Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
155 C H A P T E R 8 8.1 Introduction In prior chapters, airport service levelsâdescribed primarily in terms of non-stop flights and seatsâhave been presented to help show how small- and non-hub airports have fared as major changes in the industry have taken hold. The primary purpose of this chapter is to explore the effect of these changes in terms of accessibility to the national air transportation network. For most small- and non-hub networks, an actual count of non-stop flights and/or seats pre- sents an incomplete picture of how effectively travelers can access the larger air transportation network. This is because, in most cases, such access depends on how those non-stop services mesh with the schedule banks of the major carriersâ hubs. In the case of flights provided by non- network carriers, the opportunity for connections to other destinations are obviously much less, and in some cases are cut off entirely (for example, Allegiant does not allow its passengers to book connections at all). As discussed in Chapter 2, a recent publication by Wittman and Swelbar in 2013 describes the development of an âAirport Connectivity Quality Indexâ (ACQI), which attempts to assess an airportâs connection to the air transportation system based on the frequency of available scheduled flights, the quantity and quality of destinations served, and the quantity and quality of connecting destinations. The ACQI metric certainly goes beyond simple counts of non-stop flights or seats to provide a more complete and accurate picture of the overall level of air service available to a given community. 8.2 Measuring Quality of Service For the present analysis, the research team has gone even further to assess network accessi- bility by undertaking an analysis that specifically tracks both non-stop and connecting services from small- and non-hub airports (categorized as of 2013) to the 50 largest U.S. airports as well as 17 major foreign airports. The analysis is based on using the Quality of Service Index (QSI) model to identify and evaluate all non-stop, one-stop, and two-stop services that may be avail- able from a given schedule of flights. For the present analysis, a 1-week OAG schedule from October of each year from 2006 through 2013 was used to identify non-stop and connection services to the 67 destinations, using specified time and circuity criteria. Because Allegiant stopped publishing its schedule in the OAG in early 2009, the research team instead used a weekly version of Allegiantâs actual non-stop flying in October of each year from 2009 through 2013 as reported in DOTâs T-100 database. Very small airports with access to less than 5 of the 67 destinations for each year of the analysis were excluded; this left a total of 253 airports in the database. Assessing Changes in Airport Service
156 Effects of Airline Industry Changes on Small- and Non-Hub Airports QSI points were assigned to each service, with values varying by equipment type used and the type of service offered (e.g., nonstops, one-stop online services, and two-stop services involving alliance carriers to international destinations) For each market involving a small- or non-hub airport and a given destination, a minimum of three services per week in each direction (non- stop or connecting) were required in order to count as meaningful service. The total QSI points across all 67 potential destinations were added to yield a single QSI score. As a point of reference, one daily non-stop on a narrowbody mainline jet to a single destination is worth 10 QSI points. 8.3 QSI versus Non-Stop Service Metrics While in principle an airportâs QSI score is a more sophisticated measure of available service, in practice it is still likely to be fairly consistent with simpler measures such as total non-stop flights or seats. Exhibit 8-1 compares average daily non-stop flights with the QSI score for each airport based on the 1-week OAG schedule from October 2013. The airports are arranged in ascending order of non-stop flights, as seen by the blue dashed line markers. On a scale of 0 to 1, the overall correlation coefficient between flights and QSI scores is 0.97; a similar relationship exists for seats and QSI. A more revealing picture of available air service emerges if one considers the change in flights or seats compared to QSI over time. Exhibit 8-2 compares the percent change (from 2006 to 2013) in non-stop flights with percent change in QSI scores at each airport. The airports are ordered according to the change in flight percentage, indicated by the dashed blue markers mak- ing up the curvilinear line going from the lower left to the upper right. Then for each airport the corresponding change in QSI score is plotted above, on, or below the airportâs flight marker with a red diamond marker. The case study and focus group airports are shown with their location identifiers. Out of 253 small- and non-hub airports, many (204) experienced a decline in non-stop flights between 2006 and 2013, indicated by their flight marker being below the 0% axis. A somewhat smaller number (175) suffered a decline in service when measured by QSI (indicated by their red QSI marker being below the axis). For most of the airports the percent change in QSI lies above the change in flights on the graph. This indicates that most of the airports did relatively better when evaluated using QSI points rather than non-stop flights. Exhibit 8-1. Non-stop flights and QSI at small- and non-hub airports.
Assessing Changes in Airport Service 157 There are many individual airports for which percent change in QSI is substantially different than the corresponding change in flights. The QSI percent change is within ±10 points of the percent change in non-stop flights at about half the airports. Overall, the correlation coefficient between percent change in non-stop flights and percent change in QSI is about 0.58. The cor- relation rises to 0.79 using non-stop seats instead of flights because equipment size factors into the QSI score. Exhibit 8-3 repeats the analysis using non-stop seats instead of flights as the basis for compari- son. This provides a somewhat better match with QSI points (the overall correlation coefficient is about 0.79), but many airports show substantial differences. 8.4 QSI Changes at the Case Study Airports Exhibit 8-3 highlights the results for the case study airports (results for Phoenix-Mesa, North- west Florida, and Sonoma County are not shown because these airports did not have any sched- uled service in the base period of October 2006.) For these airports, the QSI results do not appear to differ substantially from the flight or seat results; however, further exploring the data to see exactly what has happened to service and network access at some of these locations is revealing. Exhibit 8-2. Change in non-stop flights and QSI at small- and non-hub airports. Exhibit 8-3. Change in non-stop seats and QSI at small- and non-hub airports.
158 Effects of Airline Industry Changes on Small- and Non-Hub Airports In what follows, only the 50 domestic destinations employed in the QSI analysis are considered because that is likely the primary focus of airport managers at small- and non-hub facilities. Looking first at Monterey (MRY), Exhibit 8-4 shows the airport experienced a significant domestic service decline during the recent recession, but recovered almost to pre-recession lev- els, before falling off again in 2013. There was also a small reduction in the number of reachable destinations from 48 to 46. What drives the results for 2013 versus 2006? First, consider the actual non-stop services from the airport, as shown in Exhibit 8-5. Reductions in service to network hubs at San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Salt Lake City by United, American, and Delta were partially offset by a small increase in service to Phoenix by US Airways. The ultimate effects of these changes on connecting services are tracked in the QSI analy- sis. As indicated in Exhibit 8-4, MRY travelers could still get to most of the same destinations, 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 0 100 200 300 400 500 QS I -13% Total QSI Points to Domestic Destinations for MRY 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 0 10 20 30 40 50 M ar ke ts 4040414140414142 Nonstop and Connecting Domestic Destinations from MRY 66556576 Exhibit 8-4. Summary of service changes at MRY. October 2006 October 2013 Carrier Desnaon Service Carrier Desnaon Service United San Francisco 7x/day United San Francisco 5x/day Denver 1x/day Denver 1x/day Los Angeles 6x/day Los Angeles 3x/day American Los Angeles 4x/day American Los Angeles 3x/day Delta Salt Lake City 2x/day Allegiant Las Vegas 2x/wk America West Phoenix 2x/day US Airways Phoenix 3x/day Las Vegas 4x/wk TOTAL 22.5x/day TOTAL 17x/day Exhibit 8-5. Non-stop service from MRY, October 006 vs. October 2013.
Assessing Changes in Airport Service 159 despite the decline shown by the QSI score. However, there are many small and a few larger changes in the amount of service to any particular destination. Exhibit 8-6 depicts increases or decreases in service (again measured by QSI points) to individual domestic destinations. As indicated by the locations shown with small red circles, service to many major domestic destinations has declined slightly; the largest decline was to Salt Lake City, due to the elimination of Deltaâs non-stop service. At a handful of destinations service has actually increased somewhat; a detailed examination of the results shows that these outcomes are due to increased connection opportunities on US Airways via Phoenix and new potential connections involving US Airways and American in certain markets. A similar analysis for Fargo (FAR) reveals a somewhat different set of outcomes. As shown in Exhibit 8-7, Fargo experienced a domestic service increase of 10% (measured by QSI) between 2006 and 2013 and an increase in the number of reachable destinations from 49 to 50 (the maxi- mum possible). Again, it is useful to first look at the change in non-stop services from the airport, shown in Exhibit 8-8. There were small declines in service across the board from the network carriers to hubs at Den- ver, Chicago, Salt Lake City, and Minneapolis. However, these were offset by the entry of Ameri- can providing service to Dallas and Chicago, as well as a small new service from LCC Frontier to Denver. The ultimate effect of these changes was to increase the overall QSI score at FAR by 13.6%. Again, the results can vary significantly by destination. Exhibit 8-9 shows that for FAR, these variations are primarily related to geography, with Eastern and Southern destinations experiencing increased service while Western destinations experienced decreased service. Examination of the 2006-2013 Change in Domestic QSI for MRY Exhibit 8-6. Changes in MRY service to domestic destinations.
160 Effects of Airline Industry Changes on Small- and Non-Hub Airports individual QSI results shows that the increases are due primarily to Unitedâs new service to Chicago, while the decreases are due mostly to declines in service by Delta via Minneapolis and Salt Lake City. For most of the airports listed in Appendix A, QSI scores are included in the spreadsheet avail- able for download from the TRB website. 8.5 QSI Changes by Hub Size To get a general picture of the change in service across airports, Exhibit 8-10 depicts average airport QSI levels over time by hub group (using hub status as of 2013). These results are largely consistent with the earlier analysis of non-stop flights and seats, but show a somewhat smaller average decline for each hub group. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 0 200 400 600 800 QS I +10% Total QSI Points to Domestic Destinations for FAR 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 0 10 20 30 40 50 M ar ke ts 65556455 4445444543454444 Nonstop and Connecting Domestic Destinations from FAR Exhibit 8-7. Summary of service changes at FAR. October 2006 October 2013 Carrier Desnaon Service Carrier Desnaon Service United Denver 4x/day United Denver 3.5x/day Chicago 4x/day Chicago 3.5x/day Delta Salt Lake City 2x/day Delta Salt Lake City 1x/day Northwest Minneapolis 8x/day Minneapolis 7.5x/day Las Vegas 2x/wk Allegiant Las Vegas 2x/wk Allegiant Las Vegas 2x/wk American Dallas-Ft Worth 1x/day Chicago 3x/day Fron er Denver 4x/wk TOTAL 18x/wk TOTAL 20x/wk Exhibit 8-8. Non-stop service from FAR, October 2006 vs October 2013.
Assessing Changes in Airport Service 161 2006-2013 Change in Domestic QSI for FAR Exhibit 8-9. Changes in FAR service to domestic destinations. Exhibit 8-10. Average airport QSI by hub group.
162 Effects of Airline Industry Changes on Small- and Non-Hub Airports A primary takeaway from the analysis presented here is that access to the air transportation network from small- and non-hub airports has declined significantly on average, but can vary significantly across individual airports. The specifics of flight connection opportunities at the major carriersâ network hubs are important in determining the observed changes. Although caution should be exercised when using any single metric to identify service lev- els, the analysis suggests that airports should go beyond simply counting numbers of non-stop flights and should look closely at how those flights hook into the major carriersâ networks. In addition, flights by LCC (even those that do not have extensive connection opportunities) can provide less expensive service to particular destinations. Where possible, operators of small- and non-hub airports should strive to interact with their current major carriers to assess whether or not and how services are aligned to the schedule banks at the carriersâ network hubs to facilitate the highest possible number of connection opportunities.
