We have a very nice airport for the size of our metro. These images were taken in response to a discussion over at AbsoluteDSM where it was revealed that our airport is somewhat nicer and more modern than the Des Moines airport, even though it has more flights. When visitors may be expecting to land next to crop dusters and barns, their first impression of the Quad Cities is a clean and modern airport. I think that's a good thing.
The terminal, as seen from the taxiway.
Art in the airport, in the form of a mural and terrazzo floor with a map of the QC area.
The A and B concourses. These shots were taken at 11:15 or so, so they're empty. They're always pretty empty due to non-passengers not being allowed past security post-9/11.
20 comments:
The airport is also very nice from the operational side. It has a great runway layout, good approaches, and good bad weather capability.
To me, the Quad City Airport would be a great place to base an aircraft rework facility, an Air National Guard Base, or a cargo hub. I was very surprised some years back when the ANG moved the tankers from O'Hare, that they did not go to Moline.
Thanks for that Huck; I'm glad to hear that stuff from someone with a pilot's point of view. I know I have been impressed with the airport's handling of bad weather. It seems like we end up waiting for destinations to get their runways cleared more than ours. Again though, that's just coming from an unskilled observer.
The airport is a great part of the QC. I know when I've returned from other airports I've gone through horrible hassles with long lines, one for the ticket, one for putting your bags through and another for security. You can stand around for 2-3hrs in the various lines. Moline is smooth and efficient, probably because they have so little traffic. The workers there are very professional too.
It's important because it is often people's first impression of our area. I was on a return flight one time and sat next to someone from Tennessee on their way to Clinton for business. It was their first time to the area. They had no clue what the area was like - they really thought they were flying to some small town in the middle of nowhere (their flight said "Moline" not "Quad Cities", right?). I suggested several restaurants, but I'm not sure they saw much of the Quad Cities beyond the airport. I'm sure their impression was that it was a small airport, yes, but fairly modern and clean.
Everything said above is true. The QC Airport is a superb facility with friendly, professional workers and great operations.
Another oft-overlooked attribute: low fares. Fares may not seem low to occasional travelers, but they are far more competitive at MLI than at hub airports like Minneapolis (MSP) or even similar airports like CID (Cedar Rapids).
There are a couple reasons for this. First, because no single airline dominates the airport and passengers have to connect to most destinations, there is real competition on most routes. Compare that to an airport like MSP (where NW dominates).
Second, the airport administration worked hard to bring AirTran to town and keep them happy.
AirTran uses a "low cost" pricing structure different from the legacies (AA, DL, NW, UA). But the legacies generally match AirTran's prices on advance-purchase roundtrip tickets to destinations that AirTran serves. That translates into lower across-the-board fares for most travelers using MLI compared to similar airports like CID.
No, I'm not a shill for the airport authorities--or AirTran. I no longer live in the QC and mostly fly NW. But I have transited the airport hundreds of times over the years, and am a very happy customer.
Great Picture Huck.
About 6 years ago there was a cargo company in the big hanger on the south side of the field. They were forced to move out so a local manufacturer could use it to test equipment. They eventually stopped hauling freight from The Quad City Airport and relocated in a city that found an airport should be used for planes and not manufacturing purposes.
Holy cow, maybe this really IS something we can all agree on.
One thing I'm curious about, is how people of Rock Island County feel about funding something that's used by the entire region? I almost wish Scott County residents would be taxed like $1 a year or something, just to be used for capital improvements to the MLI airport. Maybe that could get the airline counter area updated to match the rest of the terminal.
I suppose I'm imagining way too much cooperation there though.
Here's a fairer way to bring in money for capital improvements QCI. Instead of charging Scott County Residents a buck each, just add a departure tax to each ticket of $25. That way those who don't care to use the airport don't subsidize something that they will never use. It's only fair that those who benefit from something should pay for their own way. It's the same with the building you live in. Why should others pay your way for a cheap place to live?
I don't know where you keep getting the idea that my rent is somehow cheap... but anyway.
You don't think that having a good airport is good for our community, whether you personally use it or not? I don't use the Bettendorf Family Museum, but I think its an important asset to the community.
First impressions are important, and while we're fixing up our road gateways to the QC, we shouldn't forget our air gateway. Fortunately, the airport's true first impression, the concourse, already looks great. I guess I'm just surprised there's not some sort of a regional, bi-state airport authority. Or maybe there already is, but it doesn't levy taxes.
I agree too. I brought my adult step daughter and her 3 year old there recently and the check out guy was the friendliest and kindest man ever. The check out lady got my daughter a big bag for the car seat and helped her greatly. Nice place, great and friendly service. The lady at the Davenport Fire Dept/NEO can learn a thing or two from those folks.
two thumbs up on the airport AND this post. Let's elect Mr. Airport Guy (what is his name?) as our next Mayor.
It's still Bruce Carter, isn't it?
----------------------------
Airports are unusual animals because they can receive funding from several sources.
The first is internally generated revenue. Revenues from contracts with airlines (for gates and services), vendors (for renting space), and parking are the main in house revenues. Parking is often the biggest revenue generator, although I'm not familiar enough with MLI's balance sheet.
The second, and typically used only for capital improvements, are bond issues and airport authority (governmental) taxes. Taxes are high enough on the Illinois side, the area is complicated by a bi-state arrangement, and the airport seems to run very well. So if we went that route, I'd expect bonds to be issued long before taxes were mentioned.
The third is both the most confusing and most generous. The federal government provides capital for about 90% of flight side capital improvements from passenger taxes, based on the number of operations (takeoffs and landings) at that airport. I don't know Moline's classification, but I'd guess it's classified as a "medium" airport and getting close to the edge of "large" based on the number of flights. A "large" airport receives significantly more federal funding. One reason to keep an AirTran in town has as much to do with fares as it does to preserve operations at the airport.
When I was flying out east, we'd get "invited" to practice our landings at a certain airport because they were often very close to the threshold to "large". Enough practice landings would help them make the mark and continue their status as a large airport. That's why I'd like to see an ANG unit move here. The more operations, the better funding.
Scott County residents shouldn't pay for MLI. We are paying for our own airport in Mount Joy, including the salary of Byron Baxter, who oversee's the operation.
It's easy for QCI and others like him to suggest constantly to raise taxes and fees for every project under the sun, when he is a tenant who pays no property taxes or fees. If you ever get out into the real world QCI, paying a ever increasing property tax bill, my bet is you will change your thinking.
Don't you ever get tired of avoiding real issues and writing personal attacks on me?
I wonder just how much of a tax burden Mt Joy is, if any, and who other than GA operators does it benefit. It's a nice place, but there are no Part 121 ops there, or Part 135 for that matter. Nice land for commercial and industrial use, though.
----------------------------
QCI, I'd insert "lame" between writing and personal.
If you google around, you'll find that in 2001 the airport's budget was about $7MM, of which about $1.5MM was supposed to come from parking. Since then, they've massively increased use of the airport, so my guess is that parking, landing fees, and gate agreements with the airlines now contribute a very big chunk of their operational costs.
I don't think local taxes are paying for very much of it at all.
Anon 1154 are those numbers for MLI?
I believe he was implying they were Huck. The low taxes thing is good, even to an evil apartment dweller like myself.
On the AbsoluteDSM topic about the Des Moines airport (found here) the marketing director for their airport has been actively posting, starting on page 3. He said this about the funding difference between DSM and MLI:
"Keep in mind that QCI (By which he means Quad City International, not me) is managed by an Authority. Minus a lot of details, that means they have access to a greater range of resources (ie, money) than DSM does."
So at least we're set up in a way that seems to be the envy of Des Moines.
Anon 2:40 and 11:54 back again...
The numbers in my 11:54 post were from Bruce Carter's US Senate testimony after 9/11:
http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/111401carter.htm
In his testimony he said:
"Our annual budget for 2001 is $7,000,000. We are experiencing a 20% decline in parking lot revenue, which equates to an annualized loss of $300,000..."
Now that I read it again I may have misinterpreted the relationship of the 20% decline in parking revenue and the $300k loss, though. I'm not sure if that's the loss solely from parking ($300k would be a 20% loss on $1.5MM expected revenues), or if the parking revenue shortfall (whatever it was in dollars) caused an overall loss at the airport of $300k.
Since 2001, things have gotten much better for air travel in general and for MLI in particular.
MLI was on track to board 450,000 passengers in 2006, and with a $4.50 passenger facility charge for each one, that's over $2MM in revenue right there. My guess is that very little local taxpayer money is going to fund the airport.
Post a Comment