> First, LAWA did not add bus service from VNY to PMD.
> Supervisor Antonovich did and the service is from Santa > Clarita to PMD not VNY. The bus departs from VNY bus
> station because there is no where else to keep the bus
> overnight.

Well if that is incorrect, then I’m happy to fix it. As I wrote in my previous response to Paul’s comment, the facts came from the Daily News article from May 26 that I cited in my post. If it’s incorrect, you’d be better served contacting Karen Maeshiro at the Daily News since she clearly has far more readers than I do.

> Next, we would have been happy to have USAir service PMD
> to PHX but guess what? They didn’t want to. So we had to
> go with the only airline that would agree to the
> service.

That’s exactly what’s wrong with this process. So, there was an airline that could have made sense but they weren’t interested? Well, you have this subsidy so you clearly need to find someone before it burns a hole in your pants regardless of whether it’s a good option or not, right? It’s the best option available, and that’s good enough, even if it has a slim chance of being sustainable? I don’t believe that.

> Next, it’s very common for subsides to be given to
> airlines in small markets to get started. That’s what
> Small Community Air Service grants are for. The subs
> come from the Federal Government, not LAWA. And lastly,
> money spent for PMD service doesn’t take away from LAX
> improvements.

Yes, it sure is, and success is limited at best. Here’s a little reading with numbers for you, but I’m sure you’ve already seen it. You say the money is federal, and yes, some of it is, but money does come from LAWA. In fact, this 2006 release says LAWA put in $1.1m into the project. While I suspect it’s more, I don’t have anything right here to prove that. Either way, that’s money that could be put into LAX if not simply used to help reduce landing fees (though admittedly by not much).

> SFO was the ONLY option for the PMD service. In fact,
> numerous studies and analysis were done and SFO was the
> most traveled destination from the AV.

So just because it’s the only option means it should actually be done? Yes, routes with higher percentages of local traffic tend to perform better, but what are the projected PDEWs for PMD-SFO? You can’t support a route from a place like PMD on point-to-point service alone, because it’s just not big enough. So while you may have picked the route with the highest percentage of locals, you’ve disadvantaged yourself by going over an airport that most people will avoid like the plague for connections. Not only are fog delays common, but you have to backtrack to connect to most of the country. So, you may end up with 10 or even 20 locals on a flight, but you’re going to lack the connections.

This all goes back to my previous point. For such a high risk program where about half of the subsidies fail, you went with the only available option even though there are clear flaws in that? I’d have opted just not to go for the subsidy. Not to be too repetitive, but save your money and lower landing fees even further. That’s the best way to attract long-term sustainable airline service.

> People in the AV want their airport to stay open. PMD is
> like hundreds of other small community airports around
> the country that desperately need a “way out” of town
> other than driving on dangerous and overcrowded
> freeways.

With only a 30% (or even 40%) load factor, they don’t seem to want it to stay open that badly. The emotional argument just doesn’t work. People need to use it or lose it, and so far they aren’t using it nearly enough. That’s why no airline would go in there without a subsidy in the first place.

> If you are one of the millions of people who bitch their
> way through LAX each year, give PMD a try. You have
> nothing to lose and everything to gain.

As I said in my comment to Paul, Palmdale would be my absolutely last choice. I have seven airports that are closer to me with commercial service (CLD, SNA, LGB, LAX, ONT, BUR, OXR), and five of those have service to the Bay Area, so there’s never a reason to go to PMD. And why do all those airports have service to the Bay? Because there’s demand for it.

> I began my career in the travel business before Brett
> was out of diapers. I work on a side of this business
> that he is not familiar with. I have met Brett and he
> has met me. He needs to stick to blogging about
> traveling and get out of the politics until he becomes
> more educated on how things work.

Ah, so what you’re saying is that if someone disagrees with you, they should butt out? That doesn’t seem like the more inclusive style of politics that I prefer. See, there are plenty of valid opinions out there, and I would recommend listening to them and trying to get more information about them instead of invalidating them immediately because they don’t agree with yours. This business has changed a great deal over the years, so while someone may have more time spent than I do, it doesn’t mean that I am somehow incompetent and unable to display my opinion.

I don’t put all of the details of every argument I have into my posts, because, frankly, that would bore most of my readers. If, however, you would like to have a civilized discussion, feel free to send me an email or post a reply comment and we can have it in public.

Paul – If I got the facts wrong, I apologize. This came from the Daily News article on the subject, to which I linked in the original post. I linked to a republished version though, because it is no longer available on the Daily News site except as a paid archive. Let me go through your comments one by one:

> I read in the Antelope Valley Press that United came up
> with the idea to offer more frequent flights with
> 30-seat turboprops, not the airport authority.

The article said that airport “officials” wanted to do it in the very first paragraph. If that’s incorrect, please send me the truth and I’ll make a correction.

> Also, the PMD website shows traffic for May that looks
> to be around a 40 percent load factor which is
> approaching the one-year goal of 50 percent.

This article didn’t have May because it was published before the month finished. I was going off the previous information. Either way, 40% is a long way from good, but yes, it is better.

> It takes time to build a market from scratch. More
> flights will give business, government and military
> travelers the schedule frequency they need.

I agree that more frequency is good for attracting the business traveler in general, but I’m not convinced that this is the right way to go here. Those 30 seat props will take about 20 minutes longer on a one hour flight than a jet, so that’s valuable time lost. Yes, if you live locally then it will still save you time flying vs driving, but there is still a fair amount of aversion to those props. The Brasilia is not exactly a spacious next generation prop; it’s loud and small and a fair number of people will avoid it.

I think my bigger beef is with San Francisco as the market here as opposed to the frequency strategy. I’ll address Kate’s rant in my next comment, but in short, San Francisco isn’t going to serve the needs of many people in PMD. I’ll end it there and address it again in my next comment.

> Have you tried it?

No, I haven’t, and I don’t really plan to. PMD is a 90 mile drive from my home, and there are 7 airports with commercial service that are closer than that (CLD, SNA, LGB, LAX, ONT, BUR, OXR) So I would never be the target market for this route. I just hope we don’t see further efforts to move intl flights out there, because I’ll fly locally and connect instead.

Thanks for your comment, and please send me info if any of the quoted facts are incorrect. (You should probably also copy Karen Maeshiro at the Daily News since she wrote the article.)

Palmdale’s a nice idea, maybe with high-speed transit, for smaller hops, but we will still need LAX for the foreseeable future.