Richmond International Airport

[I miss RVA]

14 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Not sure one answer fits every naysayer.  It's probably a combination of each possibility you mentioned above.  Either way, I think that "defeatest" thought can be squashed if they actually see/witness positives with regard to RVA (the City,  metro area, the airport).  When positive change becomes so real it "slaps them in the face," that's when they may realize that Richmond can and just might change (i.e. become more than just the sleepy town it's always been).  But then beware because there will ALWAYS be naysayers even when it is blatantly before their face indicating otherwise.  You'll never win them all no matter what happens...very similar to the NIMBYs.

I've long had a sinking feeling that there are a LOT more folks who want to "keep things small" whether it's the airport, the city, the metro, whatever, than we might realize. Seems like it's an undercurrent of discussions like the one on the Reddit page - even if they don't come right out and say it. "Killjoys" would be an apt way of looking at it. Like you said, similar to the NIMBYs.

We just have to keep fighting the good fight. Stay RVA STRONG and do everything possible to make sure RICHMOND KEEPS RISING.

[eandslee]

Saw this posted on Twitter (posted earlier today):

Wow!  When was the last time the garages at RIC were at capacity?!  I have no idea, but that is just music to my ears because that means lots of people are using RIC as their airport of choice…and it’s just early March!  Sure, this is Spring Break season but most have Spring Break later…as in the week before Easter!  Sounds like good news to me!!

[I miss RVA]

13 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Saw this posted on Twitter (posted earlier today):

Wow!  When was the last time the garages at RIC were at capacity?!  I have no idea, but that is just music to my ears because that means lots of people are using RIC as their airport of choice…and it’s just early March!  Sure, this is Spring Break season but most have Spring Break later…as in the week before Easter!  Sounds like good news to me!!

A VERY good sign indeed - and hopefully a sign of things to come.

[Niccckk]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

A VERY good sign indeed - and hopefully a sign of things to come.

Really good sign for spring break!!!
However I never use their parking since the Park & Go parking is much cheaper for longer periods but it's good to see that their own parking is doin waves

[eandslee]

7 minutes ago, Niccckk said:

Really good sign for spring break!!!
However I never use their parking since the Park & Go parking is much cheaper for longer periods but it's good to see that their own parking is doin waves

I’ve used the Economy Lot B a few times, but I’ve never seen Lot A open. If it’s open, it could be an indicator that we might be looking a record passenger numbers…maybe. It’ll be interesting to see when the stats come out. 

[Niccckk]

5 minutes ago, eandslee said:

If it’s open, it could be an indicator that we might be looking a record passenger numbers…maybe. It’ll be interesting to see when the stats come out. 

I 100% think we'll have record numbers. We've almost completely recovered post-pandemic, and we have like what, 15 new routes?? Spirit to Las Vegas starts this summer along with Breeze to LAX and increased Breeze frequencies all around... I really do see record passengers being a highly probability.

 

PLUS, we're already almost at 500 weekly departures according to flightradar24.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Niccckk

[I miss RVA]

WOW - 39 airports served? THAT is very impressive. And -- we're averaging out to about 71 flights per day. With all the new service coming this year, we'll see all these numbers go up.

It would take quite a bit of work to snag an extra 29 flights per day - but OHHHH how I want to see RIC get to 100 daily flights. Wonder how long it might take us to get there?

[eandslee]

6 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

WOW - 39 airports served? THAT is very impressive. And -- we're averaging out to about 71 flights per day. With all the new service coming this year, we'll see all these numbers go up.

It would take quite a bit of work to snag an extra 29 flights per day - but OHHHH how I want to see RIC get to 100 daily flights. Wonder how long it might take us to get there?

Don’t forget that RIC might see the start of a (or some) new international route(s) this year too!  We’re getting closer to that 100 flights per day number…flight by flight!

[I miss RVA]

3 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Don’t forget that RIC might see the start of a (or some) new international route(s) this year too!  We’re getting closer to that 100 flights per day number…flight by flight!

Yep - the landing of international service will be a big step in the right direction toward getting us to the magical 100 FPD figure. Recall several months ago I said something to the effect of that the airport's mantra should be:

"RIC - Building Terminal 2 & Concourse C ... one flight at a time"  

I still hold by that, folks.

[Ward Wood]

Here’s to 100 flights a day soon enough. One barrier - when will TSA start staying open later? I have heard some horror stories recently of people arriving at the airport for a late flight like 10/11pm but tsa is closed.

[I miss RVA]

5 minutes ago, Ward Wood said:

Here’s to 100 flights a day soon enough. One barrier - when will TSA start staying open later? I have heard some horror stories recently of people arriving at the airport for a late flight like 10/11pm but tsa is closed.

Interesting fact: the gentleman in the airport video said that based on our current annual passenger traffic, we're well positioned to "easily" increase that load by roughly a third - which if we did, would take us to right in the neighborhood of 6 million passengers annually, by which time, in his words, it would be time to think about expanding the airport.

Now - I don't have hard and fast data/stats in front of me to use a real number to get an average passenger load per flight. However - based on roughly 4.3 million passengers and 71 flights annually, the math comes out to 166 passengers per plane (too high? too low? I'm a layman just using "rough" numbers). NOW - if we get our passenger count to 6 million - based on that 166 passengers per plane number - that would get us to 99 flights per day.

So by these VERY "rough" estimates - 100 flights per day - in theory - should get us close to that magic 6 million annual total. Unless the figures are too high (or too low even). Our resident RIC number crunchers could weigh in with significantly more accurate actual data.

But you get the idea. Seems like the two numbers we need to SERIOUSLY aim for is 100 flights per day - and 6 million passengers per year.

Doable?

[eandslee]

A good Friday morning to you from my good friend, Mr. Tingfah, at Richmond International Airport!  Photos (special thanks to him) just as the morning rush begins:

 

[eandslee]

10 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Interesting fact: the gentleman in the airport video said that based on our current annual passenger traffic, we're well positioned to "easily" increase that load by roughly a third - which if we did, would take us to right in the neighborhood of 6 million passengers annually, by which time, in his words, it would be time to think about expanding the airport.

Now - I don't have hard and fast data/stats in front of me to use a real number to get an average passenger load per flight. However - based on roughly 4.3 million passengers and 71 flights annually, the math comes out to 166 passengers per plane (too high? too low? I'm a layman just using "rough" numbers). NOW - if we get our passenger count to 6 million - based on that 166 passengers per plane number - that would get us to 99 flights per day.

So by these VERY "rough" estimates - 100 flights per day - in theory - should get us close to that magic 6 million annual total. Unless the figures are too high (or too low even). Our resident RIC number crunchers could weigh in with significantly more accurate actual data.

But you get the idea. Seems like the two numbers we need to SERIOUSLY aim for is 100 flights per day - and 6 million passengers per year.

Doable?

166 passengers per flight is a bit high (in my opinion, but I don’t have access to the real stats).  Just for fun, an A320 holds on average about 150 passengers (if the flight is full), B737s are about the same.  Both of these aircraft types are mainline aircraft common at RIC.  However, there are quite a few flights with smaller aircraft that fit only 50 passengers (i.e. ERJ-145).  I’m just guessing here, but the average number of passengers per flight might hover around 100 passengers. It’s also a nice round number to work with. If that’s the case, we’d need more than 100 flights per day to hit 6M passengers per year.  So, by my rough calculation, if we had an average of 100 passengers per flight and 165 flights per day (a total of around 16,500 passengers per day), that would put the airport at just tad over 6M passengers per year.

I do like the incremental approach though…let’s gets to 100 flights per day as a goal…then 125…150…and so on. Smaller steps, achievable goals - that’s how to achieve the more loftier goals.  It all starts with filling up all the flights RIC currently has, which will lead to increased aircraft size, increased frequency on current routes, then the addition of new routes…let’s not forget new international routes…maybe a new airline…all of these will get us to the goal of 6M passengers per year.  Very doable.

Need to market the hell out of the airport and its offerings. People need to see the value of flying in and out of RIC.  Many don’t think it’s worth it because of RIC’s historically high prices (no longer the case) and limited destinations (also becoming less of an issue). It surprises me how many people I talk to that don’t know the offerings at RIC and I think that’s a foul!  We have to do better to get the word out there that RIC is not only a viable option, but most of the time is the best option!!  We can’t let potential passengers of RIC bleed off to other airports if it makes more sense to fly out of RIC. In most cases, folks run off to other airports because they simply don’t know the value RIC can be (whether it is convenience, monetary, or offerings value).  

Edited March 10, 2023 by eandslee

[blopp1234]

12 minutes ago, eandslee said:

166 passengers per flight is a bit high (in my opinion, but I don’t have access to the real stats).  Just for fun, an A320 holds on average about 150 passengers (if the flight is full), B737s are about the same.  Both of these aircraft types are mainline aircraft common at RIC.  However, there are quite a few flights with smaller aircraft that fit only 50 passengers (i.e. ERJ-145).  I’m just guessing here, but the average number of passengers per flight might hover around 100 passengers. It’s also a nice round number to work with. If that’s the case, we’d need more than 100 flights per day to hit 6M passengers per year.  So, by my rough calculation, if we had an average of 100 passengers per flight and 165 flights per day (a total of around 16,500 passengers per day), that would put the airport at just tad over 6M passengers per year.

I do like the incremental approach though…let’s gets to 100 flights per day as a goal…then 125…150…and so on. Smaller steps, achievable goals - that’s how to achieve the more loftier goals.  It all starts with filling up all the flights RIC currently has, which will lead to increased aircraft size, increased frequency on current routes, then the addition of new routes…let’s not forget new international routes…maybe a new airline…all of these will get us to the goal of 6M passengers per year.  Very doable.

Need to market the hell out of the airport and its offerings. People need to see the value of flying in and out of RIC.  Many don’t think it’s worth it because of RIC’s historically high prices (no longer the case) and limited destinations (also becoming less of an issue). It surprises me how many people I talk to that don’t know the offerings at RIC and I think that’s a foul!  We have to do better to get the word out there that RIC is not only a viable option, but most of the time is the best option!!  We can’t let potential passengers of RIC bleed off to other airports if it makes more sense to fly out of RIC. In most cases, folks run off to other airports because they simply don’t know the value RIC can be (whether it is convenience, monetary, or offerings value).  

Speaking of increasing frequencies on flights, I remember seeing that American will be adding a second daily flight to Miami on mainline aircraft which is a great sign. That plus checking in on RIC’s west coast flights (which all seem to be atleast 80-85% full) I wouldn’t be surprised to see more frequency increases, especially from Breeze.

[wrldcoupe4]

27 minutes ago, eandslee said:

 

Need to market the hell out of the airport and its offerings. People need to see the value of flying in and out of RIC.  Many don’t think it’s worth it because of RIC’s historically high prices (no longer the case) and limited destinations (also becoming less of an issue). It surprises me how many people I talk to that don’t know the offerings at RIC and I think that’s a foul!  We have to do better to get the word out there that RIC is not only a viable option, but most of the time is the best option!!  We can’t let potential passengers of RIC bleed off to other airports if it makes more sense to fly out of RIC. In most cases, folks run off to other airports because they simply don’t know the value RIC can be (whether it is convenience, monetary, or offerings value).  

Is there a way to quantify how many people bleed from Richmond area to other airports nearby? Is it 10% of passengers? 20%? 30%? I would think we lose a lot of international travel to people driving to DC area airports, but are we really losing a lot of domestic travel to other airports?

[eandslee]

25 minutes ago, blopp1234 said:

Speaking of increasing frequencies on flights, I remember seeing that American will be adding a second daily flight to Miami on mainline aircraft which is a great sign. That plus checking in on RIC’s west coast flights (which all seem to be atleast 80-85% full) I wouldn’t be surprised to see more frequency increases, especially from Breeze.

Blopp - thanks for the news on a second AA flight between RIC and MIA!  Gosh, I remember just several years ago that this route was served on much smaller aircraft (RJs) and was only once a day (if memory serves).  We’ve come a long way since then. Super news!  Any idea in when that second flight will start?

I’ve also been monitoring the Breeze flights (all of them, but especially the west coast flights) and I am impressed with the load factors I’m seeing.  Much of the time, if you check just before the flight is about to depart, it gives you the most accurate idea of how full the flights are.  Lately, the PHX flights have been chock full.  The SFO flights are doing okay (no full flights lately), but they are about 80% full.  The LAS flights are doing very well too.  Every once in a while, you’ll see a completely full flight on that route, but most are well over 85-90% full.  Been looking ahead to the LAX flights.  They are booking up, but none are close to being full yet. The good news is we have some time to fill them since they don’t start until 18 May.  After Mardi Gras, I’ve been a bit concerned about the flights to MSY…I’m seeing flights that are about 60% full, but for Mardi Gras, they were packed to the gills!  All TPA flights are doing wonderful and they are daily flights now (or almost daily).  

Edited March 10, 2023 by eandslee

[123fakestreet]

On 3/6/2023 at 10:35 PM, eandslee said:

Not sure one answer fits every naysayer.  It's probably a combination of each possibility you mentioned above.  Either way, I think that "defeatest" thought can be squashed if they actually see/witness positives with regard to RVA (the City,  metro area, the airport).  When positive change becomes so real it "slaps them in the face," that's when they may realize that Richmond can and just might change (i.e. become more than just the sleepy town it's always been).  But then beware because there will ALWAYS be naysayers even when it is blatantly before their face indicating otherwise.  You'll never win them all no matter what happens...very similar to the NIMBYs.

There are definitely a lot of long-time Richmonders who want to keep things small.  They were the vast majority for a long time, and the reason Richmond was passed over for a variety of things including the hub that went to Charlotte.  Thankfully those people are a dying breed and while still vocal are in the minority.  There are a lot of others who, largely as a result of decades of dealing with the first group, just don't believe Richmond can ever be "big time," or if we do get anything here it must not actually be "big time."  You see some of this with things like VMFA, people have this attitude that it's in Richmond so it must be meh, when it's really a world class art museum.  Or the brewery scene, "it's Richmond how good can it be?" Well it's one of the best in the country.

That said they aren't completely wrong about the RIC. It will never be a hub.  Dulles and Charlotte are hubs, there is not going to be another between them, it's not going to happen, that ship has sailed.  There are plenty of cities much larger than Richmond that are not hubs either and never will be due to their proximity to existing hubs. You only need so many hubs and they don't get stacked right next to each other, Richmond could triple in size in 20 years and we wouldn't become a hub. 

The only thing we can do is add more direct flights due to demand, which is a much more difficult route to growth, but we do seem to be trending that way.  Our goal is to be the regional airport of choice between Norfolk, Raleigh, and Charlottesville.

Edited March 10, 2023 by 123fakestreet

[I miss RVA]

26 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

There are definitely a lot of long-time Richmonders who want to keep things small.  They were the vast majority for a long time, and the reason Richmond was passed over for a variety of things including the hub that went to Charlotte.  Thankfully those people are a dying breed and while still vocal are in the minority.  There are a lot of others who, largely as a result of decades of dealing with the first group, just don't believe Richmond can ever be "big time," or if we do get anything here it must not actually be "big time."  You see some of this with things like VMFA, people have this attitude that it's in Richmond so it must be meh, when it's really a world class art museum.  Or the brewery scene, "it's Richmond how good can it be?" Well it's one of the best in the country.

That said they aren't completely wrong about the RIC. It will never be a hub.  Dulles and Charlotte are hubs, there is not going to be another between them, it's not going to happen, that ship has sailed.  There are plenty of cities much larger than Richmond that are not hubs either and never will be due to their proximity to existing hubs. You only need so many hubs and they don't get stacked right next to each other, Richmond could triple in size in 20 years and we wouldn't become a hub. 

The only thing we can do is add more direct flights due to demand, which is a much more difficult route to growth, but we do seem to be trending that way.  Our goal is to be the regional airport of choice between Norfolk, Raleigh, and Charlottesville.

I definitely can't disagree with this assessment, overall.  A few thoughts on a few of your points:

1.) Your first paragraph is SPOT ON!! Really good analysis of the "state of play" in terms of the RVA mindset. Interesting you mention locals not viewing the VMFA as a world-class museum - when clearly it is. Witness the fact that the folks who make Monopoly have selected Richmond as their next city for a city-specific edition - based on (among many criteria) "world-class museums". And that's from folks from the outside - not from within RVA saying that.

The only point I'd like to correct is that the hub you referenced didn't pass Richmond over to go to Charlotte. Piedmont approached Richmond FIRST - and they were TURNED DOWN by the powers-that-be here - because the CRAC at the time did not feel they could justify the cost to modernize then-Byrd Field to accommodate a hub. (Particularly the cost of buying the land for - and the construction of - parallel runways.)  That's the fumble-at-the-goal line that haunts us to this day. Charlotte was more than happy to take the ball and run with it after we dropped it. So we weren't passed over - we said "thanks, but no thanks."

2.) This ties in directly to your second paragraph - which again, is SPOT ON!! Sadly, I think it's a legit case that RIC will never be a hub in the true hub-and-spoke model. HOWEVER - I would argue that we COULD still become a flight-ops/focus city. As one of our other posters who has some industry ties has pointed out, Breeze, despite having chosen ORF as one of their flight-ops/focus city airports, is utilizing RIC as a de-facto "mini hub" -- much the way one of the other airlines (is it Southwest?) is using RDU as a mini-hub -- and in both cases, neither airline has OFFICIALLY declared the airport in question to be a "hub". But they're treating it as such. At least for now, Breeze's continued service expansion at RIC is about as close to something resembling a hub as we might get. And it seems like there's still even more growth potential on THAT front - as Breeze bumps up frequencies and, particularly, if they add a few more destinations.

3.) The same poster I referenced in point #2 also indicated that the hub model is becoming a dinosaur and the direct origin/destination model that Breeze has been implementing at RIC may well be the future of the airline industry. This is not at all to say hubs will completely go away - but there have been PLENTY of airports that have been "de-hubbed" as airlines have had to adjust their cost structures.  However, to your point, that direct destination based on demand IS a tough nut to crack. Which ties into previous discussion that we need to market the living HELL out of RIC and use EVERY MEANS POSSIBLE to literally flood the zone with "FLY RIC". With RIC becoming increasingly competitive from a ticket cost standpoint (we're not level yet, but we're no no longer trying to leap over a cavernous ravine in terms of closing the price gap between RIC and other airports) and now, finally, increasingly competitive in terms of a variety of direct destinations, it comes down to driving demand and not allowing domestic traffic that could and SHOULD be flying out of RIC to leak away to NOVA or ORF.

Quite frankly, the North Carolina airports should not even be in the discussion. Under no circumstances should CVA travelers schlep to RDU or CLT to fly when RIC is right here. Drill it down further - we have to market, market, market, MARKET our growing gem of an airport and keep CVA travelers from going to Norfolk or NOVA under all but the most extreme circumstances (for example - someone flying to Europe, obviously, cannot fly out of RIC at this time if they're looking to take a direct flight). Now - if they were flying via, say, New York - then perhaps they could fly out of RIC to the Big Apple and be on their merry way out of JFK.

Either waym, @123fakestreet I think you've nailed it across the board. 

 

[eandslee]

27 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Is there a way to quantify how many people bleed from Richmond area to other airports nearby? Is it 10% of passengers? 20%? 30%? I would think we lose a lot of international travel to people driving to DC area airports, but are we really losing a lot of domestic travel to other airports?

Sorry, another long post…

Good question and it’s been one I’ve had for a long time too. I’m sure there is some way to figure it out, but it may require consolidating the information the other airports gather on their patrons (such as where they live).  Seems to me to be a tough nut to crack without a third-party in-depth study.  

With that said, I know that RIC loses a lot of international travelers from Central Virginia (as you mentioned).  For domestic travelers, it’s hard to say.  I know we lose some…how many is anyone’s guess. However, I can tell you that I encounter people all the time who say they go to RDU, IAD, and DCA for domestic flights.  I’ve even encountered people who go to BWI (which is crazy in my mind)!!  If I’m encountering people who do this often (and I’m just one person), I’m sure there are lots of others.  Furthermore, I consider ALL of Central Virginia (to include Charlottesville, Farmville, Blackstone, Petersburg, Williamsburg…I’d even say Fredericksburg…and all areas in between) as  RIC’s potential market. Given that, I can tell you (because I used to live there) that many/most folks from Charlottesville use the DC airports.  I’m sure quite a few (maybe even most) from Fredericksburg do too.  Some places to Richmond’s west probably head down to RDU to catch flights (even folks in Richmond proper do this).  So, I’m not sure what the percentage is, but it’s probably a higher percentage than I’d like to see and surely has an affect on passenger numbers at the airport.  

To combat this, and to educate even the people within the Richmond metro area, I’d like to see a robust ad plan for RIC and the services it provides, to include the airlines serving the airport, the nonstop destinations, flight frequencies, deals on flights, expansion plans the airport has to show that it’s growing and  which would cultivate a sense of pride in the local airport, etc.  I know this costs money, but I think the money would be well spent.  Educating the masses is half the battle and there are a lot of misconceptions about the airport (or little known information at all) and that needs to be rectified…especially if the airport is to grow.

[123fakestreet]

42 minutes ago, eandslee said:

I can tell you that I encounter people all the time who say they go to RDU, IAD, and DCA for domestic flights.

This is mind blowing to me.  RIC is such an easy airport, why would you drive hours away to then fly at another airport?

There is this "common knowledge" that you can get cheaper flights if you drive to IAD. Except it's a myth. I've never seen flights significantly cheaper there.  They are sometimes like $32 cheaper, no where near enough to offset the cost of gas and parking, never mind my time to drive up there - even for a family of 4 never mind an individual.   Typically the prices are on par, often RIC is the cheaper one.

I had a co-worker who drove up there to fly because they were flying internationally and didn't want to connect and possibly get delayed.  I don't think I've ever been delayed out of Richmond long enough to miss the connecting flight.  You're as likely to get stuck in really bad traffic on 95 and miss the flight that way.

It seems some people will come up with any excuse not to fly out of Richmond, and the vibe often carried with it is they are too big time and sophisticated to use little ol RIC.  Which is ridiculous, it's a great, easy to use airport.

[blopp1234]

1 hour ago, eandslee said:

Sorry, another long post…

Good question and it’s been one I’ve had for a long time too. I’m sure there is some way to figure it out, but it may require consolidating the information the other airports gather on their patrons (such as where they live).  Seems to me to be a tough nut to crack without a third-party in-depth study.  

With that said, I know that RIC loses a lot of international travelers from Central Virginia (as you mentioned).  For domestic travelers, it’s hard to say.  I know we lose some…how many is anyone’s guess. However, I can tell you that I encounter people all the time who say they go to RDU, IAD, and DCA for domestic flights.  I’ve even encountered people who go to BWI (which is crazy in my mind)!!  If I’m encountering people who do this often (and I’m just one person), I’m sure there are lots of others.  Furthermore, I consider ALL of Central Virginia (to include Charlottesville, Farmville, Blackstone, Petersburg, Williamsburg…I’d even say Fredericksburg…and all areas in between) as  RIC’s potential market. Given that, I can tell you (because I used to live there) that many/most folks from Charlottesville use the DC airports.  I’m sure quite a few (maybe even most) from Fredericksburg do too.  Some places to Richmond’s west probably head down to RDU to catch flights (even folks in Richmond proper do this).  So, I’m not sure what the percentage is, but it’s probably a higher percentage than I’d like to see and surely has an affect on passenger numbers at the airport.  

To combat this, and to educate even the people within the Richmond metro area, I’d like to see a robust ad plan for RIC and the services it provides, to include the airlines serving the airport, the nonstop destinations, flight frequencies, deals on flights, expansion plans the airport has to show that it’s growing and  which would cultivate a sense of pride in the local airport, etc.  I know this costs money, but I think the money would be well spent.  Educating the masses is half the battle and there are a lot of misconceptions about the airport (or little known information at all) and that needs to be rectified…especially if the airport is to grow.

Personally I haven’t interacted with anyone who has gone from RIC to RDU or ORF for flights. Atleast not within the past few years, but others may have different experiences. I would doubt that we are bleeding much for any domestic destinations now as Dulles and Reagan are pains to fly out of due to long security lines and crowded gate areas. Plus NOVA traffic is some of the worst in the country. I agree with @123fakestreetthat driving 2 hours to fly out of a different airport for pretty much the same price is absolutely mind boggling.

 

I can see why people go elsewhere for international routes. Dulles seems to be the main place we bleed passengers to as they have a pleathers of destinations worldwide. I even know people from North Carolina (in the RDU area) that drive to Dulles for international flights as they tend to be similarly priced and direct. I’ve been looking to fly to Dublin this fall and I’ve been looking at direct flights out of Dulles or connecting out of RIC and flights from Dulles are atleast $250 cheaper. That what will be challenging to overcome as unless we get direct flights, that price will remain around the same.
 

I’d also agree that the airports marketing is terrible. They don’t spread awareness on social media and no signs outside of the airport that would let you know there are flights to certain destinations.

Edited March 10, 2023 by blopp1234

[I miss RVA]

2 hours ago, eandslee said:

Sorry, another long post…

Good question and it’s been one I’ve had for a long time too. I’m sure there is some way to figure it out, but it may require consolidating the information the other airports gather on their patrons (such as where they live).  Seems to me to be a tough nut to crack without a third-party in-depth study.  

With that said, I know that RIC loses a lot of international travelers from Central Virginia (as you mentioned).  For domestic travelers, it’s hard to say.  I know we lose some…how many is anyone’s guess. However, I can tell you that I encounter people all the time who say they go to RDU, IAD, and DCA for domestic flights.  I’ve even encountered people who go to BWI (which is crazy in my mind)!!  If I’m encountering people who do this often (and I’m just one person), I’m sure there are lots of others.  Furthermore, I consider ALL of Central Virginia (to include Charlottesville, Farmville, Blackstone, Petersburg, Williamsburg…I’d even say Fredericksburg…and all areas in between) as  RIC’s potential market. Given that, I can tell you (because I used to live there) that many/most folks from Charlottesville use the DC airports.  I’m sure quite a few (maybe even most) from Fredericksburg do too.  Some places to Richmond’s west probably head down to RDU to catch flights (even folks in Richmond proper do this).  So, I’m not sure what the percentage is, but it’s probably a higher percentage than I’d like to see and surely has an affect on passenger numbers at the airport.  

To combat this, and to educate even the people within the Richmond metro area, I’d like to see a robust ad plan for RIC and the services it provides, to include the airlines serving the airport, the nonstop destinations, flight frequencies, deals on flights, expansion plans the airport has to show that it’s growing and  which would cultivate a sense of pride in the local airport, etc.  I know this costs money, but I think the money would be well spent.  Educating the masses is half the battle and there are a lot of misconceptions about the airport (or little known information at all) and that needs to be rectified…especially if the airport is to grow.

Good points all the way around.

1.) Study: this NEEDS to happen. It's a slam dunk that the powers-that-be who run RIC would benefit tremendously from a study and resulting on-going data tracking system that could quantify exactly how much passenger bleed there is from the  Richmond market to other airports. Culling monthly data quantifying the net loss - and also qualifying the who/where/why/where-to -- meaning - are we losing potential traffic from the extremities? From the core of the metro? To whom are we losing it? (DCA, ORF, RDU, etc.) - and WHAT are the destinations that are causing passenger leakage and at what price points?

How to get there is the hard part - and, as you said, would require involvement of a third party professional data assessment group who could handle such a study. The study would be both a one-off in terms of understanding past and current state-of-play - and would HAVE to lead to on-going data monitoring and analysis. Yes - it would be somewhat expensive - but it's a necessary investment in the future of RIC, which by extension is an investment in the future growth of metro RVA.

2.) It is absolutely unconscionable that any of the Carolina airports are leeching passengers from CVA. That's downright shameful - and the onus isn't on the travelers -  its on the lack of marketing and, as you pointed out, educating the masses to what we have to offer, at RIC. Now - if folks are booking fares online, no doubt they're seeing cost differentials between, say, RIC and RDU for same-destination service - or at least this has likely been the case for a while. Are not RIC's price points trending lower, however? Even if we can't YET reach a dollar-for-dollar match with competing airports - we should be able, at least, to reach a point of minimizing the cost differential such that it would not be worth it for the CVA traveler - both from a time and a monetary expenditure standpoint - to schlep to North Carolina to fly to a destination to which they could just as easily fly out of RIC.

3.) The FLIP side to this argument (and it become a chicken and egg argument) is flight FREQUENCY to certain destinations. Whereas even IF the costs to fly from RIC to a given destination were on par with other airports in the region, the frequency of flights to said destination may NOT be flyer friendly. If, for example, airline "X" offers five flights a day to destination "Y" out of DCA but only ONE flight daily out of RIC - then depending on WHEN the traveler needs to fly - they may be left with NO CHOICE but to flyout of DCA. So say RIC offers an early morning flight to SFO - but travelers can fly out of DCA to SFO at not just early morning but also mid-late morning, noon, afternoon and early evening... well, the added flexibility of MORE flights to same destinations gives DCA a sizeable competitive advantage. So just because RIC may offer competitive pricing to same destinations as DCA - if the frequency or timing of the flight isn't there for a given traveler, then we lose that passenger to Washington, which negatively impacts us from the perspective of overall traffic and overall demand. I think more than costs, THIS is going to be the toughest nut to crack - because additional FREQUENCY is DIRECTLY dependent on demand. And frankly there likely is NOT the demand out of CVA for, say, five flights a day to San Francisco. We may be packing the one daily fight full to the gills - but we'd have a hard time filling out more than, say, two a day. this is a tough hurdle to scale - but scale it we must!

That will be a longer-term solution. We fill up that first flight. Then land a second and fill it up. Then a third - and so on.

I believe it's been brought up by other posters that not only does RIC need more destinations - but we're reaching a point now that FREQUENCY is going to be the buzzword that we'll need to keep an eye on going forward. It's a logistical hurdle for which we must solve.

3.) Educating the masses and getting the word out: in my mind, that's the EASIEST one to tackle. This is where the REAL low-hanging fruit resides - but one into which we need to put the most work. We should be RELENTLESS in MARKETING MARKETING MARKETING MARKETING MARKETING the living daylights out of RIC at all costs. Spend the money - get this airport marketed!!! The ROI will be MORE than worth it!

@flack4ric-- I believe marketing is your bailiwick as well as the folks with whom you work. No question  you see the ardent support on forums such as ours here for the airport. Please let the folks on your team know! We're behind you - but we can go only as far as the marketing efforts of those who have the power to really push the message out to the broader public can and will take it. GO FOR IT, my friend!! 

@RVABizSenseMike-- I know it's not your job or RBS' job to act as an "advertiser" or "booster" for the airport. HOWEVER - regular feature stories covering the airport - and I don't mean just the occasional one-off daily piece about airline "x" has added destination "y" to their list of offerings of flights from RIC. I'm talking full-on feature stories.

Look, if the kindly Dr. Slipek can wax poetic about Metrarail's Silver Line to IAD and the wonders of flying to wherever from Dulles - than can we not also get good, functional, informational, educational deep-dive feature stories (or a feature SERIES???) about what's new at and what's coming to RIC? Interviews with the powers-that-be that ask some tough questions:  "Let's look at the airport master plan. What will it take to reach a critical mass of passenger traffic to kick in an expansion program of the terminal, new (parallel) runways, etc.?" Interviews touching on marketing - funding - and good feature information about what the airport offers and how it is a gem hiding under a bushel basket in metro Richmond. Stuff like that.

Sure - it's not late-breaking news - but it's every bit as worthy as Dr. Slipek's piece encouraging CVA travelers to schlep to NOVA to fly, which, I'm sorry, should not have been allowed to have been published. We need to tout our own FIRST. I honestly don't give a rat's you-know-what about the Metro Silver Line or flights from IAD. What I DO care about is: what are  WE doing to get express bus or BRT service connecting downtown RVA and RIC? What's the status of new international service at RIC? What is the airport doing to retain passenger traffic and limit traffic bleed to other airports? What new airlines are RIC and their higher-ups actively recruiting to come fly to/from Richmond? You see where I'm coming from?

Apologies, Mike - I'm not kvetching at you. I was, however, VERY put off by Dr. Slipek's piece - and by the fact that RBS even allowed it to run. 

All of that said, NOW is the time to go pedal-to-the-metal to PUSH the message of RIC to the public. PREACH THAT GOSPEL, folks - that RIC is the PLACE TO BE for all your travel needs!

Let's remember our mantra:

"RIC - Building Terminal 2 and Concourse C -- one flight at a time."

Edited March 10, 2023 by I miss RVA

[Flood Zone]

1 hour ago, eandslee said:

For domestic travelers, it’s hard to say.  I know we lose some…how many is anyone’s guess.

I think whatever metric that could be used to track that historically needs to be reset now that RIC has some cross-country direct options. Speaking as someone with family in the Bay Area, and whose wife has a best friend in LA, we normally would use Dulles to get a direct flight and avoid the connecting flight hassle. Especially once we had kids (last time, in 2019, and our kids were relatively young, we had a very pleasant experience with Dulles to LAX, SFO to Dulles). But RIC is in the ballpark for that sort of thing now, and that's huge.

 

15 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

There is this "common knowledge" that you can get cheaper flights if you drive to IAD. Except it's a myth.

I agree it's a myth - now. But it was true for so long that it created a perception. And perceptions are hard to break.

At any rate, it's not necessarily just about cost, but also about options. Direct flights, number of available departure/arrival times, etc. But RIC is improving, and I agree with the sentiment that the world needs to know it!

[I miss RVA]

17 minutes ago, Flood Zone said:

I think whatever metric that could be used to track that historically needs to be reset now that RIC has some cross-country direct options. Speaking as someone with family in the Bay Area, and whose wife has a best friend in LA, we normally would use Dulles to get a direct flight and avoid the connecting flight hassle. Especially once we had kids (last time, in 2019, and our kids were relatively young, we had a very pleasant experience with Dulles to LAX, SFO to Dulles). But RIC is in the ballpark for that sort of thing now, and that's huge.

 

I agree it's a myth - now. But it was true for so long that it created a perception. And perceptions are hard to break.

At any rate, it's not necessarily just about cost, but also about options. Direct flights, number of available departure/arrival times, etc. But RIC is improving, and I agree with the sentiment that the world needs to know it!

 all of this!

1.) We're still years behind the 8-ball on cost PERCEPTION. VERY well said, @Flood Zone

2.) Flight frequency and arrival/departure times are going to be the toughest hurdle to clear. We solve for this - then we can really actually compete. Right now, it's RIC's kryptonite that other airports in the region have over us.

[eandslee]

55 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

2.) Flight frequency and arrival/departure times are going to be the toughest hurdle to clear. We solve for this - then we can really actually compete. Right now, it's RIC's kryptonite that other airports in the region have over us.

I would add to that, nonstop destinations. Despite getting some good ones lately, RIC hasn’t managed to land ALL the good nonstop destinations people want and can be difficult to add if there is no data from the airport that indicates that people want to fly there (because they’re going to other airports where their destination is served).  Airlines don’t know the demand signal for a destination at a certain airport unless passengers use said airport to travel there…even if it means a connection or two.  It’s definitely a tough one.