 0 Large US Airways NoLos Angeles 1 1 Large Southwest Yes

1 0 US Airways NoMemphis 1 0 Medium Delta NoMexico City 1 0 N/A Northwest NoMiami 0 1 Large Continental No

1 0 MetroJet/US Airways Yes0 1 US Airways No

Minneapolis 0 1 Large Northwest NoNashville 3 2 Medium Southwest Yes

1 0 US Airways NoNassau 1 0 N/A US Airways NoNew Orleans 0 1 Medium Midway Yes

1 1 Southwest Yes0 2 US Airways No

Norfolk 1 0 Small Atlantic Coast NoOmaha 1 1 Medium Southwest YesOrange County 1 0 Medium US Airways NoOrlando 2 1 Large MetroJet/US Airways Yes

0 2 US Airways NoPalm Beach 0 1 Medium Delta No

0 1 MetroJet/US Airways Yes0 1 Southwest Yes

Phoenix 1 1 Large Continental No0 1 Delta No1 1 Southwest Yes0 1 US Airways No

Raleigh 1 1 Medium Southwest Yes1 1 US Airways No

Rochester 1 0 Small US Airways Express NoSacramento 1 1 Medium Southwest YesSalt Lake City 0 1 Large United NoSan Diego 1 0 Large United No

0 1 US Airways NoSt. Louis 0 1 Large US Airways NoSavannah 0 1 Small US Airways NoSeattle 1 0 Large US Airways NoSyracuse 4 4 Small US Airways Express NoTampa 2 2 Large Southwest Yes

2 0 US Airways No

Total (35 markets in 6/00; 30 in 6/01) 60 59

____________________1 FAA's definition of small, medium, and large air traffic hubs, based on the percentage share of nationwide enplanements.

Sources: Official Airline Guides, Inc. (OAG) Compiled by Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

4. GATE ASSIGNMENT POLICY

4. GATE ASSIGNMENT POLICY

This section presents responses to suggested guidelines for updating the Gate Assignment Policy portion of the Competition Plan, as outlined in the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter 00-3 (May 8, 2000). 4.1 GATE ASSIGNMENT POLICY The assignment of gates to airlines is governed by lease agreements. All 22 gates at the Airport are currently leased as preferential-use, which can be made available by RIAC to new airlines or airlines expanding service. As stated in the initial Competition Plan submitted for federal fiscal year 2001, RIAC “intends to maintain a policy of providing open access to the Airport and achieving a balanced utilization of Airport facilities. To achieve that goal, RIAC reserves the right to require shared use of preferential-use premises.” This shared use policy is governed by the following provisions of the Airline Agreement: • “If an airline, including any airline seeking to expand its service or an airline seeking entry into

the Airport, is in need of space or facilities at the Airport after DBO which cannot be met by use of unleased premises, if any, in the New Terminal, RIAC shall direct such airline to request the use of space or facilities from Signatory Airlines on a voluntary basis. The Signatory Airline shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate such requests in a timely manner.”

• In the event that no space is available, RIAC may “grant such requesting airline the right of

temporary or shared use of all or a designated portion of the Lessee’s Preferential Use Premises.” In summary, RIAC has the flexibility to accommodate increases in airline service, and plans to continue to retain such flexibility in the future (see Section 1.2 for additional discussion regarding RIAC’s gate assignment policy).

4.2 ANNOUNCEMENT OF GATE AVAILABILITY

No changes to the discussion included in the initial Competition Plan submitted for federal fiscal year 2001.

4.3 POLICIES FOR REASONABLE ACCESS TO ENTRANT CARRIERS No changes to the discussion included in the initial Competition Plan submitted for federal fiscal year 2001.


5. FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS

5. FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS

This section presents responses to suggested guidelines for updating the Financial Constraints portion of the Competition Plan, as outlined in the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter 00-3 (May 8, 2000). 5.1 FUNDING SOURCES FOR TERMINAL PROJECTS No changes to the discussion included in the initial Competition Plan submitted for federal fiscal year 2001.

5.2 AIRLINE RATES AND CHARGES METHODOLOGY No changes to the discussion included in the initial Competition Plan submitted for federal fiscal year 2001.

5.3 PFC USE FOR GATES AND RELATED TERMINAL PROJECTS

Table 5 presents the approved PFC Program at the Airport. As shown, approximately $150.0 million has been approved for collection and approximately $127.6 million for use at the Airport. As of June 30, 2001, RIAC has expended approximately $27.3 million in PFC revenue at the Airport (see attached PFC Quarterly Status Report – Quarter Ended June 30, 2001). Of the approximately $27.3 million in PFC revenue expended through June 30, 2001, approximately $27.2 has been used toward terminal-related projects at the Airport.


Table 5



APPROVED PFC PROGRAM AT THE AIRPORT

Project Approved ApprovedNumber Description for Collection for Use

Application # 93-01-C-00-PVD

1 Terminal Building Demolition $666,877 $666,8772 Access Road 11,395,373 11,395,3733 Interim Facilities 33,030,567 33,030,5674 Construct Terminal Building 48,586,247 48,586,2475 Aprons, Taxiways, Utilities, etc. 4,282,285 4,282,2856 Walkway & Drainage 1,308,003 1,308,0037 Landscaping 737,146 737,1468 Install Guidance Signs 58,593 58,5939 VOR Modifications 316,055 316,055

10 Storm Water Retention System 1,927,147 1,927,14711 Deicing & Glycol Retention System 1,494,678 1,494,67812 Perimeter Service Road 140,908 140,908

Subtotal $103,885,286 $103,885,286


1-12 Above Additional Amount Required (Actual Costs) $511,728 $511,728

Subtotal $511,728 $511,728


1 Terminal Leasehold Acquisition $3,892,980 $3,892,980

Subtotal $3,892,980 $3,892,980


1 Noise Mitigation Land Acquisition $16,268,000 $16,268,0002 North Ramp Rehabilitation 3,025,000 3,025,0003 PFC Application 41,000 41,0004 New Airfield Maintenance Facilities 11,897,0005 Ticket Counter Expansion 2,097,0006 Rehabilitation of Apron & Taxiways B & C 2,750,0007 Apron & Construct Taxiway to Runway 10 2,500,0008 Rehabilitation of Apron - North Central 2,000,0009 Rehabilitation of Apron - Quonset 1,111,000

Subtotal $41,689,000 $19,334,000

Total Approved PFC Program $149,978,994 $127,623,994

____________________

Sources: Rhode Island Airport Corporation Compiled by Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

6. AIRPORT CONTROLS OVER CAPACITY


This section presents responses to suggested guidelines for updating the Airport Controls Over Capacity portion of the Competition Plan, as outlined in the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter 00-3 (May 8, 2000). 6.1 MAJORITY-IN-INTEREST (MII) CLAUSES ON CAPITAL PROJECTS Section VII.C. of the Airport Use and Lease Agreement (Approval for Additional Capital Projects) establishes a procedure that allows for the timely review of anticipated capital projects by the Signatory Airlines. If RIAC decides to undertake a capital project, then RIAC shall submit a report to each of the Signatory Airlines that includes the following information:

Description of the capital project Statement of need for and benefits from such project Estimate of operation and maintenance expenses resulting from such project Allocation of the cost to the various Airport cost centers RIAC’s anticipated means of financing the cost Project completion date

The provision in the Airport Use and Lease Agreement for obtaining Signatory Airline concurrence to a proposed capital project is as follows:

“Except as otherwise described below, a capital project shall be deemed to be approved pursuant to this Section VII.C.2. if RIAC is not notified in writing of Majority-in-Interest disapproval within 45 days of the submission of the above-described proposal to the Signatory Airlines; provided, that, upon request of any Signatory Airline filed with RIAC within 10 days of receipt of the proposal, RIAC shall convene a meeting of the Signatory Airlines to discuss the proposal to be held within 30 days of receipt of such request, in which case the capital project(s) that are the subject of such proposal shall be deemed approved if a Majority-in-Interest does not disapprove of the project(s) in writing to RIAC within 15 days after such meeting.”

Capital projects do not require MII concurrence from the Signatory Airlines in the case of:

Capital projects necessary to comply with any current or future law, rule, regulation, or order of the FAA or any agency of the federal government

Capital projects necessary to repair or replace property damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, to the extent that the cost exceeds the proceeds of any insurance, when the property in question must be rebuilt or replaced in order to satisfy an obligation of RIAC or to maintain Airport revenues

Capital projects the undertaking of which is necessary to settle lawsuits Capital projects which, if not undertaken immediately on an emergency basis, would result in

the closure of the Airport or an essential part of the airfield or the Terminal No capital cost or operation and maintenance cost resulting there from will be included in

airline fees and charges 6.2 PROJECTS DELAYED OR PREVENTED DUE TO MII Notwithstanding the MII clauses regarding capital projects there have not been any capital projects delayed or prevented at the Airport during the past 12 months.



6.3 PLANS TO MODIFY MII CLAUSES It is unlikely that RIAC will be able to modify the MII provision in the Airport Use and Lease Agreement in the near term, as this agreement expires June 30, 2010. However, the existing MII provision does not grant the airlines extraordinary power, as the carriers are required to provide a written disapproval. Additionally, it is RIAC’s position that an expansion of terminal facilities to provide competitive facilities would fall under the exclusion that “capital projects necessary to comply with current or future law, rule, regulation or order of the FAA or any other agency of the federal government” is exempt from MII requirements.


7. COMMON-USE GATES

7. COMMON-USE GATES

This section presents responses to suggested guidelines for updating the Common-Use Gates portion of the Competition Plan, as outlined in the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter 00-3 (May 8, 2000). 7.1 EXISTING COMMON-USE GATES All 22 gates are currently leased to the airlines on a preferential-use basis. 7.2 CONSTRUCTION OR ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL COMMON-USE GATES As discussed in the initial Competition Plan submitted for federal fiscal year 2001, RIAC has a successful record of constructing facilities to meet demand, and plans to continue to accommodate demand for new air service with construction and facilities expansion options. The 2002 Airport Project includes an update of the Airport’s Master Plan. The updated Master Plan will define the future terminal and related facility improvements necessary to accommodate growth in aviation demand. Any new gates constructed could also be leased on a preferential-use basis, or could be leased as common-use to provide ultimate flexibility to RIAC. 7.3 CARRIERS UTILIZING COMMON-USE GATES EXCLUSIVELY

There are no air carriers that have been serving the Airport for more than three years that rely exclusively on common-use gates. 7.4 INTERNATIONAL/DOMESTIC SERVICE GATE UTILIZATION

Air Ontario, which provides scheduled international service to Toronto, is handled by United, which provides scheduled domestic service to Chicago.


8. COMPARISON OF AIRFARE LEVELS


This section presents responses to suggested guidelines for updating the Comparison of Airfare Levels portion of the Competition Plan, as outlined in the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter 00-3 (May 8, 2000). 8.1 AVERAGE FARE COMPARISONS Table 6 presents a comparison of average fares for medium and large hub airports during CY 1999 and CY 2000. As shown, the Airport had an average fare of $153.64 in CY 2000, compared to $146.85 in CY 1999. By comparison, the average fare for the 68 covered airports included in Table 6 was $173.41 in CY 2000 and $164.63 in CY 1999.1 Similar to results for CY 1999, this average fare level corresponded to the Airport being ranked 41st among the 68 airports included in the data provided by the FAA for updating the Competition Plan. 8.2 SUMMARIZED O&D DATA BY CARRIER This section presents a summary of origin-destination (O&D) data by carrier for the Airport during CY 2000, with corresponding data for CY 1999 following in parentheses for comparison purposes. This summary is in response to the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter (00-3):

“Airport managers may submit the following data: Summarized data for the Airport showing each carrier’s local passengers, average fares, market share (based on passengers), and average passenger trip length. This information will be provided for the current year and, subsequently, trended as the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) makes more current information available. (Source: Table 1 of data provided by DOT).”

As shown in Table 7, Southwest had the highest market share of passengers at the Airport in CY 2000 with 33.1 (30.9) percent of total O&D passengers. Southwest also had the lowest average fare among the carriers serving the Airport in CY 2000, with an average fare of $107.67 ($102.45). 8.3 SUMMARIZED O&D DATA BY MARKET This section presents a summary of O&D data by market for the Airport during CY 2000, with corresponding data for CY 1999 following in parentheses for comparison purposes. This summary is also in response to the FAA’s Program Guidance Letter (00-3):

“Airport managers may submit the following data: Summarized data for the Airport showing local passengers, average passenger trip length, average passenger yield, and number of city-pair markets served disaggregated by distance (distinguishing between markets of 750 miles or less and markets over 750 miles), and depending upon whether or not a low-fare competitor is present. Compare to other airports that have similar average passenger trip lengths, for short distance markets (750 miles or less), long distance markets (markets over 750 miles), or in total. (Source: Table 2 of data provided by DOT).”

Table 8 presents short-haul O&D data for the Airport, broken out by markets with and without low-fare carriers. As shown in Table 8:

Non-Low-Fare Carrier/Short-Haul Markets. The Airport had 27 (26) short-haul O&D markets without a low-fare carrier in CY 2000. The average stage length for these markets was 414 (428) miles, compared to 428 (434) miles for all the airports studied; and an average passenger yield of $0.50 ($0.46), compared to $0.39 ($0.36) overall. As also shown for CY 1999 and CY 2000, the Airport’s average passenger yield was equal to or higher than that for each of the airports studied having similar average passenger trip lengths (except for Cleveland and Cincinnati in CY 1999; and Cleveland in CY 2000).

1 This average was weighted based on number of passengers, including zero-fare passengers.



Low-Fare Carrier/Short-Haul Markets. The Airport had five (four) short-haul O&D

markets with a low-fare carrier in CY 2000. The average stage length for these markets was 375 (387) miles, compared to 436 (425) miles for all the airports studied; and an average passenger yield of $0.24 ($0.22), compared to $0.22 ($0.21) overall. As also shown for CY 1999 and CY 2000, the Airport’s average passenger yield was equal to or lower than that for each of the other airports studied having similar average passenger trip lengths (except for Ontario and Los Angeles in CY 1999 and CY 2000; and the additional airport Columbus in CY 2000).

Table 9 presents long-haul O&D data for the Airport, broken out by markets with and without low-fare carriers. As shown in Table 9:

Non-Low-Fare Carrier/Long-Haul Markets. The Airport had 38 (34) long-haul O&D markets without a low-fare carrier in CY 2000. The average stage length for these markets was 1,495 (1,432) miles, compared to 1,576 (1,551) miles for all the airports studied; and an average passenger yield of $0.13 ($0.13), compared to $0.15 ($0.14) overall. As also shown, for CY 1999 and CY 2000 the Airport’s average passenger yield was equal to or lower than that for each of the airports studied having similar average passenger trip lengths (except for Columbus in CY 2000).

Low-Fare Carrier/Long-Haul Markets. The Airport had 35 (33) long-haul O&D markets

with a low-fare carrier in CY 2000. The average stage length for these markets was 1,595 (1,588) miles, compared to 1,374 (1,393) miles for all the airports studied; and an average passenger yield of $0.09 ($0.09), compared to $0.12 ($0.12) overall. As also shown for CY 1999 and CY 2000, the Airport’s average passenger yield was equal to or lower than that for each of the airports studied having similar average passenger trip lengths.

Table 10 presents all stage length O&D data for the Airport, broken out by markets with and without low-fare carriers. As shown in Table 10:

Non-Low-Fare Carrier/All Stage Length Markets. The Airport had 65 (60) O&D markets without a low-fare carrier in CY 2000. The average stage length for these markets was 1,096 (1,092) miles, compared to 1,146 (1,130) miles for all the airports studied; and an average passenger yield of $0.18 ($0.17), compared to $0.18 ($0.17) overall. As also shown for CY 1999 and CY 2000, the Airport’s average passenger yield was equal to or higher than that for each of the airports studied having similar average passenger trip lengths (except for San Antonio, Philadelphia, and Austin in CY 1999 and CY 2000; and the additional airport Dallas Love Field in CY 2000).

Low-Fare Carrier/Short-Haul Markets. The Airport had 40 (37) O&D markets with a

low-fare carrier in CY 2000. The average stage length for these markets was 1,187 (1,204) miles, compared to 884 (859) miles for all the airports studied; and an average passenger yield of $0.11 ($0.10), equal to the $0.14 ($0.14) overall. As also shown for CY 1999 and CY 2000, the Airport’s average passenger yield was equal to or lower than that for each of the airports studied having similar average passenger trip lengths (except Chicago in CY 1999 and JFK–New York in CY 2000).


Table 6



O&D DATA SUMMARIZED BY AIRPORT

CY 1999 CY 2000Average Average Pax Total O&D Average Average Pax Total O&D

Rank Airport Fare Trip Length Passengers Rank Airport Fare Trip Length Passengers

1 Charlotte $227.91 783 5,442,350 1 Charlotte $242.66 753 5,437,6902 JFK-New York $221.50 1,771 9,334,360 2 JFK-New York $242.57 1,591 9,739,7603 Cincinnati $221.28 835 4,201,130 3 IAD-Washington $232.25 1,101 8,132,9204 Dallas $212.68 947 19,528,570 4 San Francisco $231.85 1,440 22,956,0905 EWR-New York $209.28 1,202 19,607,050 5 Cincinnati $229.24 810 4,872,6706 Philadelphia $208.22 1,025 12,635,180 6 Dallas $226.96 935 20,251,5907 Minneapolis $206.86 957 12,527,200 7 EWR-New York $226.08 1,159 19,947,4208 San Francisco $206.17 1,500 22,472,900 8 Anchorage $215.20 1,649 2,346,5509 Anchorage $202.36 1,732 2,244,120 9 Philadelphia $214.02 1,020 13,600,440

10 Denver $202.33 1,027 16,708,710 10 Denver $213.44 992 17,606,69011 Pittsburgh $201.00 791 6,229,750 11 Pittsburgh $211.04 759 6,464,99012 San Juan $198.20 1,617 5,383,000 12 Boston $209.45 1,075 19,534,25013 Chicago O'Hare $197.72 910 26,658,610 13 Houston $209.05 954 11,139,86014 Boston $195.90 1,110 18,810,080 14 San Juan $207.30 1,559 5,366,26015 IAD-Washington $195.55 1,094 8,525,800 15 Chicago O'Hare $207.04 903 26,997,75016 Houston $194.15 974 10,633,350 16 Minneapolis $198.37 939 14,402,76017 Memphis $193.80 746 3,413,370 17 Memphis $198.06 774 3,603,82018 LGA-New York $187.75 841 19,818,610 18 LGA-New York $191.66 826 21,647,64019 DCA-Washington $183.06 769 11,209,500 19 DCA-Washington $187.47 778 11,987,66020 Hartford $180.83 1,116 5,688,570 20 Los Angeles $183.16 1,310 33,139,85021 Milwaukee $178.31 943 4,605,960 21 Milwaukee $182.88 945 4,986,66022 Los Angeles $172.02 1,379 32,548,170 22 Miami $182.49 1,127 9,121,84023 Miami $169.19 1,170 9,594,780 23 Austin $178.12 893 6,461,21024 Cleveland $167.69 839 7,949,750 24 Orange County $178.05 978 7,397,80025 Orange County $167.43 993 7,060,950 25 Cleveland $176.26 856 8,010,42026 Atlanta $166.40 775 25,605,850 26 Atlanta $176.26 773 26,994,40027 Raleigh $164.90 805 6,501,150 27 Seattle $173.40 1,268 18,836,69028 Austin $162.32 871 5,856,030 28 St. Louis $172.42 751 10,590,74029 Seattle $161.90 1,286 18,075,390 29 Hartford $171.19 1,126 6,807,15030 Detroit $160.24 876 14,233,030 30 Detroit $170.91 886 15,043,47031 St. Louis $158.31 770 10,428,290 31 San Jose $169.67 941 11,067,86032 Indianapolis $157.45 899 6,353,000 32 Columbus $164.84 969 5,698,73033 Columbus $157.11 919 5,663,080 33 Indianapolis $164.56 932 6,581,31034 Omaha $152.28 909 3,181,410 34 Raleigh $158.54 849 7,586,36035 Palm Beach $152.21 1,098 5,195,640 35 Omaha $158.39 956 3,262,25036 Oklahoma City $149.13 813 2,994,530 36 San Antonio $157.35 919 6,144,01037 Tucson $148.99 997 3,091,910 37 Portland $157.35 1,136 10,382,89038 Portland $148.65 1,137 9,942,100 38 Oklahoma City $156.43 869 3,006,34039 Nashville $148.57 803 6,472,950 39 San Diego $155.94 1,105 14,045,09040 San Antonio $148.24 891 5,868,650 40 Palm Beach $155.02 1,060 5,345,39041 T.F. Green $146.85 1,147 4,714,020 41 T.F. Green $153.64 1,125 5,062,14042 Louisville $146.25 751 3,338,600 42 Tucson $152.32 983 3,139,70043 San Diego $146.22 1,119 13,343,120 43 Salt Lake City $152.29 975 8,769,55044 Salt Lake City $145.12 964 8,323,230 44 Nashville $152.18 804 6,740,81045 San Jose $144.61 897 10,111,570 45 Louisville $152.09 802 3,486,18046 Tulsa $144.49 738 2,867,180 46 Tulsa $151.31 798 2,930,75047 Fort Myers $144.07 1,094 4,167,100 47 Fort Myers $148.34 1,079 4,580,30048 Jacksonville $143.62 820 4,331,270 48 Kansas City $146.72 844 9,429,87049 New Orleans $141.81 881 7,837,590 49 New Orleans $145.87 900 8,232,31050 El Paso $141.04 827 2,718,530 50 El Paso $145.62 835 2,722,00051 Kansas City $140.92 822 9,196,100 51 Jacksonville $145.44 843 4,666,25052 Baltimore $140.52 1,048 13,944,840 52 PHX $143.89 1,011 20,844,97053 Tampa $137.60 976 12,728,960 53 Baltimore $143.31 1,024 15,715,67054 Phoenix $137.39 1,030 19,843,800 54 Tampa $141.57 979 13,683,73055 Albuquerque $135.55 888 5,030,900 55 Albuquerque $139.69 896 5,116,17056 Fort Lauderdale $134.91 1,071 11,907,920 56 Fort Lauderdale $137.62 1,068 13,613,73057 Orlando $132.33 1,055 21,092,330 57 Honolulu $137.08 1,352 12,033,73058 Honolulu $129.56 1,465 11,980,820 58 Orlando $136.42 1,030 22,850,20059 Sacramento $125.66 862 7,070,350 59 Sacramento $134.75 894 7,562,32060 Ontario $121.55 861 5,916,820 60 Ontario $128.48 881 6,115,34061 Las Vegas $120.70 1,060 22,917,490 61 Las Vegas $124.96 1,087 25,459,91062 Houston Hobby $113.30 628 6,407,830 62 Oakland $119.77 735 9,864,64063 Chicago Midway $111.33 769 10,552,360 63 Kahului, Hawaii $118.94 981 4,630,90064 Oakland $108.12 702 8,906,600 64 Houston Hobby $116.15 608 6,653,57065 Kahului, Hawaii $104.15 941 4,449,550 65 Chicago Midway $114.78 775 11,708,28066 Reno/Tahoe $103.54 815 4,929,750 66 Reno/Tahoe $114.11 863 4,732,53067 Burbank $90.56 471 4,629,080 67 Burbank $97.70 486 4,717,90068 Dallas Love Field $84.10 324 5,575,640 68 Dallas Love Field $93.72 345 5,973,630

Average 1 $164.63 1,014 10,016,591 Average 1 $173.41 1,000 10,552,711

__________________1 Average fare and average trip length weighted by Total O&D Passengers.

Sources: O&D Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic, U.S. DOT. Compiled by Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

Tabl

e 7

Rho

de Is

land

Airp

ort C

orpo

ratio

nT.

F. G

reen

Airp

ort

Com

petit

ion

Plan

Upd

ate

- Fed

eral

FY

200

2

O&

D D

ATA

SU

MM

AR

IZED

BY

CA

RR

IER

Ave

rage

Far

eA

vera

ge P

ax T

rip L

engt

hTo

tal O

&D

Pas

seng

ers

Pass

enge

r Mar

ket S

hare

Airl

ine

CY

199

9C

Y 2

000

CY

199

9C

Y 2

000

CY

199

9C

Y 2

000

CY

199

9C

Y 2

000

Sout

hwes

t$1

02.4

5$1

07.6

796

91,

002

1,45

5,81

01,

677,

380

30.9

%33

.1%

US

Airw

ays

$147

.72

$154

.51

869

874

1,30

4,29

01,

417,

050

27.7

%28

.0%

Del

ta$1

77.0

0$1

79.8

21,

337

1,33

956

8,97

057

1,88

012

.1%

11.3

%A

mer

ican

$168

.38

$189

.24

1,51

11,

517

303,

670

360,

030

6.4%

7.1%

Con

tinen

tal

$165

.03

$186

.79

1,29

41,

392

373,

460

351,

170

7.9%

6.9%

Uni

ted

$189

.72

$206

.84

1,73

21,

757

366,

490

335,

780

7.8%

6.6%

Nor

thw

est

$201

.79

$216

.85

1,58

11,

487

206,

440

217,

820

4.4%

4.3%

Oth

er 1

$191

.38

$192

.01

1,51

91,

572

134,

890

131,

030

2.9%

2.6%

Tota

l/Wtd

. Ave

rage

2$1

46.8

6$1

53.6

81,

149

1,15

44,

714,

020

5,06

2,14

010

0.0%

100.

0%

____

____

____

____

__1 U

nkno

wn

carr

ier c

lass

ifica

tion.

2 Ave

rage

wei

ghte

d by

Tot

al O

&D

Pas

seng

ers.

Sour

ces:

O&

D S

urve

y of

Airl

ine

Pass

enge

r Tra

ffic

, U.S

. DO

T.

Com

pile

d by

Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, In

c.

Tabl

e 8

Rhod

e Is

land

Air

port

Cor

pora

tion

T.F.

Gre

en A

irpo

rtC

ompe

titio

n Pl

an U

pdat

e - F

eder

al F

Y 20

02

SHO

RT-

HA

UL

O&

D D

ATA

SU

MM

AR

IZE

D B

Y M

AR

KE

T

CY

1999

CY

2000

Shor

t-Hau

l (75

0 N

onst

op M

iles o

r Les

s)Sh

ort-H

aul (

750

Non

stop

Mile

s or L

ess)

Airp

ort

Mar

ket T

ype

City

-Pai

rsPa

ssen

gers

Stag

e Le

ngth

Yie

ldA

irpor

tM

arke

t Typ

eC

ity-P

airs

Pass

enge

rsSt

age

Leng

thY

ield

Cle

vela

ndN

on-L

ow-F

are

622,

576,

570

409

$0.4

8A

ncho

rage

Non

-Low

-Far

e13

588,

140

397

$0.3

8IA

D -

Was

hing

ton

Non

-Low

-Far

e47

2,34

0,77

040

9$0

.30

Dal

las

Non

-Low

-Far

e68

3,79

9,37

040

7$0

.36

Sacr

amen

toN

on-L

ow-F

are

1428

4,90

042

3$0

.30

IAD

- W

ashi

ngto

nN

on-L

ow-F

are

482,

023,

560

411

$0.3

8H

oust

onN

on-L

ow-F

are

412,

600,

070

425

$0.2

8C

leve

land

Non

-Low

-Far

e58

2,34

7,14

041

2$0

.52

T.F

. Gre

enN

on-L

ow-F

are

2656

8,35

042

8$0

.46

T.F

. Gre

enN

on-L

ow-F

are

2766

6,96

041

4$0

.50

Det

roit

Non

-Low

-Far

e91

5,68

3,36

042

8$0

.37

Det

roit

Non

-Low

-Far

e87

5,34

8,69

042

0$0

.41

Mia

mi

Non

-Low

-Far

e29

842,

410

433

$0.3

1H

oust

onN

on-L

ow-F

are

412,

585,

450

431

$0.3

0C

olum

bus

Non

-Low

-Far

e66

2,10

9,04

043

6$0

.42

Sacr

amen

toN

on-L

ow-F

are

1329

4,68

043

2$0

.30

Cin

cinn

ati

Non

-Low

-Far

e52

1,92

2,11

044

1$0

.50

Oak

land

Non

-Low

-Far

e5

31,4

0043

8$0

.29

All

Air

port

sN

on-L

ow-F

are

2157

87,8

15,6

8043

4$0

.36

All

Air

port

sN

on-L

ow-F

are

2,17

188

,557

,650

428

$0.3

9

Hou

ston

Hob

byLo

w-F

are

214,

073,

200

352

$0.2

5H

oust

on H

obby

Low

-Far

e21

4,18

2,04

035

6$0

.26

Ont

ario

Low

-Far

e11

3,07

9,73

036

0$0

.20

Ont

ario

Low

-Far

e11

3,13

3,51

036

1$0

.22

Los A

ngel

esLo

w-F

are

1210

,473

,640

365

$0.2

0O

rang

e C

ount

yLo

w-F

are

41,

834,

790

364

$0.2

4M

emph

isLo

w-F

are

753

8,35

037

9$0

.28

Los A

ngel

esLo

w-F

are

118,

920,

750

371

$0.2

1T

.F. G

reen

Low

-Far

e4

969,

780

387

$0.2

2T

.F. G

reen

Low

-Far

e5

1,08

8,66

037

5$0

.24

Col

umbu

sLo

w-F

are

764

1,22

039

3$0

.22

Col

umbu

sLo

w-F

are

662

4,94

038

8$0

.23

Tuls

aLo

w-F

are

201,

006,

040

394

$0.2

5Tu

lsa

Low

-Far

e20

1,00

4,68

039

6$0

.26

Indi

anap

olis

Low

-Far

e14

829,

990

399

$0.2

6M

inne

apol

isLo

w-F

are

51,

773,

350

400

$0.2

9Fo

rt La

uder

dale

Low

-Far

e12

1,99

8,41

040

3$0

.23

Har

tford

Low

-Far

e5

720,

210

407

$0.2

9

All

Air

port

sL

ow-F

are

483

84,2

15,2

2042

5$0

.21

All

Air

port

sL

ow-F

are

494

88,7

53,5

4043

6$0

.22

____

____

____

____

__

Sour

ces:

O&

D S

urve

y of

Airl

ine

Pass

enge

r Tra

ffic

, U.S

. DO

T.

Com

pile

d by

Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, In

c.

Tabl

e 9

Rhod

e Is

land

Air

port

Cor

pora

tion

T.F.

Gre

en A

irpo

rtC

ompe

titio

n Pl

an U

pdat

e - F

eder

al F

Y 20

02

LON

G-H

AU

L O

&D

DA

TA S

UM

MA

RIZ

ED

BY

MA

RK

ET

CY

1999

CY

2000

Long

-Hau

l (O

ver 7

50 N

onst

op M

iles)

Long

-Hau

l (O

ver 7

50 N

onst

op M

iles)

Airp

ort

Mar

ket T

ype

City

-Pai

rsPa

ssen

gers

Stag

e Le

ngth

Yie

ldA

irpor

tM

arke

t Typ

eC

ity-P

airs

Pass

enge

rsSt

age

Leng

thY

ield

Loui

svill

eN

on-L

ow-F

are

2150

9,50

01,

340

$0.1

3C

leve

land

Non

-Low

-Far

e51

2,49

8,81

01,

413

$0.1

4M

iam

iN

on-L

ow-F

are

109

6,75

1,30

01,

368

$0.1

3Pi

ttsbu

rgh

Non

-Low

-Far

e58

2,55

4,16

01,

437

$0.1

5D

CA

- W

ashi

ngto

nN

on-L

ow-F

are

924,

586,

250

1,39

6$0

.15

Bur

bank

Non

-Low

-Far

e14

188,

610

1,44

2$0

.18

Indi

anap

olis

Non

-Low

-Far

e39

1,45

9,71

01,

404

$0.1

3H

artfo

rdN

on-L

ow-F

are

743,

427,

890

1,46

5$0

.13

T.F

. Gre

enN

on-L

ow-F

are

341,

111,

590

1,43

2$0

.13

T.F

. Gre

enN

on-L

ow-F

are

381,

139,

750

1,49

5$0

.13

Cle

vela

ndN

on-L

ow-F

are

472,

489,

020

1,44

1$0

.14

Alb

uque

rque

Non

-Low

-Far

e57

1,11

8,26

01,

509

$0.1

3Pi

ttsbu

rgh

Non

-Low

-Far

e59

2,53

1,75

01,

443

$0.1

4El

Pas

oN

on-L

ow-F

are

3044

2,22

01,

528

$0.1

6B

urba

nkN

on-L

ow-F

are

1519

5,59

01,

452

$0.1

7D

etro

itN

on-L

ow-F

are

612,

952,

520

1,53

8$0

.14

Har

tford

Non

-Low

-Far

e82

3,77

5,37

01,

454

$0.1

3C

olum

bus

Non

-Low

-Far

e41

1,65

1,34

01,

559

$0.1

2

All

Air

port

sN

on-L

ow-F

are

3,93

614

5,04

4,08

01,

551

$0.1

4A

ll A

irpo

rts

Non

-Low

-Far

e3,

908

147,

752,

610

1,57

6$0

.15

Loui

svill

eLo

w-F

are

1653

1,09

01,

437

$0.1

1Sa

n D

iego

Low

-Far

e36

3,88

0,60

01,

496

$0.1

1Ph

oeni

xLo

w-F

are

385,

848,

890

1,45

3$0

.10

Loui

svill

eLo

w-F

are

1962

5,68

01,

497

$0.1

1Sa

n D

iego

Low

-Far

e31

2,56

6,96

01,

523

$0.1

1O

ntar

ioLo

w-F

are

391,

672,

540

1,51

5$0

.10

Cle

vela

ndLo

w-F

are

2091

0,40

01,

529

$0.1

1La

s Veg

asLo

w-F

are

4810

,419

,700

1,55

9$0

.09

T.F

. Gre

enL

ow-F

are

332,

064,

300

1,58

8$0

.09

T.F

. Gre

enL

ow-F

are

352,

166,

770

1,59

5$0

.09

Bal

timor

eLo

w-F

are

355,

421,

680

1,58

9$0

.10

Bal

timor

eLo

w-F

are

376,

055,

010

1,62

3$0

.10

Ren

o/La

ke T

ahoe

Low

-Far

e24

657,

280

1,59

0$0

.09

Cle

vela

ndLo

w-F

are

201,

040,

240

1,62

8$0

.11

Chi

cago

Low

-Far

e1

148,

770

1,67

1$0

.09

Ral

eigh

/Dur

ham

Low

-Far

e21

1,15

0,78

01,

681

$0.1

0Sa

n Jo

seLo

w-F

are

2677

5,34

01,

682

$0.1

1M

iam

iLo

w-F

are

1046

1,91

01,

701

$0.1

0

All

Air

port

sL

ow-F

are

778

68,4

18,8

601,

393

$0.1

2A

ll A

irpo

rts

Low

-Far

e90

081

,034

,300

1,37

4$0

.12

____

____

____

____

__

Sour

ces:

O&

D S

urve

y of

Airl

ine

Pass

enge

r Tra

ffic

, U.S

. DO

T.

Com

pile

d by

Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, In

c.

Tabl

e 10

Rhod

e Is

land

Air

port

Cor

pora

tion

T.F.

Gre

en A

irpo

rtC

ompe

titio

n Pl

an U

pdat

e - F

eder

al F

Y 20

02

ALL

STA

GE

LE

NG

TH O

&D

DA

TA S

UM

MA

RIZ

ED

BY

MA

RK

ET

CY

1999

CY

2000

All

Stag

e Le

ngth

sA

ll St

age

Leng

ths

Airp

ort

Mar

ket T

ype

City

-Pai

rsPa

ssen

gers

Stag

e Le

ngth

Yie

ldA

irpor

tM

arke

t Typ

eC

ity-P

airs

Pass

enge

rsSt

age

Leng

thY

ield

Jack

sonv

ille

Non

-Low

-Far

e86

2,56

9,40

01,

041

$0.1

6Sa

n A

nton

ioN

on-L

ow-F

are

872,

221,

640

1,05

0$0

.19

San

Ant

onio

Non

-Low

-Far

e90

2,26

4,98

01,

049

$0.1

8Ta

mpa

Non

-Low

-Far

e11

46,

487,

200

1,07

1$0

.15

Phila

delp

hia

Non

-Low

-Far

e17

812

,447

,470

1,06

5$0

.20

Dal

las L

ove

Fiel

dN

on-L

ow-F

are

414

1,02

01,

075

$0.2

5Ta

mpa

Non

-Low

-Far

e11

97,

002,

110

1,06

5$0

.14

Aus

tinN

on-L

ow-F

are

832,

488,

740

1,08

6$0

.22

T.F

. Gre

enN

on-L

ow-F

are

601,

679,

940

1,09

2$0

.17

T.F

. Gre

enN

on-L

ow-F

are

651,

806,

710

1,09

6$0

.18

Aus

tinN

on-L

ow-F

are

812,

324,

490

1,10

8$0

.20

Palm

Bea

chN

on-L

ow-F

are

112

4,88

3,47

01,

111

$0.1

4Pa

lm B

each

Non

-Low

-Far

e11

54,

810,

590

1,11

8$0

.14

Phila

delp

hia

Non

-Low

-Far

e17

410

,418

,160

1,11

5$0

.21

Orla

ndo

Non

-Low

-Far

e15

012

,880

,540

1,14

7$0

.12

Orla

ndo

Non

-Low

-Far

e13

410

,070

,710

1,13

0$0

.13

Fort

Mye

rsN

on-L

ow-F

are

972,

971,

340

1,15

8$0

.13

Fort

Mye

rsN

on-L

ow-F

are

922,

681,

320

1,15

2$0

.14

All

Air

port

sN

on-L

ow-F

are

6,09

323

2,85

9,76

01,

130

$0.1

7A

ll A

irpo

rts

Non

-Low

-Far

e6,

079

236,

310,

260

1,14

6$0

.18

palm

Bea

chLo

w-F

are

338

5,05

01,

053

$0.1

1B

altim

ore

Low

-Far

e53

11,1

99,4

001,

080

$0.1

1Lo

s Ang

eles

Low

-Far

e53

21,0

02,1

001,

095

$0.1

2H

artfo

rdLo

w-F

are

232,

288,

040

1,08

8$0

.12

Bal

timor

eLo

w-F

are

499,

462,

370

1,10

6$0

.11

Los A

ngel

esLo

w-F

are

5017

,605

,180

1,11

5$0

.12

San

Fran

cisc

oLo

w-F

are

238,

503,

050

1,13

1$0

.14

Chi

cago

Low

-Far

e2

233,

270

1,12

6$0

.14

T.F

. Gre

enL

ow-F

are

373,

034,

080

1,20

4$0

.10

T.F

. Gre

enL

ow-F

are

403,

255,

430

1,18

7$0

.11

LGA

- N

ew Y

ork

Low

-Far

e16

2,93

3,70

01,

236

$0.1

6LG

A -

New

Yor

kLo

w-F

are

144,

510,

390

1,20

5$0

.15

Milw

auke

eLo

w-F

are

768

0,83

01,

292

$0.1

0Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

Low

-Far

e22

6,04

5,25

01,

221

$0.1

3Sa

n Ju

anLo

w-F

are

72,

303,

370

1,40

8$0

.12

San

Juan

Low

-Far

e4

825,

360

1,24

2$0

.13

Chi

cago

Low

-Far

e1

148,

770

1,67

1$0

.09

JFK

- N

ew Y

ork

Low

-Far

e13

2,80

4,02

01,

299

$0.1

0

All

Air

port

sL

ow-F

are

1,26

115

2,63

4,08

085

9$0

.14

All

Air

port

sL

ow-F

are

1,39

416

9,78

7,84

088

4$0

.14

____

____

____

____

__

Sour

ces:

O&

D S

urve

y of

Airl

ine

Pass

enge

r Tra

ffic

, U.S

. DO

T.

Com

pile

d by

Ric

ondo

& A

ssoc

iate

s, In

c.

competition plan update for t.f. green airport …airline enplanements percentage of total southwest...

Documents