MASTER PLAN UPDATEgfia-master-plan-update.com/documents/...3-aviation-forecast-v3.0.pdf · Summary...

[Refer to the Report

Template Instructions

for swapping out a

cover image]

MASTER PLAN

UPDATE Chapter 3

Aviation Activity

Forecasts

MASTER PLAN

UPDATE

IN ASSOCIATION WITH:

WOOLPERT, INC.

MCGUINESS UNLIMITED, INC.

STRATEGY 5, LLC

SURVEY SOLUTIONS, INC.

PREPARED BY:

RS&H

Prepared for the Gerald R. Ford

International Airport Authority

A V I A T I O N F O R E C A S T S

Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preparation ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-v

Preface 3-vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... 3-vii

Chapter 3 Aviation Activity Forecasts ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 3-2

Forecast Framework .............................................................................................................................................. 3-2

FAA Review Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Historical Aviation Activity ....................................................................................................................................... 3-6

GFIA Airline Service ............................................................................................................................................... 3-6

Airline Markets Served ....................................................................................................................................... 3-11

Historical Enplanements .................................................................................................................................... 3-19

Historical Air Cargo Activity ............................................................................................................................. 3-28

3.3 Factors Affecting Aviation Demand ................................................................................................................... 3-37

Airport Market Service Region ....................................................................................................................... 3-37

Regional Economic Trends ............................................................................................................................... 3-45

Airline Consolidation and Competition ....................................................................................................... 3-54

United States Enplanement Trends .............................................................................................................. 3-57

Passenger Yield ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-58

Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-61

Summary of Factors Affecting Aviation Demand .................................................................................... 3-62

3.4 Enplanement Forecasts ........................................................................................................................................... 3-63

Review of Current and Previous Forecast Data ........................................................................................ 3-64

GFIA Enplanement Forecasts ........................................................................................................................... 3-66

GFIA Enplanement Forecasts Summary ...................................................................................................... 3-73

Air Cargo Forecasts ............................................................................................................................................. 3-75

3.5 General Aviation Based Aircraft Forecasts ...................................................................................................... 3-76

3.6 Operations Forecast ................................................................................................................................................. 3-78

Air Carrier Passenger Operations Forecast ................................................................................................ 3-78

Air Cargo Operations Forecast ....................................................................................................................... 3-82

General Aviation and Military Operations Forecast ............................................................................... 3-82

Summary Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ...................................................................................... 3-87

Annual Instrument Approaches ..................................................................................................................... 3-89

3.7 Design Hour Activity Forecasts ............................................................................................................................ 3-90

Busy Hour Arrivals and Departures ............................................................................................................... 3-90

Peak Hour Arrival and Departure Passengers ........................................................................................... 3-98

3.8 Critical Aircraft ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-104


Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-iii

3.9 Summary of Forecasts .......................................................................................................................................... 3-104

3.10 Comparison of Base Case Forecast with FAA Terminal Area Forecast .............................................. 3-106

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Base Case Forecast Comparison with FAA Terminal Area Forecast ........................................................ 3-5

Table 3-2 Air Carrier Shares for Calendar Years 2010-2016 ........................................................................................... 3-9

Table 3-3 Carrier Shares for Calendar Year 2010 and 2016 ......................................................................................... 3-10

Table 3-4 GFIA Top 25 Markets 2012-2016 ........................................................................................................................ 3-14

Table 3-5 GFIA Airline Market Service Frequency for Selected Months .................................................................. 3-15

Table 3-6 Airline Identifier Codes and Common Abbreviations for Aircraft Models ......................................... 3-17

Table 3-7 GFIA Historical Enplanements .............................................................................................................................. 3-20

Table 3-8 GFIA Monthly Enplanements, (2011 – 2016) .................................................................................................. 3-23

Table 3-9 GFIA Historical Air Cargo 2004 – 2016 ............................................................................................................. 3-29

Table 3-10 GFIA Historical Passenger Air Carrier and Commuter/Air Taxi Operations ..................................... 3-31

Table 3-11 GFIA Historical General Aviation and Military Operations ..................................................................... 3-33

Table 3-12 FAA ATADS Operations at GFIA for 2016 by Aircraft Type .................................................................... 3-34

Table 3-13 Commercial Service Airports in Michigan ..................................................................................................... 3-39

Table 3-14 Enplanements and Market Shares of West Michigan Commercial Service Airports (1990 – 2016)

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-41

Table 3-15 Average One Way Fares for West Michigan Airports .............................................................................. 3-45

Table 3-16 Top 10 Metropolitan Areas with Fastest Growing GRP (2010 – 2015) .............................................. 3-49

Table 3-17 Long-Term Industry Employment Projections (Sub-Sectors) ............................................................... 3-50

Table 3-18 Regional, State, and National Economic Projections ............................................................................... 3-52

Table 3-19 Top 25 International Destinations 2012 – 2016 ......................................................................................... 3-56

Table 3-20 Historical and Forecast United States Enplanements (Millions) .......................................................... 3-58

Table 3-21 Historical and Forecast Air Carrier Passenger Yields ................................................................................ 3-59

Table 3-22 TAF 2016 Forecast Projections .......................................................................................................................... 3-65

Table 3-23 GFIA Base Case Enplanement Forecast .......................................................................................................... 3-68

Table 3-24 Low Enplanement Scenario ................................................................................................................................ 3-70

Table 3-25 High Growth Enplanement Scenario .............................................................................................................. 3-72

Table 3-26 Summary of Enplanement Forecasts .............................................................................................................. 3-73

Table 3-27 GFIA Air Cargo Forecast (Pounds).................................................................................................................... 3-76

Table 3-28 Current Based Aicraft By Type ........................................................................................................................... 3-76

Table 3-29 United States General Aviation Trends .......................................................................................................... 3-77

Table 3-30 Base Case General Aviation Based Aircraft Forecast ................................................................................ 3-78

Table 3-31 Airline Fleet Mix....................................................................................................................................................... 3-79

Table 3-32 Forecast Air Carrier Passenger Operations ................................................................................................... 3-81

Table 3-33 FAA TAF General Aviation and Military Operations Forecast ............................................................... 3-84

Table 3-34 Base Case General Aviation and Military Operations Forecast ............................................................ 3-86

Table 3-35 Summary Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations ......................................................................................... 3-88

Table 3-36 Base Case-TAF Comparison................................................................................................................................ 3-89


Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-iv

Table 3-37 Forecast of Annual Instrument Approaches ................................................................................................ 3-89

Table 3-38 Busy Day and Busy Hour Arrivals and Departures for Forecast Years ............................................... 3-93

Table 3-39 Peak Hour Arrivals and Departures Passengers for Forecast Years .................................................... 3-98

Table 3-40 Summary of Forecasts ...................................................................................................................................... 3-105

Table 3-41 Base Case Forecast Comparison with the FAA Terminal Area Forecast ......................................... 3-107

LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 3-1 GFIA Non-Stop Destinations by airport ........................................................................................................ 3-12

Exhibit 3-2 GFIA Arrivals and Departures for the Peak Hour – July 2016 ............................................................... 3-18

Exhibit 3-3 GFIA Historical Record of Total Enplanements (1990-2016) ................................................................. 3-21

Exhibit 3-4 GFIA Historic Record of Enplanements by Month (2011-2016) ........................................................... 3-24

Exhibit 3-5 GFIA Historic Record of Enplaned and Deplaned Passenger Data (2004-2016) ........................... 3-25

Exhibit 3-6 GFIA Historic Load Factors (2004 – 2016) ..................................................................................................... 3-27

Exhibit 3-7 GFIA Historical Air Cargo (Pounds) (2004-2016) ........................................................................................ 3-30

Exhibit 3-8 Historical Total Airport Operations ................................................................................................................. 3-36

Exhibit 3-9 GFIA Airport Market Service Region ............................................................................................................... 3-38

Exhibit 3-10 Historical Enplanements of West Michigan Commercial Service Airports .................................... 3-42

Exhibit 3-11 2016 Market Share of Enplanements by West Michigan Commercial Service Airports .......... 3-43

Exhibit 3-12 Historical Market Share of West Michigan Commercial Service Airports ..................................... 3-44

Exhibit 3-13 Passenger Yields ................................................................................................................................................... 3-60

Exhibit 3-14 Comparison of TAF and Enplanement Forecast Trend Lines .............................................................. 3-74

Exhibit 3-15 GFIA Arrivals and Departures for the Peak Hour – July 2016 ............................................................. 3-92

Exhibit 3-16 GFIA Arrivals and Departures for the Peak Hour – 2021 ...................................................................... 3-94




Exhibit 3-20 GFIA Combined Distribution of Passengers – July 2016 ...................................................................... 3-99

Exhibit 3-21 Combined Distribution of Passengers – Peak Day 2021 ................................................................... 3-100





Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-v

PREPARATION

“The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) as provided under Section 505 of the Airport and Airways Improvement Act of 1982,

as amended by the Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987. The contents do not necessarily

reflect the official views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any way

constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted

therein, nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance

with applicable public laws.”


Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-vi

PREFACE

The Gerald R. Ford International Airport (Airport) Master Plan Update (Update) provides the Gerald Ford

International Airport Authority (GFIAA) with a strategy to develop the Airport. The intent of the Master Plan

Update is to provide guidance that will enable the Authority to strategically position the Airport for the

future by maximizing operational efficiency and business effectiveness, as well as maximizing property

availability for aeronautical and non-aeronautical development through efficient planning. While long-term

development is considered in master planning efforts, the typical planning horizon for the Master Plan

Update is 20 years.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides guidance for Master Plan development in FAA Advisory

Circular 150 / 5070-6B, Airport Master Plans. Although not required, the Advisory Circular strongly

recommends airports prepare a Master Plan. Funding for the Master Plan Update is provided primarily by

the Federal Aviation Administration through an Airport Improvement Program grant.

A comprehensive Master Plan Update was last prepared in 2004. This Master Plan Update was initiated in

June 2016 and is anticipated to conclude in 2018. The GFIAA entered into a contract with the firm RS&H to

lead this effort. In accordance with FAA requirements, the Master Plan Update includes a public and

stakeholder involvement program.


Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAAC Airport Airline Affairs Committee

AAC Aircraft Approach Category

AAD Annual Average Day

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

AAGR Average Annual Growth Rate

AC Advisory Circular

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACMI Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance, and Insurance

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program

ADAPT Annual Delay and Activity Performance Times

ADF Aircraft Deicing Fluid

ADG Airplane Design Group

ADO Airports District Office-Detroit

AGL Above Ground Level

AIP Airport Improvement Program

Airport Gerald R. Ford International Airport

AIT Advanced Imaging Technology

ANOVA Analysis Of Variance

AOA Air Operations Area

APU Auxiliary Power Units

ARC Airport Reference Code

ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting

ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center

ARTS Automated Radar Terminal System

ASDA Accelerate-Stop Distance Available

ASDE Airport Surface Detection Equipment

ASPM Aviation System Performance Metrics

ASR Airport Surveillance Radar

ATADS Air Traffic Activity Data System

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATCT Airport Traffic Control Tower

AZO Kalamazoo TRACON Facility

BAT Best Available Technology

BBJ Boeing Business Jet

BMPs Best Management Practices

BRL Building Restriction Line

C90 Chicago TRACON Facility

CAA Clean Air Act

CAD Computer-aided Design

CAP Civil Air Patrol


Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-viii

CAT Category I, II, or III (used to denote ILS Approach types)

CATS Compliance Activity Tracking System

CBIS Checked Baggage Inspection System

CBP Customs and Border Protection

CBRA Checked Baggage Resolution Area

CCF Cascade Community Foundation

CCSF Certified Cargo Screening Facility

CDS Consolidated De-Icing Services

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System

CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator

CFC Customer Facility Charge

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIP Capital Improvement Plan

CO Carbon Monoxide

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CONRAC Consolidated Rental Car Facility

CUPPS Common Use Passenger Processing Systems

CVG Cincinnati TRACON Facility

d/b/a Doing Business As

DDFS Design Day Flight Schedule

DH Decision Height

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DME Distance Measuring Equipment

DNL Day-night Average Sound Level

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DTW Detroit Metropolitan International Airport

EAS Essential Air Service

EDS Explosive Detection System

EMCS Emergency Management and Control System

EMS Emergency Medical Service

EMS Environmental Management System

EOC Emergency Operations Center

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EQA Equivalent Aircraft

EST Eastern Standard Time

ETD Explosive Trace Detection

EU European Union

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Aviation Regulation

FBO Fixed Base Operator

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FedEx FedEx Corporation

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency


Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-ix

FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FIS Federal Inspection Station

FL Flight Level

FMRA FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

FSDO Flight Standards District Office (FAA)

FTE Full-time Equivalent

FTZ Foreign Trade Zone

FY Fiscal Year

GA General Aviation

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GFIA Gerald R. Ford International Airport

GFIAA Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority

GLD Glide Slope Indicator

GPS Global Positioning System

GRE Ground Run-Up Enclosure

GRP Gross Regional Product

GRR Gerald R. Ford International Airport (IATA code)

GPU Ground Power Unit

GSE Ground Support Equipment

GVMC Grand Valley Metropolitan Council

HIRL High Intensity Runway Lighting

HVAC Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning

IAF Instrument Approach Fix

IAP Instrument Approach Procedure

IATA International Air Transport Association

IBC International Building Code

IFR Instrument Flight Rules

ILS Instrument Landing System

INM Integrated Noise Model

INT Intercept

KCDA Kent County Department of Aeronautics

KCTC Kent Career Technical Center

KISD Kent Intermediate School District

LAN Lansing TRACON Facility

LCC Low Cost Carrier

LDA Landing Distance Available

LED Light Emitting Diode

LOC Localizer

LOS Level of Service

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

MASP Michigan Airport System Plan

MBS Saginaw TRACON Facility

MEDC Michigan Economic Development Corporation


Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-x

MPU Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update

MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation

MEP Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing

MKE Milwaukee TRACON Facility

MKG Muskegon TRACON Facility

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSL Mean Sea Level

MTOW Maximum Takeoff Weight

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NADP Noise Abatement Departure Profiles

NAS National Airspace System

NAVAID Navigational Aid

NCP Noise Compatibility Program

NDB Non-directional Beacon

NEMs Noise Exposure Maps

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NextGen Next Generation Airspace Technologies and Procedures

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NM Nautical Mile

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems

NPL National Priorities List

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OAG Official Airline Guide

O&D Origin and Destination

O&M Operations and Maintenance

OER Operating Expense Ratio

OFA Object Free Area

OFZ Obstacle Free Zone

ORD Chicago O’Hare International Airport (IATA code)

OSR On-Screen Resolution

PAL Planning Activity Level

PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicators

PCC Portland Cement Concrete

PCI Pavement Condition Index

PDARS Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System

PFC Passenger Facility Charges

PIPC Personal Income Per Capita

PM-10 Particulate Matter with a Diameter of 10 Microns or Less

PM-2.5 Particulate Matter with a Diameter of 2.5 Microns or Less


Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-xi

PMP Airport Pavement Management Program

QTA Quick-Turnaround Facility

RDC Runway Design Code

RNAV Area Navigation

ROFA Runway Object Free Area

RON Remain Overnight

RPZ Runway Protection Zone

RSA Runway Safety Area

RTR Remote Transmitter Receiver

RVR Runway Visual Range

SCM Supply Chain Management

SCS Sterile Corridor System

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office(r)

SIDA Security Identification Display Area

S-ILS Straight ILS

SIP State Implementation Plan

SRM Safety Risk Management

SSCP Security Screening Checkpoint

SVFR Special Visual Flight Rules

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TACAN Tactical Air Navigation

TAF FAA Terminal Area Forecast

TDG Taxiway Design Group

TDZ Touchdown Zone

TDZE Touchdown Zone Elevation

TERPS Terminal Instrument Procedures

TFMS Traffic Flow Management System

TODA Takeoff Distance Available

TORA Takeoff Run Available

TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TVC Traverse City TRACON Facility

UHF Ultra-High Frequency

ULCC Ultra-Low Cost Carrier

UPS United Parcel Service

U.S. United States of America

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDA-WS United States Department of Agriculture - Wildlife Services

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USPS United States Postal Service

VASI Visual Approach Slope Indicator


Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-xii

VFR Visual Flight Rules

VHF Very-High Frequency

VIO Grand Rapids VOR (VICTORY)

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

VOR Very-High Frequency Omnidirectional Range

WAAS Wide Area Augmentation Systems

WHA Wildlife Hazard Assessment

WHMP Wildlife Hazard Management Plan

WMAA West Michigan Aviation Academy

ZAU Chicago ARTCC

ZMP Minneapolis ARTCC

ZOB Cleveland ARTCC


Gerald R. Ford International Airport Master Plan Update – Chapter 3 3-1

CHAPTER 3

AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS



3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents aviation demand forecasts for the Gerald R. Ford International Airport (GFIA) for the

base year 2016 and 20-year planning period. The planning period consists of forecast horizons of 2021,

2026 and 2031, and 2036. The forecasts will also be used for determining the type, size, and timing of

aviation facility development and assessing the ability of the Airport to finance the recommended

development plan.

Forecast Framework

The preferred forecast will be referred to as the Base Case Forecast. It is a comprehensive forecast that

includes an enplanement forecast1, freight forecast (pounds), general aviation (GA) based aircraft forecasts,

forecast of operations2 for commercial, and derivative forecasts that builds off the other forecasts such as

peak hour operations and passenger forecasts.

The Base Case Forecast has the highest probability for achievement. In addition, several specialized

forecasts, or alternative forecasts, were developed for enplanements identifying both a lower and higher

level of enplanements than the Base Case derived from considering a different set of assumptions.

The Base Case enplanement forecast can be used as a barometer for growth in future years. If activity grows

faster than anticipated by this forecasts, i.e., toward the level of enplanements identified by the High Growth

Scenario, then the Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (GFIAA) should reassess their

implementation schedule and accelerate plans as necessary. Similarly, slower than projected growth (Low

Growth Scenario) may warrant GFIAA deferring planned improvements. Actual activity growth should be

frequently compared to anticipated design and construction schedules so that modifications can be

identified, as necessary.

The overall approach to the forecasting effort includes examination of existing aviation demand forecasts

and development of supplemental peak period forecasts of aviation activity based on trends to better

support the Master Plan Update effort.

Given the relative uncertainty surrounding the aviation industry, the Base Case and alternative enplanement

forecasts in the Master Plan Update provides flexibility in the face of such uncertainty. These forecasts serve

as benchmarks for understanding the pace of growth at GFIA should the Base Case Forecast be exceeded,

or conversely, not achieved. Particularly in terms of enplanement forecasts, the forecasts include several

alternative scenario forecasts - a Low scenario and a High Growth scenario.

Reflecting positive trends in United States and the region for future growth in air travel, the Base Case

Forecast assumes continued strong growth between GFIA and city pairs, reduction of seasonal flights of

mainline carriers over time to annual, future increases in non-stop destinations, accommodation of new

business growth such as announced by Switch, and initiation of some form of international activity. The

1 An enplanement is a passenger boarding an aircraft; a deplanement is a passenger deboarding or getting off an

aircraft. 2 An aircraft operation is an aircraft arrival or an aircraft departure. An aircraft landing and takeoff constitutes two

aircraft operations.



High Growth Scenario is based on the Grand Rapids region socioeconomic growth factors – population,

employment, Personal Income Per Capital Personal Income (PIPC), and Gross Regional Product (GRP) – all

of which are approximately equal to or greater than the United States. The Low Growth Scenario assumes

significant change in long-term regional economic growth that slows income growth to the same rate as

for Michigan.

This forecast chapter also includes a review of historical Airport and airline trends and an extensive

examination of socioeconomic factors that impact aviation activity to allow the reader to place GFIA aviation

activity in proper context.

The forecasts of aviation demand for the Airport are presented in the following sections of this chapter:

» Historical Aviation Activity

» Factors Affecting Future Aviation Demand

» Enplanement Forecasts

» Air Cargo Forecast

» General Aviation Based Aircraft Forecasts

» Total Aircraft Operations Forecasts

» Design Hour Activity Forecasts

» Summary of Forecasts and Comparison of the Base Case Forecast with FAA Terminal Area Forecasts

FAA Review Summary

The purpose of this section is to provide a quick summation of forecasts for the reader and for the FAA.

Detail explanation about forecast methodology and results may be found is subsequent portions of these

forecasts.

A key consideration in the development of aviation forecasts is how they compare with the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF). The TAF is a very important planning tool for the FAA.

One such use of the TAF is to review forecasts prepared by Airport Sponsors. In accordance with FAA Order

5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, paragraph

706.b(3), “The sponsor’s forecast must be consistent with the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). To be consistent

with the TAF, the sponsor’s 5-year forecast should be within 10% of the TAF and a 10-year forecast should

be within 15% of the TAF.”3 The FAA must approve the forecasts before the forecasts can be used to prepare

facility requirements in a master plan or before going forward with an environmental document that

requires a forecast. If these stated thresholds are exceeded, the FAA Region office in which the airport is

located will forward the forecasts to FAA Headquarters for approval.

The basis for comparison of forecasts will be the FAA TAF 2016 published in January 2017. The FAA TAF

compares data on a fiscal year basis, i.e., October 1 of a year through September 30 of the next year.

Wherever possible, the Master Plan Update forecasts will use the same fiscal year methodology as the FAA

3 December 23, 2004, memorandum from the FAA Director, Airport Planning and Programming, entitled Revision to

Guidance on Review and Approval of Aviation Forecasts.



TAF for purposes of direct comparison. Data cited will be identified whether it is fiscal year data or calendar

year data.

It should be noted that the Base Case Forecast for GFIA tracks closely with the current FAA TAF, TAF 2016

published January 2017. Table 3-1 below provides a comparison of the GFIA Forecast. Commercial

operations refer to all scheduled and non-scheduled passenger and air cargo operations. As described in

the paragraphs below, the long-term number of commercial operations indicated by TAF 2016 is greater

than the Base Case level of operations predicted by the forecast model as a result of assuming larger

average seating configurations. In addition, long-term increases in forecast GA aviation operations over

TAF 2016 levels derives from a similar increase in the number of based aircraft.



TABLE 3-1

BASE CASE FORECAST COMPARISON WITH FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

Category

Base

Case TAF 2016

Base

Case TAF 2016

Base

Case TAF 2016

Base

Case TAF 2016

Base

Case TAF 2016

Enplanements 1,312,644 1,312,757 1,565,796 1,562,165 1,771,523 1,697,356 1,970,322 1,844,750 2,175,394 1,999,870

Commercial Operations 41,456 41,456 46,093 43,862 50,178 47,099 52,760 50,997 54,725 55,059

GA Based Aircraft 93 93 104 99 116 103 127 109 139 114

GA Operations 38,209 38,209 42,191 39,861 45,499 40,379 48,394 40,912 51,501 41,541

Total Operations 79,665 79,665 88,284 83,723 95,677 87,478 101,154 91,909 106,226 96,600

Comparison with TAF (Percent Base Case Forecast of TAF 2016)(1)

Enplanements 100.0% 100.2% 104.4% 106.8% 108.8%

Commercial Operations 100.0% 105.1% 106.5% 103.5% 99.4%

GA Based Aircraft 100.0% 105.1% 112.6% 116.5% 121.9%

GA Operations 100.0% 105.8% 112.7% 118.3% 124.0%

Total Operations 100.0% 105.4% 109.4% 110.1% 110.0%

SOURCE: RS&H ANALYSIS FOR FISCAL YEARS, 2017

NOTE: PERCENT IS CALCULATED BY BASE CASE DIVIDED BY TAF 2016, PUBLISHED JANUARY 2017



3.2 HISTORICAL AVIATION ACTIVITY

This section provides historical aviation activity information including airlines that serve GFIA and historical

enplanement and aircraft operations data.

GFIA Airline Service

The airlines that provide service to GFIA in 2016 are:

» Allegiant Air, airline abbreviation code (G4)

» American Airlines (AA)

o Current Regional Affiliates: Air Wisconsin, Envoy, Mesaba, PSA Airlines, and SkyWest

» Delta Air Lines (DL)

o Current Regional Affiliates: Compass, Endeavor, Express jet, GoJet, Shuttle America, and

SkyWest

» Southwest Airlines (WN)

» United Airlines (UA)

o Current Regional Affiliates: ExpressJet, GoJet, Shuttle American, SkyWest, and Trans States

According to United States Department of Transportation records in 2016, the four largest airlines in the

United States were American, Delta, Southwest, and United; Allegiant ranked 14th.

Regional airline affiliates may provide service to one or more mainline airlines. From year to year, mainline

carriers may have different affiliate partners. For a list of current regional affiliates and historical data to

2010, Table 3-2 at the end of this section provides a five-year listing of all airlines at GFIA, number of

enplanements, and market share The list above shows only the regional affiliates for each airline that existed

in 2016.

Allegiant Air (G4)

Allegiant Air is an Ultra-Low Cost Carrier (ULCC) that caters to leisure travelers, flying routes from northern

cities to warm-weather and leisure destinations which is the case at GFIA. Allegiant typically serves markets

on a several-times-weekly basis as opposed to daily. Initially, the airline flew to smaller airports in major

market destinations like Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB) where operating costs are lower instead

of Orlando International Airport (MCO); this enabled the airline to offer greatly reduced fares. Allegiant’s

business model is changing with flight offerings to large hubs, as Allegiant’s flights from GFIA to Las Vegas

McCarran International (LAS) and Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airports (FLL).

When Allegiant Air began operating at GFIA in 2009, Allegiant based two aircraft at the airport in 2010 –

both were McDonnell Douglas MD-80s. Allegiant ceased to base aircraft at GFIA in 2011 and passengers

fell from 234,031 in 2010 to 151,580 by 2012. Since 2012, Allegiant has rebounded to 228,844 in 2016 or

about the same level as 2010. As a result, Allegiant’s market share of 10.71% in 2010 eroded to 8.62% in

2016.



American Airlines and US Airways (AA)

American Airlines and US Airways continued to operate separately after their merger on December 9, 2013

until April 8, 2015 when the combined company obtained approval for a Single Operating Certificate from

the FAA. This was the result of AMR Corporation, the parent company of American Airlines, filing for Chapter

11 reorganization on November 29, 2011, and announced a merger agreement with the US Airways Group

in February 2013 to form American Airlines Group, Inc.4

In 2010, American Airlines portion of the market share was 9.25%, served by their regional carrier affiliate,

American Eagle Airlines; US Airways still operated independently at the time. By the end of 2016, American

Airlines market at GFIA share grew to 16.89%. American continues to serve GFIA through its regional

affiliates Air Wisconsin, SkyWest, Envoy Airlines, Mesa, and PSA Airlines (acquired through merger with US

Airways). Of the three legacy carriers remaining in the U.S., American is the only one that does not yet offer

mainline service to GFIA5; American last served GFIA with mainline carrier service in 1995.

The overall trend for American Airlines at GFIA has been growth of market share by regional carrier affiliates.

Envoy Airlines, owned by AMR Corporation, contributes the largest portion of the American share, growing

from 7.2% to 8.04% from 2010 to 2016 of total airport passengers. Chautauqua served as an American

regional affiliate through 2014. In 2014, Air Wisconsin began to provide service as did Mesa Airlines in

2015, PSA Airlines in 2015, and SkyWest in 2016.

American Airlines total passengers served has more than doubled, growing from 202,130 passengers in

2010 to 448,159 passengers in 2016.

Delta Air Lines (DL)

Delta merged with Northwest Airlines on October 29, 2008.

At GFIA, Delta Air Lines has the largest share of Airport passengers. In 2010, the total passengers served

were 977,214, or 44.70% of the market share at the Airport. During 2010, Delta’s market share was

predominantly served by its regional affiliates, accounting for 23.55% of total passengers served, whereas

Delta’s mainline accounted for 21.15% of total passengers served. Through 2016, Delta has maintained its

position as the largest provider to GFIA, serving 1,037,838 passengers. While Delta continues to have the

largest market share of passengers at GFIA, collectively the other airlines grew at a faster rate from 2010 to

2016. Delta’s total market share 39.11% in 2016 which is 5.59% less than 2010 (44.70%).

Since 2010, Delta Air Lines has shifted primarily to mainline service, providing 28.13% via mainline and

10.97% via regional carriers.

Delta Air Lines has had nine different affiliates over the period from 2010-2016 for their Delta Connection

regional services, six in 2016. Endeavor has been a Delta affiliate over the 2010 - 2016 period and accounted

for the largest number of passengers carried by regional airlines for Delta every year, except for 2011 when

Comair was still in business; Comair ceased operations at GFIA in 2012. Four other Delta regional affiliates

have served GFIA each year over the past seven years: Compass, Express Jet, Shuttle America, and SkyWest.

4 Internet. AMR Corporation Chapter 11 Petition PDF, PaceMonitor 5 A legacy carrier is an airline that had established interstate routes at the time the Airline Deregulation Action of 1978

was passed by the U.S. Congress.



GoJet began serving the Airport as a Delta affiliate in 2012. Freedom Airlines ceased to serve GFIA in 2010

as did Mesaba in 2012 and Chautauqua in 2014.

Southwest Airlines (WN)

Southwest Airlines is unique in that it operates one type of aircraft in its fleet, i.e., the Boeing 737. In 2016,

Southwest operated primarily with aircraft having a seating configuration of 143, but also operated flights

with seating configurations of 137 and 175 seats.

In 2009, the Regional Air Alliance of West Michigan was successful in attracting AirTran to Grand Rapids.

On September 27, 2010, Southwest Airlines announced they would acquire AirTran Airways. The deal was

finalized on May 2, 2011 and a single operating certificate for the combined carrier was achieved March 1,

2012.

AirTran operated at GFIA from 2010-2013. In 2010 AirTran served 153,449 passengers capturing 7.02% of

the total Airport’s market share and peaked in 2011 serving 271,106 passengers capturing 11.94% of the

Airport’s total market share. In 2013, Southwest began operation at GFIA and is the only year that both

AirTran and Southwest carried passengers at the Airport; Southwest provided services to 142,700 total

passengers (6.38%) and AirTran 163,756 total passengers (7.32%). In 2016, Southwest provided service to

487,458 passengers at GFIA, an overall market share of 18.37%.

United Airlines (UA)

Like American, United Airlines is a newly merged airline since 2011. United merged with Continental Airlines

on October 1, 2010, and began using Continental’s operating certificate as United Continental Holdings,

Inc. on November 30, 2011.

In 2010, United Airlines’ and Continental’s market shares were 14.64% and 8.03%, respectively, with a

combined total of 22.67%. In 2016, five years following the merger, United Airlines’ market share diminished

to 16.57% (439,631 passengers). United Airlines’ mainline services accounted for 3.72% of the total market

share in 2010 which has decreased to 3.1% today.

United regional affiliates’ market share has increased from 11.92 % in 2010 to 13.47% in 2016. United has

had eight different affiliates over the period.

For 2016, United Airlines had five affiliates providing regional services. The largest United partner recently

has been Express Jet operating as United Express. Prior to the completion of the merger between United

and Continental Airlines, ExpressJet, operated on behalf of Continental Express until 2012, and served a

market share of 8.03% of total Airport passengers in 2010. In 2016, ExpressJet’s share was 5.12% of total

GFIA passengers.

Other United affiliate carriers that have provided service at GFIA over the seven year period include GoJet,

Shuttle America, and SkyWest. Trans States initiated services in 2012 and is the fifth regional affiliate

providing service in 2016. Three others no longer serve the GFIA market; Mesa and CommutAir provided

services through 2014, and Chautauqua was a United regional affiliate for three years, 2012-2014.



TABLE 3-2

AIR CARRIER SHARES FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2010-2016

SOURCE: GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 2016

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Carrier Passengers Share Passengers Share Passengers Share Passengers Share Passengers Shares Passenger Shares Passenger Share

Air Canada (Air Georgian) 8,068 0.37% 7,899 0.35% 9,313 0.44% 6,200 0.28% 0 0.00% 0 - 0 -

Air Tran (Southwest) 153,449 7.02% 271,106 11.94% 247,791 11.61% 163,756 7.32% 804 0.03% 0 - 0 -

Air Wisconsin d/b/a American Airlines/US Airways 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 35,743 1.53% 106,429 4.17% 54,979 2.07%

Allegiant Air 234,031 10.71% 173,658 7.65% 151,580 7.10% 150,968 6.75% 158,488 6.79% 194,996 7.65% 228,844 8.62%

American Connection (Chautauqua) 44,815 2.05% 94,843 4.18% 114,680 5.37% 112,568 5.03% 23,317 1.00% 0 - 0 -

American Eagle (SkyWest) 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 2,189 0.08%

Delta Air Lines 462,326 21.15% 419,856 18.49% 456,142 21.37% 505,821 22.60% 613,638 26.28% 716,366 28.09% 746,562 28.13%

Delta Connection (Chautauqua) 46,862 2.14% 27,131 1.20% 54,319 2.54% 86,037 3.84% 27,465 1.18% 0 - 0 -

Delta Connection (Comair) 103,149 4.72% 162,370 7.15% 70,147 3.29% 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

Delta Connection (Compass) 53,669 2.46% 44,613 1.97% 16,593 0.78% 11,618 0.52% 36,448 1.56% 41,852 1.64% 13,692 0.52%

Delta Connection (Endeavor) 157,886 7.22% 133,568 5.88% 196,380 9.20% 155,338 6.94% 130,036 5.57% 80,848 3.17% 86,306 3.25%

Delta Connection (ExpressJet) 56,337 2.58% 80,839 3.56% 51,518 2.41% 99,593 4.45% 76,746 3.29% 70,346 2.76% 52,409 1.97%

Delta Connection (Freedom) 23,965 1.10% 0 0.00% 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

Delta Connection (GoJet) 0 - 0 - 6,868 0.32% 8,025 0.36% 17,924 0.77% 31,978 1.25% 45,111 1.70%

Delta Connection (Mesaba) 65,283 2.99% 46,071 2.03% 234 0.01% 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

Delta Connection (Shuttle America) 3,257 0.15% 12,047 0.53% 927 0.04% 18,349 0.82% 13,030 0.56% 15,008 0.59% 8,565 0.32%

Delta Connection (SkyWest) 4,480 0.20% 23,264 1.02% 34,380 1.61% 54,346 2.43% 54,366 2.33% 69,026 2.71% 85,193 3.21%

Envoy Airlines d/b/a American 157,315 7.20% 133,672 5.89% 129,799 6.08% 132,762 5.93% 250,266 10.72% 260,187 10.20% 213,317 8.04%

ExpressJet d/b/a Continental Express 175,454 8.03% 159,172 7.01% 22,173 1.04% 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

Frontier Airlines 46,526 2.13% 80,234 3.53% 94,316 4.42% 60,760 2.71% 0 - 0 - 0 -

Frontier Airlines (Chautauqua) 65,506 3.00% 67,042 2.95% 10,996 0.52% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 - 0 -

Frontier/Republic Charter Airlines 0 - 0 - 0 - 1,874 0.08% 1,560 0.07% 1,009 0.04% 0 -

Gold Transportation - Charters 936 0.04% 1,880 0.08% 1,032 0.05% 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

Mesa dba American 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 63,255 2.48% 91,489 3.45%

Miami Air - Charters 967 0.04% 940 0.04% 92 0.00% 424 0.02% 602 0.03% 353 0.01% 223 0.01%

Midwest (SkyWest) 0 0.00% 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

PSA Airlines d/b/a American 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 12,640 0.50% 86,185 3.25%

Republic Airline d/b/a United Express 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 235 0.01% 9,119 0.34%

Southwest 0 - 0 - 0 - 142,700 6.38% 405,117 17.35% 420,963 16.51% 487,458 18.37%

Sun Country - Charters 1,646 0.08% 958 0.04% 1,213 0.06% 905 0.04% 817 0.03% 1,064 0.04% 2,358 0.09%

United Airlines 81,372 3.72% 92,755 4.09% 92,610 4.34% 93,815 4.19% 106,757 4.57% 148,535 5.82% 82,208 3.10%

United Express (Chautauqua) 0 - 0 - 22,983 1.08% 47,074 2.10% 13,886 0.59% 0 - 0 -

United Express (CommutAir) 12,457 0.57% 17,994 0.79% 22,008 1.03% 4,379 0.20% 3,373 0.14% 0 - 0 -

United Express (ExpressJet) 30,318 1.39% 86,470 3.81% 200,890 9.41% 179,361 8.01% 122,013 5.23% 92,754 3.64% 135,776 5.12%

United Express (GoJet) 66,318 3.03% 33,943 1.50% 72,079 3.38% 71,949 3.21% 83,204 3.56% 40,579 1.59% 70,346 2.65%

United Express (Mesa) 21,397 0.98% 1,722 0.08% 52 0.00% 109 0.00% 172 0.01% 0 - 0 -

United Express (Shuttle America) 58,071 2.66% 58,733 2.59% 38,604 1.81% 23,684 1.06% 36,918 1.58% 57,078 2.24% 21,349 0.80%

United Express (SkyWest) 50,064 2.29% 37,428 1.65% 8,050 0.38% 17,140 0.77% 28,708 1.23% 58,827 2.31% 49,142 1.85%

United Express (Trans States) 0 - 0 - 7,187 0.34% 88,424 3.95% 93,707 4.01% 65,865 2.58% 80,810 3.05%

Total 2,185,924 100.00% 2,270,208 100.00% 2,134,956 100.00% 2,237,979 100.00% 2,335,105 100.00% 2,550,193 100.00% 2,653,630 100.00%



Table 3-3 provides a consolidation of information in Table 3-2 for 2010 and 2016. Delta/Delta Connection

remains GFIA’s largest carrier. The mergers of American Air Lines/US Airways and Southwest Airlines/AirTran

have resulted in strong growth for GFIA and account for growth of approximately one half million

passengers over the period. Some of this growth resulted in loss of market share for United. In 2010, the

combined market share of Continental and United was 22.67% (495,451 passengers) which had eroded to

16.91% (448,750 passengers) for United after the merger in 2011.

TABLE 3-3

CARRIER SHARES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2010 AND 2016

2016 2010

Carrier Passengers Share Passengers Share

Delta 1,037,838 39.11% 977,214 44.70%

AirTran (Southwest) 487,458 18.37% 153,449 7.02%

United 448,750 16.91% 319,997 14.64%

American 448,159 16.89% 202,130 9.25%

Allegiant 228,844 8.62% 234,031 10.71%

Other(1) 2,581 0.10% 11,617 0.53%

Continental - 0.00% 175,454 8.03%

Frontier - 0.00% 112,032 5.13%

(1) “OTHER AIRLINES: 2010, AIR CANADA, GOLD TRANSPORT (CHARTER), AND SUN COUNTRY

(CHARTER); 2016, SUN COUNTRY (CHARTER)


Delta 39.11%

18.37%Southwes

t

16.91%United

16.89%American

8.62%Allegiant

Other 0.10%

2016

Delta AirTran (Southwest)United AmericanAllegiant Other

Delta44.70%

7.02%Air Tran (Southwest)

14.64%United

9.25%…

10.71%Allegiant

0.53%Other

8.03%Continental

5.13%Frontier

2010

Delta AirTran (Southwest)

United American

Allegiant Other

Continental Frontier



Airline Markets Served

The most recent addition is American’s non-stop service to Washington-Reagan National Airport. GFIA

now has service to all three Washington, D.C. area airports as of April, 2017. Exhibit 3-1 provides a depiction

of the 24 non-stop services destinations from GFIA and the airports served.



EXHIBIT 3-1

GFIA NON-STOP DESTINATIONS BY AIRPORT


Non-Stop Service Destinations by Airport ICAO Code

1. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport ATL

2. Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport BWI

3. Charlotte Douglas International Airport CLT

4. Chicago Midway International Airport MDW

5. Chicago O’Hare International Airport ORD

6. Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport DFW

7. Denver International Airport DEN

8. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County International Airport DTW

9. Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport FLL

10. Southwest Florida International Airport (Fort Meyers) RSW

11. George Bush Intercontinental Airport (Houston) IAH

12. McCarran International Airport (Las Vegas) LAS

13. Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport MSP

14. La Guardia International Airport (New York-Queens) LGA

15. Newark Liberty International Airport EWR

16. Orlando International Airport MCO

17. Orlando Sanford International Airport SFB

18. Philadelphia International Airport PHL

19. Phoenix Mesa-Gateway Airport AZA

20. Punta Gorda Airport (Florida) PGD

21. St. Pete-Clearwater International Airport PIE

22. Tampa International Airport TPA

23. Washington Dulles International Airport IAD

24. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport DCA



While GFIA does not serve all the top destinations for West Michigan passengers, a great majority do have

non-stop service. Table 3-4 provides the Top 25 markets for passengers from the Grand Rapids/West

Michigan area for the last five years. In 2016, the top five destination airports for persons from GFIA were

Orlando International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, Denver International, Las Vegas McCarran

International, and St. Pete-Clearwater International. Airlines served the top 14 most popular destinations

via non-stop flights and 19 of the Top 25. Of the six airports in the Top 25 without non-stop service, four

are west coast (Los Angeles International, Phoenix-Sky Harbor International, San Francisco International,

Seattle-Tacoma International, and San Diego International) and the other is east coast (Boston-General

Edward Lawrence Logan International).



TABLE 3-4

GFIA TOP 25 MARKETS 2012-2016

SOURCE: OFFICIAL AIRLINE GUIDE (OAG)

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Ranking Airport Enplanements per Year Airport Enplanements per Year Airport Enplanements per Year Airport Enplanements per Year Airport Enplanements per Year

1 MCO 70,272 MCO 64,720 DEN 65,787 MCO 62,093 BWI 55,649

2 ATL 50,366 DEN 62,548 MCO 55,469 DEN 58,302 MCO 52,917

3 DEN 47,165 BWI 45,240 BWI 44,668 BWI 51,862 DEN 45,259

4 LAS 45,172 TPA 38,905 LAS 35,185 ORD 42,112 ATL 39,834

5 PIE 41,248 ATL 38,378 TPA 34,579 ATL 32,319 ORD 39,702

6 MDW 40,739 LAS 38,111 LGA 34,450 LAS 32,023 MSP 34,609

7 MSP 39,743 DFW 37,367 ATL 32,087 MSP 30,434 LAS 32,580

8 LGA 33,787 PIE 33,927 DFW 31,433 DFW 29,579 DFW 30,707

9 RSW 32,183 MSP 33,755 MSP 29,534 LGA 28,030 LGA 24,074

10 DFW 31,861 LGA 32,753 ORD 28,901 TPA 26,906 TPA 23,136

11 BWI 31,317 RSW 29,328 RSW 25,721 LAX 21,427 FLL 19,193

12 TPA 31,043 SFB 26,988 EWR 21,677 PHX 20,086 SFB 18,393

13 SFB 30,308 EWR 23,467 PIE 21,206 RSW 19,750 RSW 18,335

14 EWR 27,401 ORD 22,157 LAX 20,792 EWR 17,568 EWR 18,131

15 LAX 26,853 LAX 21,115 SFB 19,715 SFO 17,389 LAX 17,417

16 PHX 25,995 PHX 20,851 PHX 17,744 SFB 17,364 BOS 16,522

17 FLL 24,392 CLT 18,628 SFO 17,296 BOS 17,330 PIE 15,901

18 SFO 23,972 AZA 18,419 FLL 16,884 FLL 16,760 AZA 15,540

19 ORD 22,659 PHL 17,925 BOS 16,691 PIE 16,378 PHX 14,991

20 BOS 22,056 BOS 17,211 AZA 15,532 SEA 15,750 SFO 14,754

21 PHL 21,290 SFO 16,648 SEA 14,646 AZA 14,984 SEA 13,676

22 AZA 20,809 SEA 16,064 CLT 13,652 SAN 10,528 CLT 12,662

23 CLT 20,704 SAN 15,110 PHL 13,345 CLT 9,923 SAN 10,679

24 SEA 18,129 FLL 12,943 SAN 12,300 PHL 7,868 PHL 8,880

25 SAN 18,019 MDW 275 MDW 189 MDW 119 MDW 127



Table 3-5 provides a snapshot of the past several years of airline departure service representative of busy

months from GFIA by route by airline for March and July 2015, March and July 2016 and March 2017. This

table lists the frequency of flights on a “typical” day, a Wednesday in the middle of each month.

Table 3-5 also indicates the type of aircraft that operate on each route during the day and the seating

configuration for each aircraft presented in parentheses. Abbreviations for airlines and model types are

also used in Table 3-5 and defined in Table 3-6. For example, “5-ER4 (50)” represents five daily departures

by Embraer 145 aircraft having 50 seats. Table 3-6 Airline Identifier Codes and Common Abbreviations for

Aircraft Models provides the common short names for airlines and aircraft models as well as the number of

seats for each aircraft model. When seating configurations for a specific model are different from airline to

airline both seating configurations are identified.

TABLE 3-5

GFIA AIRLINE MARKET SERVICE FREQUENCY FOR SELECTED MONTHS

GFIA Airline Market Service Frequency

Airline

(Airline Code) Destination

Daily Departures and Aircraft Type

March 2015

(A)

July 2015

(A) March 2016 July 2016 March 2017

American (AA) ORD 2-CR7 (63) 1-CR7 (63) 2-CR7 (63)

3-ER4 (50) 5-ER4 (50) 6-ER4 (50) 5-ER4 (50) 2-ER4 (50)

2-CR2 (50)

2-ERD (44)

DFW 4-ER4 (50) 1-ER4 (50)

1-ERD (44)

3-CR9 (76) 3-CR9 (76) 2-CR9 (76)

1-E75 (76) 3-E75 (76)

CLT 2-CRJ (50) 2-CRJ (50) 2-CR7(63) 2-CR9 (76) 2-CR9 (76)

PHL 2-CRJ (50) 2-CRJ (50) 2-CR2 (50) 2-CR2 (50) 2-CR2 (50)

Delta (DL) ATL 4-B717 (110) 1-B717 (110) 3-B717 (110) 2-B717 (110) 5-B717 (110)

1 MD90(160)

3-A319 (132) 2-MD88(149)

DTW 1-B757 (184) 1-A320 (170) 2-A320 (170)

2-A319 (132) 1-717 (110)

1-CR7 (63) 1-CR7 (63) 2-CR9 (76) 4-CR9 (76)

3-ERJ (50) 1-CRJ (50) 1-CRJ (50) 2-CRJ (50)

4-CRJ (50) 1-CRJ (50) 1-E75 (76) 1-CR7 (63)

1-B717 (110) 1-B717 (110) 1-B717 (110)

LGA 1-CR7 (63) 2-CR7 (63) 2-CR7 (63) 2-CR7 (63) 2-CR7 (63)

MSP

2-MD90

(160) 2-MD90 (160)

1-B738 (166)

2-A320 (170) 1-A320 (170)

1-A319 (132)

1-CR9 (76) 2-CR9 (76) 3-CR9 (76) 1-CR9 (76)

NOTES: (A) INCLDUES 4 US AIRWAYS FLIGHTS (PHL, CLT) 1-CRJ



GFIA Airline Market Service Frequency cont’d

Airline

(Airline Code) Destination

Daily Departures and Aircraft Type

March 2015

(A)

July 2015

(A) March 2016 July 2016 March 2017

1-E75 (76)

Delta (DL) 1-E70 (70)

2-CR7 (63) 1-CR7 (63) 1-CR7 (63)

1-CRJ (50)

CVG 1-CRJ (50) 1-CRJ (50) 2-CRJ (50) 2-CRJ (50)

Allegiant (G4) SFB

6wk/ M80

(166)

3wk/ M80

(166)

6 wk/ M80

(166)

2 wk/M80

166)

7wk/ M80

(166)

PIE

5 wk/A320

(177)

4wk/ M80

(166)

5 wk/A320

(177)

5wk/A320

(177)

5 wk/A320

(177)

FLL

2 wk/A320

(177)

2 wk/A320

(177)

AZA

3wk/A319

(156)

3wk/ M80

(166)

3wk/A319

(156)

3wk/A319

(156)

3wk/A319

(156)

LAS

2wk/M80

(166)

2wk/ M80

(166)

2wk/M80

(166)

2wk/M80

(166)

2 wk/M80

(166)

PGD

2wk/A320

(177)

2wk/A320

(177)

3wk/A320

(177)

United (UA) ORD 1-73G (118)

2-A320 (150)

1-A319 (128) 2-A319 (128)

1-CR7 (70) 2-CR7 (70) 2-CR7 (70)

1-E70 (70)

2-ER4 (50) 1-ER4 (50) 1-ER4 (50) 2-ER4 (50) 1-ER4 (50)

1-CR2 (50)

2-ERJ (44) 2-ERJ (44) 2-ERJ (44) 1-ERJ (44)

1-CRJ (50)

DEN 2-CR7 (70) 1-A319 (128) 1-E70 (70) 1-A320 (150)

1-CRJ (50) 1-CR7 (70) 2-ER4 (50) 1-CRJ (50) 1-ER4 (50)

EWR 2-E70 (70) 2-ERJ (44) 2-ERJ (44) 2-ERJ (44)

2-CRJ (50) 1-E70 (70)

IAD 1-ER4 (50) 1-ER4 (50) 1-ER4 (50) 1-ER4 (50) 1-ER4 (50)

IAH 1-ERJ (44) 1-ERJ (44) 1-ERJ (44) 1-ERJ (44) 1-ERJ (44)

Southwest (WN) BWI 2-73W (143) 1-73W (143) 2-73C (143) 1-73C (143) 1-73W (143)

DEN 1-733 (137) 1-733 (137) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143)

STL 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143)

TPA 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143)

MCO 1-73C (143) 1-73C (143) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143)

RSW 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143) 1-73W (143)

MDW 1-73W (143) 2-73W (143) 2-73W (143)

1-73H (175) 1-73H (175) 1-73H (175)

SOURCE: GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, APRIL 2017

NOTES: (A) INCLDUES 4 US AIRWAYS FLIGHTS (PHL, CLT) 1-CRJ



TABLE 3-6

AIRLINE IDENTIFIER CODES AND COMMON ABBREVIATIONS FOR AIRCRAFT MODELS

Airline Identifier Codes

American Air Lines (AA) Delta Air Lines (DL)

Allegiant Air (G4) United Airlines (UA)

Southwest Airlines (WN)

Seating Configurations

Aircraft Seats Aircraft Seats

Boeing 757 (B757) 184 Airbus 319 (A319)(DL configuration) 132

Boeing 737-900 (B739) 180 Airbus 319 (A319((UA configuration) 128

Airbus A-320 (A320) (G4 configuration) 177 Boeing 737-300 (B73G) 118

Boeing B737-800 (B73H) 175 Boeing 717 (B717) 110

Airbus 320 (A320) (DL configuration) 170 Bombardier CRj-900 (CRJ-9) 76

Boeing 737-800 (B738 (UA configuration) 166 Embraer ERJ-75 (E-75) 76

McDonnell-Douglas M80 (M80) 166 Bombardier CRJ-700 (CRJ-7) (UA

configuration) 70

McDonnell-Douglas M90 (M90) 160 Embraer ERJ-70 (E-70)(UA configuration) 70

Boeing 737-800 (DL configuration) 160 Embraer ERJ-70 (E-70)(DL configuration) 69

Airbus 319 (A319)(G4 configuration) 156 Bombardier CRJ-700 (CRJ-7( (DL

configuration) 63

Airbus A320 (A320) (UA configuration) 150 Bombardier ERJ-145 V1 (ERJ) and

Bombardier ERJ 145 (ER4) 50

McDonnell-Douglas 88 (MD88) 149 Bombardier CRJ-100 (CRJ) and

Bombardier CRJ-200 (CR2) 50

Boeing B737-700 (B73W) and Boeing B737-300

(B73C) (Southwest configuration) 143 Bombardier ERJ-140 (ERD) 44

Boeing B737-300 V2 (B733) 137

SOURCE: GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, APRIL 2017

Exhibit 3-2 is a stacked bar chart of the number of arrival and departures at GFIA by hour for the peak month

of 2016, i.e. July. There are two busy departure hours, 6:00 – 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM, each with six

departures. The peak arrivals hour is 11:00 PM with six arrivals. The busy hour for combined operations is

nine, occurring three times during the day: 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM; 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM; and, 6:00 PM – 7:00

PM. Over the course of the typical day, there were 51 departures in 2016.



EXHIBIT 3-2

GFIA ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES FOR THE PEAK HOUR – JULY 2016

SOURCE: RS&H ANALYSIS, 2017

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0:0

0

1:0

0

2:0

0

3:0

0

4:0

0

5:0

0

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Arrivals Departures



Historical Enplanements

Table 3-7 and Exhibit 3-3 present an extended history of GFIA passengers boarding commercial service

aircraft, or enplanements since 1990. There have been several periods of economic downturn as well as

two annual corrections that affected the numbers of enplanements. Despite the upheavals, enplanements

at GFIA have more than doubled since 1991.

In 1991, the aviation industry experienced a downturn in enplanements due to the price of fuel and the Gulf

War. There was another one-year dip in enplanements from 2005 to 2006 also due to the high cost of jet

fuel as well as airlines’ flying fewer aircraft that affected capacity6.

There are three periods of national economic instability that affected enplanements. The first occurred post

September 11, 2001. Unlike many United States airports, the dip in enplanements at GFIA was not great,

i.e., 21,308 and represented only a decline of 2.3% from 2001 to 2002.

However, GFIA did experience a 13.5% decline in enplanements during the 2008-2010 recession and

recovery that lasted through 2013. As with many airports across the United States, the recovery period for

GFIA was inconsistent as far as increasing enplanements each year. There was a good rebound from 2010

to 2011 but the slow economic recovery across the nation resulted in GFIA not exceeding 2011 levels again

until 2014.

Table 3-7 shows in bold the three times when enplanements declined at GFIA since the year 2000: the

decline after September 11, 2001, the 2008-2009 recession, and the 2010-2013 recovery.

6 FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years 2007-2020, Foreword: Message from the Administrator



TABLE 3-7

GFIA HISTORICAL ENPLANEMENTS

FY Enplanements FY Enplanements

1990 686,773 2004 1,053,122

1991 655,361 2005 1,073,678

1992 698,280 2006 995,492

1993 708,288 2007 1,003,916

1994 773,966 2008 936,834

1995 801,531 2009 868,310

1996 840,322 2010 1,029,779

1997 871,264 2011 1,151,694

1998 875,698 2012 1,081,472

1999 905,378 2013 1,102,535

2000 933,847 2014 1,158,170

2001 939,512 2015 1,256,852

2002 918,204 2016 1,312,644

2003 978,983

SOURCE: FAA TAF (1990-2010) FISCAL YEARS;

GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (2011-2016) FISCAL YEARS



EXHIBIT 3-3

GFIA HISTORICAL RECORD OF TOTAL ENPLANEMENTS (1990-2016)

SOURCE: FAA TAF (1990-2010) FISCAL YEARS;

GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (2011-2016) FISCAL YEARS

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

9/11 Recession Recovery



Table 3-8 provides a breakdown of historical enplanements by month and percentage distribution over the

past six years with Exhibit 3-4 providing a graph of the information. In 2016, enplanements exceeded

100,000 in all twelve months at GFIA. The largest three months of the year were July (119,268), August

(116,711), and March (116,668).



TABLE 3-8

GFIA MONTHLY ENPLANEMENTS, (2011 – 2016)

Month FY 2011 Share of

FY 2011

FY 2012 Share of

FY 2012

FY 2013 Share of

FY 2013

FY 2014 Share of

FY 2014

FY 2015 Share of

FY 2015

FY 2016 Share of

FY 2016

October 96,617 8.39% 94,078 8.70% 89,017 8.07% 98,285 8.49% 104,223 8.29% 110,967 8.45%

November 90,370 7.85% 84,814 7.84% 84,474 7.66% 85,499 7.38% 90,119 7.17% 102,704 7.82%

December 95,598 8.30% 87,643 8.10% 81,367 7.38% 93,508 8.07% 96,575 7.68% 101,632 7.74%

January 85,815 7.45% 81,866 7.57% 83,673 7.59% 82,148 7.09% 95,183 7.57% 104,309 7.95%

February 83,447 7.25% 83,154 7.69% 84,586 7.67% 88,422 7.63% 96,562 7.68% 100,463 7.65%

March 104,092 9.04% 99,744 9.22% 103,097 9.35% 106,145 9.16% 114,707 9.13% 116,668 8.89%

April 86,312 7.49% 79,866 7.38% 85,158 7.72% 96,032 8.29% 106,255 8.45% 103,926 7.92%

May 97,626 8.48% 88,469 8.18% 95,515 8.66% 97,912 8.45% 106,024 8.44% 111,667 8.51%

June 101,737 8.83% 94,922 8.78% 96,704 8.77% 102,141 8.82% 110,621 8.80% 113,267 8.63%

July 110,090 9.56% 102,124 9.44% 100,086 9.08% 105,858 9.14% 116,972 9.31% 119,268 9.09%

August 109,326 9.49% 101,255 9.36% 106,685 9.68% 106,147 9.17% 117,151 9.32% 116,711 8.89%

September 90,664 7.87% 83,537 7.72% 92,173 8.36% 96,073 8.30% 102,460 8.15% 111,062 8.46%

Total

Enplanements

1,151,694 100% 1,081,472 100% 1,102,535 100% 1,158,170 100% 1,256,852 100% 1,312,644 100%

SOURCE: GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, FISCAL YEARS

Legend:

First Second Third



EXHIBIT 3-4

GFIA HISTORIC RECORD OF ENPLANEMENTS BY MONTH (2011-2016)

SOURCE: GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, FISCAL YEARS

70000

80000

90000

100000

110000

120000

130000

Oct

ob

er

No

vem

ber

Dec

em

ber

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

Jun

e

July

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016



EXHIBIT 3-5

GFIA HISTORIC RECORD OF ENPLANED AND DEPLANED PASSENGER DATA (2004-2016)

SOURCE: GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALENDAR YEAR DATA

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Enplaned Passengers Deplaned Passengers Total

Recession Recovery



Exhibit 3-5 is a stack bar chart that shows total enplaning and deplaning passengers for GFIA since 2004.

Total passengers in calendar year 2016 were 2,653,630.

Exhibit 3-6 provides the overall load factor for GFIA since 2004 and provides a comparison with the

combined load factor for all United States airline flights. The load factor is a measure of the percent of

occupied airline seats compared to total seats. Load factors have been increasing steadily in the 2000’s

with airlines carefully managing seating capacity to maximize revenues.

Over the past 12 years, the overall load factor for GFIA has risen from 69.4% to a high of 84.9% in 2015; the

load factor for GFIA in 2016 was 84.5%. For the airlines at GFIA, the 2016 load factors were: American

Airlines, 82.0% (data for 2015-3rd and 4th Quarters and 2016 1st and 2nd Quarters), Allegiant Air, 88.8%;

Delta Air Lines, 88.2%; Southwest Airlines, 83.6%; and United Airlines 86.3%.

The overall airport load factor for GFIA is the same as for commercial airlines in the United States. According

to the FAA Aerospace forecasts: “In 2015, the domestic load factor reached a historic high of 84.5% for

commercial air carriers. It is presently assumed that the load factor will not exceed 86.5% in the future due

to the logistical difficulties inherent in matching supply perfectly with demand.”7

7 FAA Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years 2016-2036, p. 12.



EXHIBIT 3-6

GFIA HISTORIC LOAD FACTORS (2004 – 2016)

SOURCE: GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 2016; BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS T-100 SEGMENT AIRLINE DATA

65

70

75

80

85

90

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Load

Fac

tor

%

GFIA Load Factor US Domestic Load Factor

Recession Recovery



Historical Air Cargo Activity

Over the historical period 2004-2015, GFIA handled 82.6 million pounds of freight of which 49.7% was

enplaning freight and 50.3% was deplaning freight. Freight levels at GFIA have not returned to peak 2008

levels of 95.9 million pounds. Freight handled at GFIA dropped 20 percent between 2008 and 2009 as the

recession took hold. Since 2009, there has been growth year-over-year but at a slow rate.

Air cargo operations are important at GFIA with most of the air cargo carried by the Federal Express

Corporation (FedEx). In 2001, FedEx struck an alliance with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for two seven-

year contracts to carry mail.8 In 2007, mail and freight statistics were merged at GFIA due to the FedEx/

USPS contract.

Today, passenger airlines carry some limited freight and mail as belly cargo but it accounts for less than

0.01% of the overall freight carried at GFIA over the past several years.

On April 23, 2013, FedEx won a third seven-year contract with the USPS, winning over the United Parcel

Service (UPS).9

FedEx operates a mini-hub location for West Michigan through GFIA. It specifically serves the western half

of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan and the eastern half of the Upper Peninsula through feeder aircraft from

Traverse City, Pellston, and Chippewa County. Currently, FedEx has aircraft apron to accommodate three

air carrier aircraft and nine feeder aircraft positions (Cessna 208 Caravans). FedEx serves GFIA with Airbus

A-300 aircraft on routes to Memphis International Airport (MEM) and uses B-757s on routes to Indianapolis

International Airport (IND):

» The A-300 aircraft operate on the Memphis route with a morning departures Tuesday-Friday,

arriving the night before, and a Sunday flight arriving from Rochester and departing to Memphis

» The B-757 operates on the Indianapolis route with an early morning arrival from Indianapolis and

a late evening departure with no weekend operation

Typical busy seasons are summer and Christmas.

Although UPS has a parking apron serving its 24,000 square feet facility, the cargo facility does not perform

any aviation-related operations. UPS acquired Emery Express in December, 2004, including the Menlo Park

facility at GFIA. During the time of the 2004 Master Plan, Emery had ceased to fly any air freight operations

8 Internet: http://money.cnn.com/2001/01/10/deals/fedex/ January 10, 2001; and

http://postalnews.com/postalnewsblog/2013/04/23/fedex-new-7-year-contract-with-usps-worth-10-5-billion/,_April

23, 2013 9 Internet: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-23/fedex-to-fly-mail-for-postal-service-for-10-5-billion



at GFIA and used the facility as a freight forward/logistics facility providing its customers “supply-chain

management”10 service. Then, as today, all cargo arrives and departs from Building 208 by truck

Table 3-9 provides the historical air cargo statistics for GFIA followed by a graphical depiction in Exhibit 3-7.

Historically air cargo tracks with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) evidenced by the significant drop in freight

and mail carried at GFIA from 2008 to 2009. According to the FAA11, recovery has been slow in part due to

significant structural changes in the air cargo industry since the recession including the shift from air to

other modes, particularly trucks. By 2016, most of the shift from air to ground transportation has occurred.

TABLE 3-9

GFIA HISTORICAL AIR CARGO 2004 – 2016

Year

Enplaned

Freight

(lbs.)

Deplaned

Freight

(lbs.)

Total

Freight

(lbs.)

Enplaned

Mail

(lbs.)

Deplaned

Mail

(lbs.)

Total

Mail

(lbs.)

Total

Cargo

(lbs.)

Total

Cargo

in

(Metric

Tons)

2004 35,241,081 42,940,584 78,181,665 374,616 980,259 1,354,875 79,536,540 36,077

2005 41,059,035 44,525,991 85,585,026 143,889 776,927 920,816 86,505,842 39,238

2006 41,330,522 45,482,985 86,813,507 61,026 406,964 467,990 87,281,497 39,590

2007 44,753,124 47,137,412 91,890,536 6 118 124 91,890,660 41,681

2008 48,322,114 46,868,212 95,190,326 231 46 277 95,190,603 43,178

2009 38,366,471 38,188,520 76,554,991 19 324 343 76,555,334 34,725

2010 39,109,084 40,590,841 79,699,925 2 20 22 79,699,947 36,151

2011 40,096,076 40,609,373 80,705,449 151 616 767 80,706,216 36,608

2012 40,680,778 40,540,711 81,221,489 5,436 5,429 10,865 81,232,354 36,846

2013 42,406,184 37,990,043 80,396,227 2,060 2,078 4,138 80,400,365 36,469

2014 45,346,275 36,736,364 82,082,639 2,480 2,480 4,960 82,087,599 37,234

2015 44,073,272 38,521,210 82,594,482 9 72 81 82,594,563 37,464

2016 42,003,178 44,077,688 86,080,866 4 0 4 86,080,870 39,046


10 Supply chain management (SCM) is the management of the flow of goods and services, involving the movement and

storage of raw materials, of work-in-process inventory, and of finished goods from point of origin to point of

consumption. 11 Internet: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-23/fedex-to-fly-mail-for-postal-service-for-10-5-

billion



EXHIBIT 3-7

GFIA HISTORICAL AIR CARGO (POUNDS) (2004-2016)


70,000,000

75,000,000

80,000,000

85,000,000

90,000,000

95,000,000

100,000,000

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

Recession Recovery



Historical Passenger Air Carrier and Commuter/Air Taxi Operations

Historical commercial passenger air carrier operations at GFIA are identified as “air carrier” or “commuter/air

taxi”. The definition for the distinction between the two categories is the seating capacity. An air carrier

aircraft is one that carries 60 passengers or more.

Since 2004, there has been a reduction in the number of air carrier and commuter/air taxi operations as a

result of increasing numbers of aircraft with 60 seats or more. Table 3-10 shows that total operations have

declined from 58,244 in 2004 to 41,456 whereas the proportion of air carrier operations have increased from

32.25% to 57.66% as a percentage of total operations.

TABLE 3-10

GFIA HISTORICAL PASSENGER AIR CARRIER AND COMMUTER/AIR TAXI OPERATIONS

FY

Total Air Carrier and

Commuter/Air Taxi

Operations

Air Carrier % Air Carrier Commuter/Air

Taxi

%

Commuter/Air

Taxi

2004 58,244 18,785 32.25% 39,459 67.75%

2005 54,437 20,118 36.96% 34,319 63.04%

2006 50,177 15,690 31.27% 34,487 68.73%

2007 50,256 15,741 31.32% 34,515 68.68%

2008 48,038 15,671 32.62% 32,367 67.38%

2009 45,317 14,965 33.02% 30,352 66.98%

2010 45,688 17,211 37.67% 28,477 62.33%

2011 48,075 17,491 36.38% 30,584 63.62%

2012 44,775 15,603 34.85% 29,172 65.15%

2013 43,877 15,488 35.30% 28,389 64.70%

2014 41,229 17,515 42.48% 23,714 57.52%

2015 41,511 22,278 53.67% 19,233 46.33%

2016 41,456 23,905 57.66% 17,551 42.34%

CAGR12 -2.58% 1.87% -6.04%

SOURCE: FAA TAF 2016, PUBLISHED JANUARY 2017

Historical General Aviation and Military

Table 3-11 provides historical GA based aircraft and GA and military operations broken down by itinerant

and local operations13. There has been a long and steady decline in GA operations until recently. While the

last two years is not yet a sufficient period to characterize recent growth as a trend, GFIA GA operations

12 These forecasts use both Consolidated Average Growth Rate (CAGR) and Annual Average Growth Rate (AAGR). A

CAGR assumes a constant growth rate over the period whereas the AAGR measures the growth rate between each year

in a list and averages the growth rate between each year of the list. 13 The FAA defines “itinerant operations” as aircraft operations performed by an aircraft, either Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR), Special Visual Flight Rules (SVFR), or Visual Flight Rules (VFR), that lands at an airport, arriving from outside the

airport area, or departs an airport and leaves the airport area. The FAA defines “local” operations as operations

performed by aircraft that remain in the local traffic pattern, execute simulated instrument approaches or low passes

at the airport, and operations to or from the airport in a designated practice area within a 20−mile radius of the

tower.



have increased both for itinerant and local operations. Military operations generally always fluctuate with

United States Department of Defense policy and mission. There was a decline in average activity levels for

military operations at GFIA after the change in administrations in Washington, D.C. in 2009 and there may

be an increase in future years with the recent change in 2017.



TABLE 3-11

GFIA HISTORICAL GENERAL AVIATION AND MILITARY OPERATIONS

FY

Total GA and

Military

Operations

Total GA

Operations

% of

Operations

Itinerant

GA

Operations

Local GA

Operations

Total

Military

Operations

% of

Operations

Itinerant

Military

Operations

Local

Military

Operations

Based

Aircraft

2004 58,410 54,544 93.38% 40,563 13,981 3,866 6.62% 1,854 2,012 132

2005 61,131 57,379 93.86% 42,167 15,212 3,752 6.14% 1,692 2,060 92

2006 61,818 58,013 93.84% 41,579 16,434 3,805 6.16% 1,558 2,247 113

2007 53,258 49,995 93.87% 37,125 12,870 3,263 6.13% 1,449 1,814 113

2008 51,919 48,677 93.76% 35,918 12,759 3,242 6.24% 1,520 1,722 88

2009 43,088 41,328 95.92% 30,612 10,716 1,760 4.08% 949 811 81

2010 41,179 39,206 95.21% 28,944 10,262 1,973 4.79% 1,000 973 81

2011 39,514 37,654 95.29% 26,935 10,719 1,860 4.71% 890 970 87

2012 41,307 39,216 94.94% 27,975 11,241 2,091 5.06% 1,047 1,044 86

2013 34,653 33,408 96.41% 25,157 8,251 1,245 3.59% 723 522 86

2014 33,197 32,620 98.26% 23,806 8,814 577 1.74% 399 178 85

2015 34,673 33,981 98.00% 24,463 9,518 692 2.00% 428 264 92

2016 38,209 37,355 97.76% 25,789 11,566 854 2.24% 534 320 93

CAGR -3.21% -2.87% -3.42% -1.45% -10.97% -9.13% -13.19% -2.66%




Summary of GFIA Historical Operations

The FAA Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) recorded 79,665 operations at GFIA in Fiscal Year 2016. Over

the course of the year, GFIA accommodates aircraft operations of all types, including non-scheduled air

carrier aircraft like the B-727, retired from all commercial airlines’ fleets, to FAA certified experimental

homebuilt general aviation aircraft.

Table 3-12 provides information from FAA Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS) created by the FAA Air Traffic

Airspace (ATA) Lab by threading many Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS) messages together. The

FAA defines this information to be official National Airport System (NAS) air traffic operations data available

for public release. This report may not reflect all operations at an airport due to missing information from

these messages, such as missing arrival times, departure times, airport codes, or equipment codes. While

this does not contain a record of all operations for a given year, the 57,622 total operations for GFIA for

2016 and is a good representation (71.9%) of the variety of aircraft models that operate at the Airport.

TABLE 3-12

FAA ATADS OPERATIONS AT GFIA FOR 2016 BY AIRCRAFT TYPE

Airport Operations By Aircraft Type 2016

Aircraft Type

Total

Operations Aircraft Type

Total

Operations

Aero Commander 21 Boeing MD 80 1,958

Aerospatiale AS-366 4 Boeing MD 90 775

Aerospatiale ATR 42 4 Bombardier Challenger 300 778

Airbus A300 1,137 Bombardier Challenger 600 99

Airbus A320 2,893 Bombardier CRJ-100 2

BAe Hawker 1000 14 Bombardier CRJ-200 3,391

BAe Hawker 800 312 Bombardier CRJ-700 4,670

Beech 1900 536 Bombardier CRJ-900 4,330

Beech Baron 50 series 306 Bombardier DH8 6

Beech Beechjet 400 625 Bombardier Global Express 38

Beech Bonanza 30 series 313 Bombardier Learjet 35 238

Beech King Air 100 118 Bombardier Learjet 45 2,385

Beech King Air 90 200 Bombardier Learjet 55 16

Beech Queen 60 series 2 Bombardier Learjet 60 38

Beech Super King 200 345 Bombardier Learjet 70 411

Beech Super King 300 371 Cessna 100 386

Beechcraft Hawker 4000 4 Cessna 200 70

Beechcraft Premier 1 180 Cessna 208 Caravan 2,411

Boeing 717 2,185 Cessna 300 326

Boeing 727 20 Cessna 400 599

Boeing 737 4,692 Cessna 500 Citation 2,865

Boeing 757 585 Cessna 600 379

Boeing DC 9 24 Cessna 700 242



Airport Operations By Aircraft Type 2016 cont'd

Aircraft Type

Total

Operations Aircraft Type

Total

Operations

Cessna 800 32 Gulfstream G500 series 477

Cessna C25 Citation 840 Gulfstream G650 6

Cirrus SR-20 550 Helicopter/Rotary 75

Dassault Falcon 10 68 Honda Hondajet 4

Dassault Falcon 20 72 IAI Astra 1125 10

Dassault Falcon 2000 457 Lake LA-4 3

Dassault Falcon 50 29 Lake Turbo Seafury 3

Dassault Falcon 900 490 Military 20

Dassault Falcon F7X 6 Mitsubishi Diamond 8

Diamond DA20 5 Mitsubishi Marquise 6

Diamond DA40 26 Mooney M20 118

Embraer Eclipse 550 198 Navion Rangemaster 6

Embraer EMB 110 8 North American Commander 112 3

Embraer EMB 120 19 North American Rockwell Sabre 6

Embraer EMB 135 306 Partenavia P68 3

Embraer EMB 145 8,660 Piaggio P-180 239

Embraer EMB 170 1,405 Pilatus PC-12 409

Embraer Phenom 100 33 Piper Aero Star 15

Embraer Phenom 300 126 Piper P20s 249

Fairchild Swearingen 26 Piper P30s 292

Grumman American AA-5 7 Piper P40s 90

Gulfstream G150 40 Quest Kodiak 4

Gulfstream G200 32 RV Kit Aircrafts 8

Gulfstream G280 16 Shorts 360 3

Gulfstream G400 191 TBM Socata 249

SOURCE: FAA AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY SYSTEM (ATADS)

Exhibit 3-8 provides a graph of total air carrier, commuter/air taxi, GA, and military operations. As evidenced

in Table 3-12 that almost all the old Stage 314 DC-9 and B-727 aircraft have been transitioned from the fleet

except the occasional on-demand carrier operators. Delta and Allegiant will be phasing out the old

generation MD-80 and MD-90 aircraft soon for quieter, more efficient aircraft. In 2017/2018, Delta will be

transitioning its MD80/MD90 aircraft to the new Bombardier CS-100 series and the A-321. Allegiant will be

transitioning from its MD-88 aircraft to A-319/A-320 aircraft by 2020.

14 FAA Website, Policy, International Affairs and Environment, Details on FAA Noise Levels, Stages, and Phaseouts,

Noise Stages and Prohibitions. “The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, in Section 513, had a prohibition on

operating certain aircraft weighing 75,000 pounds or less not complying with Stage 3 noise levels, and on July 2, 2013,

the FAA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register for the Adoption of Statutory Prohibition the Operation of Jets

Weighing 75,000 Pounds or Less That Are Not Stage 3 Noise Compliant. In 1990, Congress passed the Aviation Noise

and Capacity Act, which required that by the year 2000 all jet and large turboprop aircraft at civilian airports be Stage

3. The current FAA noise standards applicable to new type certifications of jet and large turboprop aircraft is Stage 4.

It is equivalent to the ICAO Annex 16, Volume 1 Chapter 4 standards.



EXHIBIT 3-8

HISTORICAL TOTAL AIRPORT OPERATIONS


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total Mil Air Carrier Air Taxi & Commuter Total GA Total Operations

Recovery Recession



3.3 FACTORS AFFECTING AVIATION DEMAND

Developing a forecast for a major air carrier airport requires consideration of multiple factors unique to that

market. In 2016, Grand Rapids and the West Michigan area was one of the fastest growing markets in the

United States. Development of these forecasts are directly related to the economy of the GFIA Airport

Market Service Region, as identified in Section 3.3.1

It is also important to take into account how GFIA competes with nearby airports to understand how air

service may evolve over the next 20 years.

This section of the forecast investigates factors affecting aviation demand. These factors are identified as

follows:

» The GFIA Airport Market Service Region – A discussion of the five-county airport service area

(defined in Section 3.3.1) and a look at how GFIA is growing relative to nearby airports in West

Michigan.

» Regional economic growth trends – A discussion of local growth factors that correlate closely with

long-term growth in airport enplanements. A specific example exists for GFIA with the opening of

the new company, Switch, as will be described below.

» United States enplanement trends – A discussion of anticipated growth in the national number of

enplanements.

» Airline yield – A discussion of the impact of airline yield to forecasting enplanements. Yield is a

measure of the average airfare paid per mile, also known as revenue per passenger mile (RPM), and

is derived by comparing the number of revenue passenger miles with passenger revenue. Typically

the measure is presented in cents per miles so it is a measure of the airfare paid by the passengers.

Passenger yield is often used as an indicator of fare increases or decreases on a route or within a

market. The cost of air travel is an important variable in generating enplanements15.

» Risk analysis – A discussion of factors that may influence the potential growth or decline in

enplanements for GFIA.

Airport Market Service Region

Section 2.2.7 Local and Regional Socioeconomic and Demographic Information provides an overview of

historical population, employment, Personal Income Per Capita (PIPC), and Gross Regional Product (GRP)

for the GFIA Airport Market Service Region. Definition of the GFIA Airport Market Service Region is taken

from the recent aviation economic impact report for GFIA16 that defines the region to be the portion of

West Michigan encompassing the Grand-Rapids-Wyoming Metro Service Area (MSA) (Barry, Kent,

Montcalm, and Ottawa Counties) and the Muskegon MSA (Muskegon County).

15The Global Airlines Industry, 2nd Edition, Peter Belobaba, Amedeo Odono, Cynthia Barnhart, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology; Internet, http://catsr.ite.gmu.edu/SYST660/Chap3_Airline_Economics[2].pdf; and, Internet,

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=767427: Difference Between Load Factors and Yield for Airlines. 16 The Economic Impact of the Gerald R. Ford International Airport, Paul Isely, Ph.D., and Gerry Simons, Ph.D., January 31,

2015.



Exhibit 3-9 provides a map of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan that highlights the five-county Airport Market

Service Region. The map also indicates several counties adjacent the Airport Market Service Region that

are mentioned in the paragraphs that follow.

Table 3-13 provides the list of 19 commercial airports in Michigan. GFIA is second largest to Detroit

Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW), but is larger than the combined enplanements of the other 17

airports in the state for 2015 and 2016.

EXHIBIT 3-9

GFIA AIRPORT MARKET SERVICE REGION

SOURCE: RS&H, 2017; THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT



TABLE 3-13

COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS IN MICHIGAN

SOURCE: FAA 2016, PASSENGER BOARDING (ENPLANEMENT) AND ALL-CARGO DATA FOR U.S. AIRPORTS; FAA TAF 2016, PUBLISHED JANUARY 2017

NOTE (1) - THESE AIRPORTS ARE LOCATED IN ELIGIBLE COMMUNITIES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE (EAS) PROGRAM AS OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. THE EAS IS A UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PROGRAM THAT GUARANTEES COMMERCIAL AIR SERVICE TO SMALL COMMUNITIES WHICH WERE SERVED BY CERTIFICATED AIRLINES PRIOR TO THE AIRLINE DEREGULATION ACT OF 1978.

NOTE (2) – AIRPORTS LOCATED IN THE UPPER PENINSULA

Rank Regional

Office State Locational ID City Airport Name S/L Hub CY 15 Enplanements CY 16 Enplanements* % Change

18 GL MI DTW Detroit Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County P L 16,009,736 16,793,469 4.90%

79 GL MI GRR Grand Rapids Gerald R Ford International P S 1,256,931 1,312,757 4.44%

131 GL MI FNT Flint Bishop International P S 415,092 403,466 -2.80%

180 GL MI TVC Traverse City Cherry Capital P N 206,803 217,636 5.24%

189 GL MI LAN Clinton (Township of) Capital Region International P N 200,506 149,851 -25.26%

213 GL MI AZO Kalamazoo Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International P N 123,487 145,990 18.22%

216 GL MI MBS Saginaw MBS International P N 120,829 119,287 -1.28%

289 GL MI SAW (2) Gwinn Sawyer International P N 41,899 45,309 8.14%

329 GL MI CMX (2) Hancock Houghton County Memorial P N 25,332 25,507 0.69%

331 GL MI PLN Pellston Pellston Regional Airport of Emmet County P N 25,052 27,032 7.90%

338 GL MI CIU (2) Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa County International P N 22,661 20,675 -8.76%

355 GL MI MKG Muskegon Muskegon County P N 16,344 18,062 10.51%

357 GL MI ESC (2) Escanaba Delta County P N 16,651 15,845 -4.84%

378 GL MI IMT (2) Iron Mountain Ford P N 12,156 12,588 3.55%

393 GL MI APN Alpena Alpena County Regional P N 10,471 9,528 -9.01%

457 GL MI MBL Manistee Manistee Co-Blacker CS None 4,984 3,284 -34.11%

465 GL MI IWD (2) Ironwood Gogebic-Iron County CS None 4,680 5,049 7.88%

482 GL MI YIP Detroit Willow Run CS None 3,500 3,268 -6.63%

518 GL MI PTK Pontiac Oakland County International CS None 2,239 2,238 -0.04%

All Airport Enplanements Except DTW, GFIA 1,252,686 1,224,615

% All Airport Enplanements of GFIA (Except DTW) 99.7% 93.3%



Table 3-14 provides a 25-year comparison of the percent of total enplanements of GFIA, Capital Regional

International Airport (LAN), Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport (AZO), and Muskegon County

Airport (MKG). The combined peak year for enplanements of the four airports was 2005. Current levels in

2016 approach that peak primarily due to enplanement growth at GFIA. Since 2010, GFIA (4.13% CAGR)

has outpaced both Capital Regional (2.59% CAGR) and Kalamazoo (4.03% CAGR). Muskegon has grown

from 12,513 enplanements to 18,062, a CAGR of 6.31% over the period. Since 1990, GFIA has grown from

representing 55.3% of the combined total among the four airports to about 80.7% today.

Data from Table 3-14 is represented in three exhibits. Exhibit 3-10 is a bar chart comparing the

enplanements of four West Michigan airports followed by Exhibit 3-11 that is a pie-chart of the information.

Exhibit 3-12 provides a line chart of the share of market percentages for the four airports.



TABLE 3-14

ENPLANEMENTS AND MARKET SHARES OF WEST MICHIGAN COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS (1990 – 2016)

Enplanements

Period Grand Rapids

(GRR)

Kalamazoo

(AZO)

Lansing

(LAN)

Muskegon

(MKG) Total

1990 686,773 245,196 258,969 51,545 1,242,483

1995 801,531 257,197 316,947 37,394 1,413,069

2000 933,847 265,419 339,912 45,858 1,585,036

2005 (1) 1,073,678 238,840 331,151 37,522 1,681,191

2010 1,029,779 116,148 129,964 12,513 1,288,404

2011 1,144,051 147,361 173,615 12,577 1,477,604

2012 1,066,562 134,299 198,628 17,485 1,416,974

2013 1,098,690 127,802 212,139 16,842 1,455,473

2014 1,162,367 135,576 200,376 16,407 1,514,726

2015 1,256,931 123,487 200,506 16,344 1,597,268

2016 (2)(3) 1,312,757 145,990 149,851 18,062 1,626,660

Average Annual Growth Rate

1990 - 2016 3.5% -1.6% -1.6% -2.5% 1.2%

2005 - 2016 2.0% -3.5% -5.0% -4.7% -0.3%

2011 - 2016 2.5% -0.2% -2.3% 7.3% 1.7%

Percentage of Total Enplanements

Period Grand Rapids

(GRR)

Kalamazoo

(AZO)

Lansing

(LAN)

Muskegon

(MKG) Total

1990 55.3% 19.7% 20.8% 4.1% 100.0%

1995 56.7% 18.2% 22.4% 2.6% 100.0%

2000 58.9% 16.7% 21.4% 2.9% 100.0%

2005 63.9% 14.2% 19.7% 2.2% 100.0%

2010 79.9% 9.0% 10.1% 1.0% 100.0%

2011 77.4% 10.0% 11.7% 0.9% 100.0%

2012 75.3% 9.5% 14.0% 1.2% 100.0%

2013 75.5% 8.8% 14.6% 1.2% 100.0%

2014 76.7% 9.0% 13.2% 1.1% 100.0%

2015 78.7% 7.7% 12.6% 1.0% 100.0%

2016 80.7% 9.0% 9.2% 1.1% 100.0%

NOTES: (2) PEAK YEAR FOR TOTAL ENPLANEMENTS IN WEST MICHIGAN

(3) PEAK 12 MONTH PERIOD FOR ENPLANEMENTS IN GRAND RAPIDS

(4) PEAK PERIOD OF GRAND RAPIDS SHARE OF WEST MICHIGAN ENPLANEMENTS

SOURCE: FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECASTS 2016 FOR THE GERALD R. FORD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,

KALAMAZOO/BATTLE CREEK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CAPITAL REGION INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, AND

MUSKEGON COUNTY AIRPORT



EXHIBIT 3-10

HISTORICAL ENPLANEMENTS OF WEST MICHIGAN COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS

SOURCE: FAA 2016, PASSENGER BOARDING (ENPLANEMENT) AND ALL-CARGO DATA FOR U.S. AIRPORTS

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

*

Grand Rapids (GRR) Kalamazoo (AZO) Lansing (LAN) Muskegon (MKG)



EXHIBIT 3-11

2016 MARKET SHARE OF ENPLANEMENTS BY WEST MICHIGAN COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS


81%

9%

9%

1%




EXHIBIT 3-12

HISTORICAL MARKET SHARE OF WEST MICHIGAN COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORTS


0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16




Table 3-15 provides average one-way fare data for passengers traveling both on domestic and international

flights from their origination airport from 2006 to 2016. GFIA fares are historically slightly higher than

Muskegon17 but more competitive than Lansing or Kalamazoo. GFIA’s competitive fares and non-stop

destinations continue to provide strong competition in the West Michigan area. Based upon the historical

trends, GFIA will continue to serve approximately 80% of the enplanements in the greater West Michigan

area.

TABLE 3-15

AVERAGE ONE WAY FARES FOR WEST MICHIGAN AIRPORTS

Domestic Fare Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Grand Rapids $218 $236 $248 $240 $241 $217 $180 $186 $216 $197 $192

Kalamazoo $246 $276 $284 $282 $291 $296 $251 $211 $231 $225 $221

Lansing $233 $242 $239 $212 $213 $232 $227 $201 $193 $188 $189

Muskegon $196 $209 $223 $220 $198 $215 $188 $203 $218 $195 $191

International Fare Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

Avg.

Fare

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Grand Rapids $536 $602 $703 $805 $930 $880 $703 $611 $723 $710 $606

Kalamazoo $772 $849 $940 $1,164 $1,453 $1,371 $932 $910 $1,023 $1,158 $993

Lansing $542 $636 $618 $580 $595 $585 $619 $648 $635 $642 $583

Muskegon $613 $670 $739 $824 $710 $663 $572 $709 $944 $921 $717

SOURCE: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS,

2016

Regional Economic Trends

Identification of GFIA’s Airport Market Service Region and the economic trends within that region are

important factors for framing the discussion of air passenger demand forecasts. Population growth and

economic indicators within an airport service region correlate very well with Origin and Destination (O&D)

passenger demand which is the GFIA air passenger market.

This subsection has two purposes. The first is to describe an investigation of the economic trends of GFIA’s

five-county Airport Market Service Region.

The second subsection provides projections to 2036 of four sets of socioeconomic data that correlate very

well in aviation forecasting: population, employment, Personal Income Per Capita (PIPC), and Gross Regional

Product (GRP). PIPC is the average income earned by each person in a defined area for a given year and is

17 Muskegon is one of nine Michigan Airport that participates in the United State Transportation Essential Air Service

(EAS) program as of September, 2015. The EAS is a United States government program that guarantees commercial air

service to small communities which were served by certificated airlines prior to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.



calculated by dividing total area income by total population. GRP is the sum of the market value of all

goods and services produced within a defined area for a given year.

Airport Market Service Region Economic Trends

The market dynamics affecting the growth potential for increasing enplanements for GFIA are complex.

GFIA benefits from its access to an unusually large base of economic development support organizations

and institutions compared with other regions of the country. This analysis employs information and data

provided by several of these entities. The planning observations, findings and recommendations gathered

from coordinating with these entities will be further augmented by ongoing discussions with economic

development professionals associated with these groups. The economic development infrastructure

referred to includes, but is not necessarily limited to the following:

» The Right Place, Inc. The Right Place, Inc. is West Michigan’s leading non-profit economic

development organization, and has come to serve as the “hub of the wheel” for other economic

development entities such as the Montcalm Economic Alliance, Ionia County Economic

Development Alliance, Muskegon Area First, and the Newaygo Economic Development Office

among others. The Right Place, Inc. actively promotes the attraction of new business to West

Michigan and offers valuable data and other information to assist decision makers in the location

and development of their enterprises.

» Emerge West Michigan. Emerge West Michigan is a public / private partnership organization

formed under the auspices of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce. It involves 13 counties

and offers business support and assistance in various forms. Emerge West Michigan seeks to

cultivate an ecosystem of resources that serves entrepreneurs and existing businesses from

creation to growth. Emerge West Michigan has merged with Start Garden, an entrepreneurial /

start-up funding assistance entity that currently is taking the lead in support activities.

» Greenlight West Michigan Development Partnership/Michigan Economic Development

Corporation. Greenlight – West Michigan Development Partnership is a “collaboration of

communities focused on marketing the region’s most logistically strategic sites and resources.”

Greenlight was created in 2011 in order to build awareness of the region and to offer one point of

contact for companies looking to invest in West Michigan. It was recently sanctioned by the Next

Michigan Development Corp, which in turn offers benefits and programs designed to attract new

business and investment to the region.

» Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC). The Michigan Economic Development

Corporation serves to market opportunities throughout the entire state and provides the tools

and environment to drive job creation and investment, according to its mission statement. The

organization administers programs useful to both existing businesses and companies considering

a relocation or expansion. Programs include Pure Michigan Business Connect, Capital Resources

and Incentives, and Purse Michigan Talent Connect.

» NextEnergy Accelerator. The NextEnergy Accelerator is a 501 c (3) non-profit organization that

is one of the nation’s leading accelerators of advanced energy and transportation technologies,

business and industry. NextEnergy delivers industry and venture development services and, since

its inception in 2002 has helped attract more than $1.5 billion of new investment.

» Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce. The Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce offers a wide

range of opportunities associated with Business Growth, Advocacy, Inclusion and Community

Leadership, and Events Programming. The Chamber also serves as a point of interface with

Emerge West Michigan, Start Garden, Experience Grand Rapids, the Grand Action Plan, the Right

Place, Inc. and other economic development organizations.



» City of Grand Rapids – Economic Development Office. The City of Grand Rapids Economic

Development Office serves to “foster greater levels of economic prosperity through innovation,

collaboration and the linking and leveraging of resources” according to its mission statement. In

addition, the Office “works to retain and foster employment opportunities by improving the

business environment and encouraging sustainable business development.

» City of Grand Rapids – Economic Development Corporation. The City of Grand Rapids

Economic Development Corporation is a function of the Grand Rapids Economic Development

Office, but is empowered to act in various real estate activities and other quasi-public endeavors.

The EDC was created to alleviate and prevent conditions of unemployment; to assist in retaining

local industries and commercial enterprises, and to strengthen and revitalize the economy of the

City of Grand Rapids.

» Economic Development Foundation. The Economic Development Foundation primarily serves

to oversee the issuance of SBA 504 loans and other financing assistance for small businesses

throughout the state of Michigan. It works closely with The Right Place, Inc., Emerge West

Michigan, Greenlight and the other economic development organizations summarized herein.

» Muskegon Area First Region 3 Procurement Technical Assistance Center. Muskegon Area

First Region 3 Procurement and Assistance Center is an economic development organization with

a focus on the defense industry. Its Procurement Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) is a central

function of the organization that assists in a range of programs and initiatives designed to help

business and industry compete for contracts with the Department of Defense, Defense Logistics

Agency, and other government defense entities.

» Ionia County Economic Development Alliance. The Ionia County Economic Development

Alliance has an agricultural focus and operates in coordination with the Right Place, Inc. The ICEA

provides comprehensive economic development services to its constituency including business

retention, expansion and other support.

» Newaygo Economic Development Office. The Newaygo Economic Development Office is a

private, non-profit organization that also has a contractual / partnership relationship with the

Right Place, Inc. allowing it to provide maximum support services in the area of economic

development. The NEDO offers a range of such services including Manufacturing Training, Talent

Initiatives, Financing and Incentives, Pure Michigan Business Connect and Industry Council

Coordination.

» Montcalm Economic Alliance. The Montcalm Economic Alliance is in a strategic partnership

with the Right Place, Inc. to provide development services to business and encourage greater

regional collaboration in West Michigan. The MEA has a focus on agriculture and manufacturing

and offers programmatic assistance in training, Pure Michigan Connect, financing and incentives.

A second market dynamic to recognize is the role of Grand Rapids service area and the area adjacent to

GFIA’s Airport Market Service Region in West Michigan, also a growing base of economic vitality. Businesses

and industries summarized for this economic market analysis compete for a share of this market; in some

cases, serving local, regional or national clients and often demand sources – in the international

marketplace.

Another GFIA market dynamic is the service it provides to international clientele primarily as passengers on

inbound and outbound flights circling the globe. Also, industries and businesses with connections to these

passengers are also involved in global markets, representing a wide range of goods and services, including

many located in West Michigan.



The roles of the most relevant of the entities listed above will be referenced throughout the Master Plan

Update. An expanded discussion of roles and responsibilities of different organizations is included in

Chapter 8 Program and Financial Planning or other aspects of the Airport Master Plan Update.

In addition to material, data and information gleaned from the organizations listed above (sourced in the

text where appropriate), the regional market analysis used other primary and secondary sources of

information including: The United States Census Bureau; the Statistical Abstract of the United States; the

Institute for Defense Analyses; International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the FAA; input from

stakeholders including Airport officials and staff, business owners and industry officials, real estate

professionals, real estate developers, and others.

Economic and Demographic Overview

A reliable benchmark of economic activity that can be used to quantify and compare markets for the United

States is GDP which equals the total expenditures for all final goods and services produced within a country

or other jurisdiction in a stipulated time.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, the Global GDP is estimated to be

approximately $78 trillion as of 2016-2017, and is expected to grow to about $92 trillion by 2020. The top

global economies as projected by these world financial institutions to 2020 include: the United States,

European Union, China, India, Japan and Germany. Overall economic growth is expected to increase from

about 3.1% in 2017 to 3.6% in 2020. The rate of growth in emerging markets is greater, expected at between

4.2% and 4.8% depending on region, internal economic dynamics, and political / socioeconomic factors.

The United States GDP is approaching $18 trillion, and is expected to grow to about $20 trillion by 2020,

although both international and domestic market and political dynamics may influence the internal rate of

growth. The United States remains the world’s largest economy, although the European Union (EU) – prior

the United Kingdom deciding to leave the EU - was almost equally powerful according to some

methodologies. Most world economic experts forecast that China will take over as the world’s largest

economy – as measured by GDP – sometime within the next decade.

According to The Right Place, Inc., the region’s primary economic development organization, the West

Michigan economy is quantified under Gross Regional Product (GRP) criteria to be about $65 billion in 2016.

The larger economic region referred to by The Right Place includes the five counties of the GFIA Airport

Market Service Region as well as the adjacent counties of Allegan, Ionia, Lake, Mecosta, Newaygo, Oceana,

and Osceola; these are shown in a dark blue on Exhibit 3-9. Extrapolated using various benchmarks, it is

estimated that the GRP as defined for this region will reach approximately $70 billion by 2020, as compared

to approximately $59 billion for the Airport Market Service Region.

The greater West Michigan Region that includes the five county Airport Market Service Region and adjacent

counties collectively total a population of about 1.6 million, and hosts a diversified economic base of

business and industry that is further described in subsequent paragraphs; the GFIA Airport Market Service

Region population represents over 1.1 million of the 1.6 million total.



According to data provided by The Right Place, Inc. and further sourced to Headlight Data and the United

States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Grand Rapids GRP is growing at a

considerably greater rate than the national average. Over the past five years, the Grand Rapids GRP grew at

a rate of 30.9% as compared to the national average of 20.5% according to the above noted sources. Table

3-16 provides these statistics that places Grand Rapids in the Top Ten for growth of all large metropolitan

areas in the nation, and marks it as one of only two Midwest cities in this category (Columbus).

TABLE 3-16

TOP 10 METROPOLITAN AREAS WITH FASTEST GROWING GRP (2010 – 2015)

Metropolitan Area GRP (2010-2015)

1. San Jose, CA 43.60%

2. Austin, TX 37.10%

3. Nashville, TN 34.10%

4. San Antonio, TX 33.20%

5. Charlotte, NC 33.10%

6. Grand Rapids, MI 30.90%

7. San Francisco, CA 29.30%

8. Raleigh, NC 29.20%

9. Columbus, OH 28.90%

10. Dallas, TX 28.70%

U.S. Average 20.50%

SOURCE: THE RIGHT PLACE, INC.; HEADLIGHT DATA; THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

One example of the attractiveness of the West Michigan area is the recent decision by Switch to open its

third operations center in Grand Rapids, after its headquarters in Las Vegas, NV and other location in Reno,

NV. Switch is a multi-billion dollar “global technology solutions company built on the intelligent and

sustainable growth of the Internet. The company has developed more than 218 patent and patent-pending

claims covering data center designs that have manifested into world-renowned data centers”18. Switch may

have a profound impact upon enplanements to Grand Rapids. There are estimates that Switch could

generate as many as 1,000 passengers per week to GFIA at build out.

In reality, economies, be they global, hemispheric, nation-based, regional or local, wax and wane over time

in response to a large number of external and internal stimuli. Nonetheless, the global economy will

continue to expand as long as the population continues to grow. According to “Our World in Data”, a

function of Oxford University, the current world population equals approximately 7.5 billion and, while

growing at a slower rate than in the past, it is still expanding at an annual average of nearly 2%. Generally

concurrent with global population growth is an expansion of business and industry, financial markets, and

other components of what constitute the market – in broadest terms – for GFIA.

18 Internet. https://www.switch.com/about.html/



Employment

Viewed as an indicator of economic health, employment data provide a good illustrative tool for

understanding this contributor to market characteristics. Long-term Industry Employment Projections

2012–2022 prepared by the West Michigan Prosperity Alliance using data from the Michigan Department

of Technology, Management of Budget, and the Bureau of Labor Market Information and Strategic

Initiatives offer some valuable insights.19

According to the West Michigan Prosperity Alliance data set, Table 3-17 provides a ranking of the industry

sectors with the highest annual growth rate, as projected over the most recent 10-year period. Table 2-23

in the Chapter 2 Inventory provides historical information for 23 subsectors of employment.

TABLE 3-17

LONG-TERM INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS (SUB-SECTORS)

Industry Sub-Sector

Growth Rate

(2012-2022)

1. Information: (not counting telecommunications, Internet service, Web portals) 6.20%

2. Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 2.60%

3. Social Assistance 2.60%

4. Administrative Support Services 2.20%

5. Ambulatory Healthcare Services 2.20%

6. Construction of Buildings 2.10%

7. Specialty Trade Contractors 2.10%

8. Waste Management and Remediation Services 2.10%

9. Hospitals 2.10%

10. Professional and Business Services 2.00%

SOURCE: WEST MICHIGAN PROSPERITY ALLIANCE, 2016

The most vibrant sub-sectors in terms of employment growth reflect the shift to a service and knowledge-

based economy, although a wide range of industries are also reflecting economic health in West Michigan

including: Tourism, Agriculture, Forestry, Manufacturing, Financial Activities, Professional, Scientific and

Professional Services, and to a lesser extent, Retail Trade, Transportation and Warehousing, Real Estate

Rental and Leasing, and Government.

Tourism and Quality of Life Context

West Michigan has a solid tourism industry, historically based on its orientation to Lake Michigan, a blend

of rural and urban attractions, and physical beauty associated with Grand Rapids architecture and the Grand

River which enhances the downtown experience. West Michigan is also known for its high quality of life,

world-acclaimed medical facilities, and cultural attractions.

These elements have been developed and enhanced over time by a strong foundation of private and

philanthropic support, the large number of second generation or older companies that remain highly

invested in the success of Grand Rapids, community values, emphasis on preparing for the future, and other

19 Woods & Poole, Inc. economic forecasts are used for the aviation forecasts since it is the only source where historic

and forecast information for population, employment, per capital personal income, and gross domestic product can be

found enabling apples-to-apples comparison.



efforts. They influence the attractiveness of the area for the location of businesses and companies seeking

the desirable combination noted. They also appear to be on the cusp of further enhancement that will, by

extension, enhance the attractiveness of the GFIA and the attractiveness and value of the Airport’s landside

development opportunity sites. These enhancements include improvements and expansion of Airport

facilities and amenities that will be outgrowths of implementing the Master Plan Update.

Grand Rapids has a long history of significant community involvement, investment, and active engagement.

In 1998-2000, the Medical Mile Strategic Plan was completed which has resulted in over $1 billion in capital

investment fostering specialized health treatment facilities, and research and development. A recent new

initiative was rolled out that provides plans for new and improved attractions, tourism infrastructure, and

quality of life amenities in Grand Rapids and the West Michigan area; the Grand Rapids Destination Asset

Study, prepared for the non-profit “Grand Action” organization in 2016, authored by Convention, Sports

and Leisure, International Company. The Grand Action plan provides key recommendations for:

» Convention Center, Hotel and Other Venue Opportunities

» Attracting Professional Sports – USL Soccer

» Enhancing Amateur Sports Offerings

» Leveraging the Grand River

» Outdoor and Adventure Opportunities

» Downtown Transportation Visitor Enhancements

» Destination Awareness, Diversity and Inclusion

The long-term effect of implementing Grand Action / Convention, Sports and Leisure International’s

recommendations, which builds on earlier successes by community development proponents will be to

further strengthen West Michigan’s position in the market, contributing to the economic vibrancy of GFIA,

the attractiveness of landside development and business opportunities, and job creation.

Regional Economic Trends Forecasts

This subsection provides projections for the five-county Airport Market Service Region in population,

employment, PIPC and GRP, and for Michigan and the United States that will be used in enplanement

forecasting.

Data from Woods & Poole, Inc., a well-respected specialist firm in long-term county economic and

demographic projections, will be used. This source is used because it provides projections for all four

variables listed below using the same data sets that can be used in enplanement forecasting, resulting in

an apples-to-apples comparison for all economic indices. In addition, this data set enables direct

comparison of the Airport Service Area with Michigan and the United States.

Table 3-18 provides the Woods & Poole, Inc. projections. Based upon this statistical comparison, the Airport

Service Area has:

» A population growth rate less than the United States but growing much faster than Michigan

» An employment growth rate approximately equal to the United States and greater than Michigan

» A per capita personal income growth rate greater than the United States and greater than Michigan

» A GRP growth rate slightly smaller than the United States but greater than Michigan



TABLE 3-18

REGIONAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS

Grand

Rapids -

Wyoming Muskegon

GFIA

Service

Area Total

Grand

Rapids -

Wyoming Muskegon

GFIA

Service

Area Total

Grand

Rapids -

Wyoming Muskegon

GFIA

Service

Area Total

Grand

Rapids -

Wyoming Muskegon

GFIA

Service

Area Total

Grand

Rapids -

Wyoming Muskegon

GFIA

Service

Area Total

GFIA Service

Area CAGR

GFIA AIRPORT SERVICE AREA 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2016-2036

TOTAL POPULATION 1,045,426 173,412 1,218,838 1,092,880 176,392 1,269,272 1,141,515 179,254 1,320,769 1,189,900 181,780 1,371,680 1,234,960 183,527 1,418,487 0.76%

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 664,044 84,745 748,789 712,703 88,141 800,844 759,067 91,021 850,088 803,012 93,491 896,503 844,107 95,548 939,655 1.14%

TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME PER CAPITA

(in 2009 dollars) $40,779 $31,011 $39,389 $43,755 $33,361 $42,311 $46,691 $35,720 $45,202 $49,296 $37,693 $47,758 $51,652 $39,313 $50,056 1.83%


(in 2014 dollars) $45,006 $34,226 $43,472 $52,665 $36,813 $50,926 $64,431 $49,292 $62,376 $81,003 $61,938 $78,476 $102,274 $77,842 $99,113 4.21%

GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT (in

millions of 2009 dollars) $49,922 $5,355 $55,278 $55,278 $5,724 $61,001 $61,480 $6,060 $67,540 $67,401 $6,375 $73,776 $73,416 $6,669 $80,085 1.87%

KEY EMPLOYMENT INDUSTRIES 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2016-2036

FARM EMPLOYMENT (in thousands of

jobs) 7,600 689 8,289 7,764 708 8,472 7,885 723 8,608 7,961 0,734 8,695 7,999 741 8,740 0.27%

MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT (in

thousands of jobs) 109,485 13,707 123,192 111,046 13,314 124,360 110,428 12,676 123,104 108,860 11,961 120,821 106,849 11,235 118,084 -0.21%

RETAIL TRADE EMPLOYMENT (in

thousands of jobs) 61,509 13,329 74,938 67,348 14,554 81,902 72,719 15,678 88,397 78,360 16,861 95,221 84,250 18,100 102,350 1.58%

REAL ESTATE and RENTAL and LEASE

EMPLOYMENT (in thousands of jobs) 19,962 3,154 23,116 21,134 3,321 24,455 22,309 3,488 25,797 23,464 3,649 27,113 24,579 3,803 28,382 1.03%

HEALTH CARE and SOCIAL

ASSISTANCE EMPLOYMENT (in

thousands of jobs) 78,012 12,525 90,537 86,172 13,333 99,505 95,043 14,169 109,212 104,342 14,987 119,329 113,542 15,712 129,254 1.80%

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

EMPLOYMENT (in thousands of jobs) 18,568 1,514 20,082 21,723 1,699 23,422 25,315 1,899 27,214 29,246 2,103 31,349 33,392 2,301 35,693 2.92%

MICHIGAN 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2016-2036

TOTAL POPULATION 10.5% 1.7% 9,959,646 10.82% 1.75% 10,104,260 11.14% 1.75% 10,245,750 11.47% 1.75% 10,371,840 11.81% 1.75% 10,457,670 0.24%

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (in thousands of

jobs) 12.0% 1.5% 5,518,503 12.30% 1.52% 5,795,977 12554.67% 1505.45% 6,046 12.81% 1.49% 6,267,526 13.07% 1.48% 6,458,174 0.79%


(in 2009 dollars) +5.4% -19.8% $38,672 +4.29% -20.48% $41,954 +3.11% -21.12% $45,284 +2.12% -21.92% $48,272 +1.32% -22.89% $50,980 1.39%


(in 2014 dollars) +5.4% -19.8% $42,681 +4.29% -27.10% $50,498 +3.11% -21.12% $62,490 +2.12% -21.91% $79,321 +1.32% -22.89% $100,943 4.40%


millions of 2009 dollars) 11.6% 1.2% $430,108 11.79% 1.22% $468,982 12.12% 1.19% $507,152 12.37% 1.17% $544,770 12.62% 1.15% $581,691 1.52%

UNITED STATES 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2016-2036

TOTAL POPULATION 0.3% 0.1% 324,506,940 0.32% 0.05% 339,812,000 0.32% 0.05% 355,802,000 0.32% 0.05% 372,071,000 0.32% 0.05% 387,690,000 0.89%

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (in thousands of

jobs) 0.3% 0.04% 191,870,817 0.35% 0.04% 206,283,698 0.34% 0.04% 220,485,615 0.34% 0.04% 234,283,042 0.34% 0.04% 247,548,008 1.16%


(in 2009 dollars) -6.5% -28.9% $43,613 -7.06% -29.14% $47,080 -7.75% -29.42% $50,611 -8.43% -29.99% $53,837 -9.13% -30.84% $56,840 1.42%


(in 2014 dollars) -6.5% -28.9% $48,134 -7.06% -35.04% $56,667 -7.75% -29.42% $69,840 -8.43% -29.99% $88,466 -9.13% -30.84% $112,547 4.34%


millions of 2009 dollars) 0.3% 0.03% $16,697,000 0.30% 0.03% $18,684,000 0.30% 0.03% $20,771,000 0.29% 0.03% $22,953,000 0.29% 0.03% $25,231,000 2.09%

SOURCE: WOODS AND POOLE, 2016



Regional Economic Trends Summary and Conclusion

The economic market analysis for the GFIA Airport Market Service Region, Michigan, and the United States

are the basis for generating future aviation demand for GFIA.

The market analysis described above has a second purpose for use in evaluating land development in

Chapter 5 – Evaluation of Alternatives where more market sector specific information is provided.

Eighteen important indicators and variables bode well for a continued growth in passengers in the GFIA

Airport Service Region:

» Expansive economic development infrastructure available to assist the Airport

» Growth in global GDP estimated to reach $20 trillion by 2020

» Growth in GRP estimated to reach almost $59 billion by 2020 for the Airport Market Service Region

» Location of the Airport at the center of a business cluster that includes 400 companies and the new

location of the technology firm Switch

» Economic activity driven by these 400 companies that supports 25,000 Full-time Equivalent (FTE)2021

jobs

» Economic activity of these companies that account for between $5 billion and $10 billion in sales

» Position of the Airport to benefit from the supply-pull economic principle22

» Dominance of the manufacturing sector (217 out of 400 companies) in proximity to the Airport

» Emphasis by the public sector on support for the manufacturing sector in the U.S.

» Emphasis by the public sector on support for the Airport to become a gateway to the world and

resource for attracting growth for the West Michigan area

» Synergy between market sectors within the West Michigan area

» Opportunities supplied by the 17 universities and colleges in the Grand Rapids area23

» Public / private / philanthropic resources being devoted to tourism and quality of life

» Pre-existing infrastructure that serves many of the opportunity sites or is within reach

» The increasing interface between technology and manufacturing, as well as other market sectors

» Opportunities for public sector involvement (i.e. Customs Border Patrol Federal Inspection Services,

U.S. Post Office, FedEx, UPS, etc.)

» Space for renewable energy sources endorsed by the FAA such as solar power

20 Information included pertains solely to a cluster of 400 companies located with the two Zip Code areas that bracket

GFIA; the 25,000 FTE jobs supported by these companies; and, annual sales revenue of these copies, as provided by The

Right Place, Inc. 21 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) employee refers to the hours worked by one employee on a full-time basis. The concept is

used to convert the hours worked by several part-time employees into the hours worked by full-time employees. 22 “Supply-pull” is when seller supply for a good or service is greater than aggregate demand. 23 Internet. https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/ These 15 are: Aquinas College;

Calvin College; Central Michigan University; Compass College of Cinematic Arts; Cooley Law School; Cornerstone

University; Davenport University; Ferris State University; Grace Bible College; Grand Rapids Community College; Grand

Valley State University; Hope College; Kendall College of Art & Design; Kuyper College; Michigan State University

College of Human Medicine; Secchia Institute for Culinary Education; and, Western Michigan University.

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/aquinas-college/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/calvin-college/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/central-michigan-university/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/cooley-law-school/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/cornerstone-university/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/cornerstone-university/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/davenport-university/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/ferris-state/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/grace-bible-college/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/grand-rapids-community-college/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/grand-valley-state-university/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/grand-valley-state-university/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/kendall-college-of-art-design/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/kuyper-college/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/msu-college-of-human-medicine/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/msu-college-of-human-medicine/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/secchia-institute/

https://www.experiencegr.com/about-grand-rapids/colleges-universities/western-michigan-university/



» Strong community desire to coordinate and expand public transportation to the extent appropriate

Viewed in a holistic fashion, the market factors favorable for generating additional enplanements for GFIA

is very strong, and is anticipated to remain strong for the foreseeable future.

Airline Consolidation and Competition

Increases in airfares generally correlate with reduced aviation demand and encourages consumers to drive

to other airports to achieve the lower fares. Consumers are more likely to factor in their transportation cost

and additional time commitment in traveling to other airports to save money, particularly for leisure and

recreation trips, as well as level of service factors. For example, the covered parking deck on the top level

of the parking garage at GFIA guarantees consumers with a clean vehicle in winter when arriving home from

a trip and could figure into the consideration of the pros and cons of flying from the Airport. Airfares are

influenced by many factors including passenger demand, competition of other airline on routes, and yield

management.

Over the course of the last seven years, the primary airlines that serve GFIA have been involved in mergers:

Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines in 2009, United Airlines and Continental Airlines in 2010, Southwest

Airlines and AirTran in 2011, and American Air Lines and US Airways in 2013. By this time, it is assumed that

airlines have completed or are about to finalize plans to consolidate facilities and optimize route structures.

Future growth at GFIA is anticipated to include the continuing increasing of aircraft seating on existing

routes and phasing out of all commuter/air taxi aircraft, i.e., aircraft with seating configurations of 60 seats

and less. The overall airport load factor of 84.5% in 2016 at GFIA is the same as the United States and future

load factors are anticipated to increase slowly. This will mean that once the capacity associated with

additional seats on aircraft and replacement with newer generation models where economically efficient,

new frequencies to existing city pairs will be added. Some seasonal flights by mainline carriers may become

year around. Should airlines remain profitable, new non-stop city pairs may be added like the new non-

stop flight by American Air Lines from Grand Rapids to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that

was initiated in April 2017.

In addition to larger aircraft with more seats, American Airlines, United Airlines, and Delta Air Lines have

indicated each will continue to move some flights from regional affiliates to mainline service at varying

paces over the next several years. At the moment, American’s service to Grand Rapids is entirely provided

by American Eagle/regional affiliates. While there is no idea presently about which market might be served

by American mainline service first, a potential candidate may be service to the Charlotte Douglas

International Airport (CLT).

Delta is about to introduce a new aircraft model into their fleet, the Bombardier C-series. The first aircraft

of the new series, the CS-100, is in production now and Delta has indicated to GFIA that it will fly the new

aircraft on routes to GFIA. The CS-100 is designed for longer haul segments and with seating configurations

ranging from 100-133. Delta Air Lines is the United States launch customer for the new CS-100 model and

has 75 on order, taking delivery of the first aircraft in Spring 2018. Delta indicates on its website that the

“small narrowbody aircraft balances improved customer experience, operating economics with efficient



capital deployment. Delta will continue its narrowbody fleet renewal with the state-of-the-art Bombardier

C Series, providing for added network flexibility with quieter, more fuel-efficient mainline aircraft24. The

anticipated seating configuration for these aircraft is 108.

The C-series will compete with the B-717, which finished production in 2006, and the new B-737-700 New

Generation airliner (737-700NG) which seats 110-132 passengers. As B-717s get transitioned from the fleet,

the new C-series provides opportunities for longer haul markets such as the west coast. For Grand Rapids,

that ultimately may mean non-stops to west coast destinations.

Another emerging airline trend that is getting some traction is the growth of the ULCCs like Allegiant and

Spirit. The FAA cites the rapid expansion of Spirit and Allegiant as one of the factors leading to an increase

in passenger yields for 201525. Allegiant has long been a significant contributor to GFIA enplanement

growth and continues to expand its service from Grand Rapids. There may be potential for additional

growth by Allegiant or the entrant of a new airline/ULCC carrier to enter the GFIA market in the long term.

At some point in the foreseeable future, there will be sufficient demand to support some international airline

service on routes to destinations like Mexico or the Caribbean, as discussed below.

Table 3-19 provides the Top 25 destinations for GFIA international outbound and inbound passengers for

the past five years. Over the 2012-2016 period, passengers traveling internationally to/from Grand Rapids

have almost doubled to the top 25 destinations, increasing from 47,156 to 82,987. Cancun has been the

most popular destination. In 2016, San Juan jumped London to become the second most popular while

London dropped to fourth. The other two most popular destinations consistently over the period has been

Punta Cana, Dominican Republic and Montego Bay, Jamaica.

It is interesting to note that each year since 2012, persons travelling to/from GFIA have traveled from GFIA

to at least the six permanently populated continents of the world, and possibly all seven. Most Antarctic

expeditions begin in Christchurch, New Zealand and persons from the Grand Rapids area have traveled to

Christchurch in each of the last five years.

24 Internet. Michael, Thomas, April 28, 2016. http://news.delta.com/delta-orders-state-art-fuel-efficient-bombardier-

c-series 25 FAA Aeronautical Forecasts: Fiscal Years 2016-2036, p. 3.



TABLE 3-19

TOP 25 INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS 2012 – 2016

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

2016 Destination Total Total Total Total Total

Rank

Origin

Airport Name Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers

1 CUN CANCUN 13,856 11,878 9,368 7,247 7,021

2 SJU SAN JUAN 5,430 4,777 3,588 3,539 2,769

3 PUJ PUNTA CANA 5,365 4,627 2,568 1,624 965

4 LHR LONDON 4,677 5,302 5,001 4,808 4,831

5 MBJ MONTEGO BAY 4,369 3,806 2,952 3,211 2,429

6 MTY MONTERREY 4,071 3,453 1,970 1,919 1,476

7 AMS AMSTERDAM 3,726 3,524 2,356 2,918 2,421

8 PVR PUERTO VALLARTA 3,529 2,567 1,712 1,583 1,412

9 SJD SAN JOSE CABO 3,307 2,929 1,971 1,790 1,341

10 YVR VANCOUVER 3,250 3,229 3,112 2,082 1,996

11 YYZ TORONTO 3,211 3,065 2,594 2,780 2,496

12 SJO SAN JOSE 2,546 2,929 1,410 1,062 1,177

13 FRA FRANKFURT 2,495 2,505 2,501 2,126 2,257

14 YUL MONTREAL 2,447 2,222 2,277 2,053 1,967

15 MEX MEXICO CITY 2,415 2,215 1,786 1,396 1,236

16 PVG SHANGHAI 2,087 2,139 1,784 1,638 1,784

17 NAS NASSAU 2,035 1,854 1,615 1,688 1,226

18 CDG PARIS 1,896 2,037 1,163 1,844 1,638

19 STT ST THOMAS ISLAND 1,872 1,421 1,163 961 786

20 MUC MUNICH 1,871 1,526 1,324 1,029 1,061

21 AUA ARUBA 1,849 1,374 903 819 802

22 YYC CALGARY 1,735 1,916 1,876 1,651 1,063

23 DUB DUBLIN 1,708 1,381 1,093 973 796

24 NRT TOKYO 1,681 1,496 1,674 1,195 1,255

25 GUA GUATEMALA CITY 1,557 1,889 1,532 1,475 950

Totals

Passengers to Top 25 Destinations 82,987 76,062 59,294 53,409 47,156

Passengers to All International Destinations 144,027 131,512 112,168 98,072 90,190

Percent of Passengers to Top 25 58% 58% 53% 54% 52%

Total Number of All International Destinations 730 741 721 717 703

SOURCE: OFFICIAL AIRLINE GUIDE, RESPECTIVE YEARS



In summary, GFIA’s non-stop service and competitive fares should result in maintaining or improving upon

current market shares. As service increases, airlines will experience marginal increases in load factors that

are already high, replace aircraft with those having more seats, increase frequencies, and add new markets

likely in that order. This is in addition to airlines replacing existing models with newer generation aircraft

as it becomes economically viable for airlines to do so.

The potential for international operations should be anticipated sometime during the Master Plan Update

planning period. The number of enplanements to Caribbean destinations are getting close to justifying

some level of weekly service. In addition, there are increasing numbers of persons who are traveling to

international destinations for business and philanthropic reasons, such as church mission trips. Other

examples that generate local international travel include funding funneled through Calvin College that

provides International Student Support Programs and Services and the AweSome Foundation Grand Rapids

that provides funds for teaching, urban farming, and health education throughout the world.

United States Enplanement Trends

Table 3-20 provides historical and forecast United States enplanements. Over the period 2001-2015, United

States enplanements grew at an average annual growth rate of 1.0%. During this period, the United States

airline industry rebounded from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack and the deep recession over the

period 2008-2010. United States enplanement forecasts are anticipated to grow at an annual growth of

2.2% over the next 20 years. The United States historical growth rate of 1.0 % for enplanements compares

to GFIA’s 2.38% over the same period.



TABLE 3-20

HISTORICAL AND FORECAST UNITED STATES ENPLANEMENTS (MILLIONS)

Fiscal Year Domestic International

Percent

International Total

Historical

2001 625 57 8.4% 682

2008 681 78 10.3% 759

2009 631 74 10.5% 705

2010 635 77 10.8% 712

2011 650 81 11.1% 731

2012 654 83 11.3% 737

2013 654 85 11.5% 739

2014 669 88 11.6% 757

2015 696 89 11.3% 785

Forecasts

2016 726 93 11.4% 819

2021 803 113 12.3% 916

2026 863 135 13.5% 998

2031 951 160 14.4% 1,111

2036 1,052 188 15.2% 1,240

Average Annual Growth for Total Enplanements

2001-2015 2015-2016 2015-2025 -- 2015-2036

1.0% 4.2% 2.2% -- 2.2%

SOURCE: FAA AERONAUTICAL FORECASTS: FISCAL YEARS 2016-2036

Passenger Yield

In addition to PIPC, passenger yield is another key input for consideration in forecasting enplanements. As

defined above in Section 3.3 Factors Affecting Aviation Demand, when airline yields rise (more revenue on

flights), the use of air travel typically falls (e.g., higher air fares). Conversely, as yields fall (airlines not making

as much revenue on flights), the use of air travel typically rises (e.g., lower air fares).

Passenger yield is an important variable considered in these forecasts through the surrogates of PIPC and

GRP. As disposable income and increased value of goods and services increase, additional leisure and

business trips are generated. Airline economics vary widely but increasing market area demand often spurs

more airline competition within a market and may result in more competitive air fares.



Table 3-21 below illustrates the FAA’s yield forecast followed by Exhibit 3-13. FAA identified that yields

increased for the first time in five years in 2015 and anticipates passenger yield to fall once again in 20162627.

However, the long-term trend is for passenger yields to increase slowly over the next ten years and then

slowly decline thereafter. Lower yields often result in higher enplanement forecasts.

According to FAA Aeronautical Forecasts, the United States aviation industry experienced a good year in

2015 despite slow economic growth at home and abroad with stable demand, falling passenger yields, and

falling costs. The FAA notes that the airlines industry as a result of closely managing operating costs has

begun to experience sustained profitability. It has:

“Become more nimble in adjusting capacity to seize opportunities or minimize losses. United States

airlines’ continue to refine strategies for developing additional revenue streams such as charging fees

for services that used to be included in airfare fares (e.g. meal service), as well as for charging for

services that were not previously available (e.g. premium boarding and fare lock fees). The impact

from these initiatives gives reason for optimism as the industry (passenger and cargo carriers

combined) posted profits for the sixth consecutive year in 2015.”28

TABLE 3-21

HISTORICAL AND FORECAST AIR CARRIER PASSENGER YIELDS

Historical Forecast

Year FY 2015 (¢) Year FY 2015 (¢)

2001 18.19 2016 14.26

2008 14.48 2021 14.73

2009 13.24 2026 14.82

2010 13.74 2031 14.29

2011 14.45 2036 13.81

2012 14.59 2013 14.7 2014 15.16 2015 14.73

Average Annual Growth

Period 2001-2015 2015-2016 2015-2025 2015-2036

-1.50% -3.20% 0.10% -0.30%


26 FAA Aeronautical Forecasts: Fiscal Years 2016-2036, Table 16 –U.S. Mainline Air Carrier Forecast Assumptions

Passenger Yields. 27 The Global Airlines Industry, 2nd Edition, Peter Belobaba, Amedeo Odono, Cynthia Barnhart, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology; Internet, http://catsr.ite.gmu.edu/SYST660/Chap3_Airline_Economics[2].pdf; and, Internet,

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=767427: Difference Between Load Factors and Yield for Airlines. Yield

is a measure of the average airfare paid per mile, also known as revenue per passenger mile (RPM), and is derived by

comparing the number of revenue passenger miles with passenger revenue. Typically the measure is presented in cents

per miles so it is a measure of the airfare paid by the passengers. 28 FAA Aeronautical Forecasts: Fiscal Years 2016-2036, p.3.



EXHIBIT 3-13

PASSENGER YIELDS


12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

Am

ou

nt

(¢)

Year

Forecast Historic



Risk Analysis

Socioeconomic parameters for the GFIA Airport Market Service Region are all positive, growing at rates

similar to or greater than the United States. However, there can be a tendency when developing a forecast

during periods of economic growth to overestimate growth potential. Few periods in United States history

have resulted in continuous growth without some upheaval, as the first years of the 21st Century attest.

While these forecasts use current information, unforeseen events in the aviation industry and local, state,

and the United States economy could result in an entirely different forecast. This section discusses some

of these factors.

Stability in the Airline Industry

It takes stability in the airline industry for airports to grow. From time-to-time and even during periods of

growth, individual airlines may undergo financial hardship and pull out of certain markets. There was a

popularly mentioned statistic cited by many around 2010 and during the bottom of the last recession that

the combined profit of all airlines over the course of airline history was zero dollars.

Since September 11, 2001, the remaining legacy carriers of American, United, and Delta each filed for

bankruptcy and have merged with other airlines. Bankruptcies were commonplace for the older carriers.29

“At the moment, the United States airline industry is highly profitable, earning more than $12 billion in the

first half of 2016. The industry is as close to parity with average United States corporations as they have

been in history. Reasons for success is consolidation, reduced number of airlines, sustained profitability

and stable labor costs, relatively high airfares, and lower fuel prices. However, airlines are overdue to ‘renew

their fleets and rework information systems’ with old technology. They need to make themselves ‘hack-

proof’.”30

United States Economic Conditions

Airline passenger traffic correlates very closely with fluctuations in regional, local, and national economic

conditions. Increases in demand, income, and business activity generate more air traffic and conversely,

decreases in demand, income, and business activity suppresses passenger levels.

Since bottoming of the recession in 2009, the United States economy is now in its seventh year of expansion

with most sources predicting continued upward expansion. FAA’s Aeronautical Forecasts uses economic

forecasts of IHS Global Insight31 which forecasts United States real GDP to have an average annual growth

rate of 2.9% over 2016-203632 which exceeds historical rates. At the same time, there are many who believe

the economy cannot continue at the same rate of growth like it has experienced over the past seven years.

29 Internet. http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/031714/why-airlines-arent-profitable-dal-ual-aal-luv-jblu.aspx 30 Internet. AirInsight, A Commercial Aviation Consultancy. https://airinsight.com/2016/08/18/us-airline-industry-

highly-profitable/ 31 IHS Global Insight is a large economics organization based in Lexington, Massachusetts that has offices across the

United States and in 13 countries. 32 FAA Aeronautical Forecasts: Fiscal Years 2016-2036, p. 7.



National Security

The concern for potential terror events remains an ongoing threat to the aviation industry. Despite the

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) increased security measures, airports and airlines continue to be

periodic targets which has some varying levels of impact on domestic and international travel.

Price of Jet Fuel

Jet Fuel prices are a key component of airlines’ operating expense. Since 2000, higher fuel prices has

suppressed industry growth and resulted in significant industry losses. According to FAA statistics, airline

fuel prices are as low today as they have been prior to the last recession and are not anticipated to return

to pre-recession levels until 2019.33

Pilot Shortages

The FAA reports that regional airlines are facing large pilot shortages and tighter regulations regarding pilot

training. Their capital costs have increased in the short term as they continue to replace their 50 seat regional

jets with more fuel efficient 70 seat jets. This move to the larger aircraft will prove beneficial in the future

however since their unit costs are lower34 and the elimination of the smaller aircraft will reduce the impacts

of the pilot shortage.

Summary of Factors Affecting Aviation Demand

The variables discussed in this portion of the chapter are the basis for generating these aviation forecasts.

GFIA continues to be the primary airport in the West Michigan area and the trend is toward maintaining

that position or possibly even building on it. All the regional growth economic trends are positive and meet

or exceed economic trends in the United States. The area has an increasingly diversified economic base

including 400 companies within the two Zip Codes adjacent GFIA and new companies, such as Switch, will

have a profound impact upon the community and generating enplanements at GFIA. Switch alone is

estimated to potentially generate as many as 1,000 enplanements per month at GFIA in the next few years.

The economic outlook and improving labor market of the GFIA Market Service Region and United States,

increases in per capita personal income, increases in consumer spending, and stabilized or lower fuel costs

is positive. The airline industry appears to be done with mergers, although there may be some movement

in the future for smaller airlines to consolidate. The competition for West Michigan passengers is positive

for airfares and also bodes well for increasing numbers of enplanements.

At the same time, there are many uncertainties that could have a marked impact upon future numbers of

enplanements. These uncertainties include the upheavals in the economy, the global terrorist threat, the

impact of the United Kingdom’s exit of the EU, and increasing instability in many parts of the world. Both

33 FAA Aeronautical Forecasts: Fiscal Years 2016-2036, Table 18, U.S. Mainline Air Carrier Forecast Assumptions – Jet

Fuel Prices. 34 FAA Aeronautical Forecasts: Fiscal Years 2016-2036, p. 11.



business and tourism travelers often heed United States Department of State warnings regarding foreign

travel35.

All-in-all, the factors affecting aviation demand for GFIA are strong. The following section provides the

enplanement forecasts and assumes several alternative growth scenarios along with the FAA TAF 2016

published in January 2017. The Base Case Forecast tracks with the FAA TAF 2016.

3.4 ENPLANEMENT FORECASTS

This portion of Chapter 3 presents forecasts of enplanements, the forecast approach, methodology, and

assumptions. These forecasts are “unconstrained” and do not consider specific assumptions about physical,

regulatory, environmental, risk factors, or other impediments to aviation activity growth. All forecasts

include the base year 2016 and four forecast years - 2021, 2026, 2031, and 2036.

All the factors described in the preceding section of this chapter are positive for future enplanement growth

at GFIA:

» FAA anticipates faster enplanement growth over the next 20 years as compared to the historical

growth rates

» FAA anticipates declining passenger yields over the next few years which is positive for growth in

enplanements

» ULCCs have become more aggressive in the markets where they operate generate increasing

competition for market share at competitive air fares

» Increases in regional population, employment, PIPC, and GRP equal to or greater than the United

States

Reflecting these positive trends in United States and the region for future growth in air travel, the Base Case

forecast assumes continued strong growth between GFIA and city pairs, reduction of seasonal flights of

mainline carriers over time to annual, future increases in non-stop destinations, accommodation of new

business growth such as announced by Switch, and initiation of some form of international activity.

In addition to the Base Case forecast, two scenario forecasts have been developed that consider potential

alternative futures for enplanements at GFIA. These forecasts are:

» Low Scenario. The Low Scenario assumes that one or more of the risk factors of stability in the

airline industry, United States economic condition, national security threats, price of jet fuel, pilot

shortages, or others factors unknown today may have a significant impact upon enplanement

growth at GFIA.

» High Growth Scenario. The High Growth Scenario assumes a sustained higher growth rate than

the Base Case which may be attributed to introduction of a new airline at the Airport, faster

transition to mainline service by one or more of the remaining legacy carriers with introduction of

new non-stops, and initiation of international activity sooner than anticipated by the Base Case

Forecast.

35 Internet. https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings.html. The State Departments

issues travel warnings for United States citizens to consider when traveling abroad or whether to travel at

all. Examples of reasons for issuing a travel warning might include unstable government, civil war, ongoing

intense crime or violence, or frequent terrorist attacks. Travel warnings remain in place until the situation

changes; some have been in effect for years.



A Design Day Flight Schedule (DDFS) was prepared for the Base Case Forecast only. This is a programmatic

schedule generated by a model that builds on analysis of schedules at GFIA for years 2015, 2016, and early

2017 to prepare projected schedules for Forecast Years 2021, 2026, 2031, and 2036. Each year’s

programmatic schedule approximates the annual number of enplanements in the Base Case Forecast for

forecast years by identifying arriving and departure flights by time of day, type of aircraft, load factor, and

seating configuration. From this detailed and iterative process, forecasts statistics for the Base Case arrival

and departure distribution of passengers can be estimated.

The Base Case forecast is an independent validation of the FAA Terminal Area Forecast.

Following subsections present the FAA Terminal Area Forecast 2016, the GFIA Base Case Forecast, and

alternative scenario enplanement forecasts.

Review of Current and Previous Forecast Data

The Base Case forecast prepared for the 2004 Airport Master Plan Update assumed a Consolidated Average

Growth Rate (CAGR)36 of 3.59% over 20 years. In comparison, the FAA TAF 2015, published in January 2016,

assumed a CAGR of 2.0% over 20 years. TAF 2016, published in January 2017 provides a sharply higher

forecast, revising long-term estimates using a CAGR of 2.25%.

The basis for comparison of forecasts will be the FAA TAF 2016 published in January 2017. The FAA TAF

compares data on a fiscal year basis, i.e., October 1 of a year through September 30 of the next year.

Wherever possible, these forecasts will use the same fiscal year methodology as the FAA TAF for purposes

of direct comparison. Data cited will be identified whether it is fiscal year data or calendar year data.

As mentioned above, TAF 2016 projections for enplanement growth at GFIA is an increase of 2.25% over

the 20 year period of 2016-2036, from 1,312,757 enplanements to 1,999,870 in 2036. The 2.25% annual

growth rate assumed by TAF 2016 is generated by an initial growth rate of 10.23% in 2017 and a graduated

lower rate over the forecast period to 1.64% in 2036.

Table 3-22 below provides the trend line from 2004 through 2036 for TAF 2016; historical data from 2004

to 2016 is provided above in Table 3-21.

36 These forecasts use both CAGR and Annual Average Growth Rate (AAGR). A CAGR assumes a constant growth rate

over the period whereas the AAGR measures the growth rate between each year in a list and averages the growth rate

between each year of the list.



TABLE 3-22

TAF 2016 FORECAST PROJECTIONS

Year Enplanements AAG

2016 1,312,757 4.44%

2017 1,447,070 10.23%

2018 1,477,718 2.12%

2019 1,505,213 1.86%

2020 1,533,542 1.88%

2021 1,562,165 1.87%

2022 1,589,273 1.74%

2023 1,615,602 1.66%

2024 1,641,409 1.60%

2025 1,668,118 1.63%

2026 1,697,356 1.75%

2027 1,726,732 1.73%

2028 1,755,768 1.68%

2029 1,785,551 1.70%

2030 1,815,140 1.66%

2031 1,844,750 1.63%

2032 1,874,445 1.61%

2033 1,904,310 1.59%

2034 1,935,346 1.63%

2035 1,967,646 1.67%

2036 1,999,870 1.64%

2016-2036 AAGR 2.25%

SOURCE: FAA TAF 2016 PUBLISHED JANUARY 2017

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036

An

nu

al E

np

lan

emen

ts

Year

Terminal Area Forecast

Forecast Historic



GFIA Enplanement Forecasts

This section describes the GFIA enplanement forecasts: Base Case, Low Scenario, and High Growth Scenario.

Independent of the TAF, enplanement forecasts for GFIA were developed, based on the factors described

in this chapter, and compared to the TAF.

Methodology for Forecasting Enplanements

Through these forecasts, there is mention of the correlation between socioeconomic variables and

generation of enplanements. The basis for all three GFIA forecast scenarios is identification of alternative

economic futures and tested for relevance through linear regression analysis37. Multiple linear regression

analyses have often been used to generate aviation forecasts, as these analyses account for independent

(explanatory) variables such as socioeconomic characteristics of an airport service area, and use them to

create a linear model, or formula, which can be used to predict the airport’s future enplanements. This

methodology of the analysis is described below.

As described above, Airport and airline data, national trends, and socioeconomic trends for the GFIA Airport

Market Service Region were carefully studied to generate economic circumstances generating varying levels

of aviation demand. Socioeconomic data prepared by Woods and Poole, Inc. were used for the Grand

Rapids-Wyoming Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and the Muskegon MSA (see Table 3-18).

In the case of variables that are averages distinct to each of the two MSAs, such as Personal Income Per

Capita (PIPC), each MSA’s contribution to the Airport Market Service Region was determined by the

weighted percentage of the population it represented of each MSA. Since the Grand Rapids-Wyoming MSA

is much greater in population, its contribution weight is greater than Muskegon’s. All other variables

between the two MSAs was summed to provide a total for the service area.

A linear regression analysis begins by selecting a y-variable. The y-variable is the dependent variable, or

variable that is sought through a linear regression analysis. Then one or more explanatory x-variables that

are believed to be associated with it, are introduced. Each of the variables is tested for its statistical

significance, represented as a P-value in the coefficient table. In order for the variable to have statistical

significance it should have a P-value less than 0.05, which indicates that the null hypothesis, of the variable

not having any effect on the dependent variable, is false. An Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) test also

calculates an F-statistic, which measures the ability of the selected x-variables in a multiple linear regression

analysis to function as a group. The F-statistic is measured for statistical significance the same way as is the

P-value. In each of these regression analyses, the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) annual enplanements

representing GFIA historical enplanements acted as the dependent variable. Then, different combinations

of annual socioeconomic characteristics of the GFIA Service Area including: population, employment, PIPC,

and GRP were used as the x-variables.

37 A linear regression analysis is used in statistics to see how a factor or factors (independent variables or explanatory variables) relate

to an outcome (dependent variable). It is useful because it provides a statistical evaluation or measure of the variables being used,

identifies the relationship with the predicted outcome, and adds overall validity to a prediction.



Base Case Forecast

The Base Case forecast assumes continued strong regional economic growth. Population, employment, per

capital personal income, and the regional gross product are all anticipated to grow strongly over the next

several years. Various combinations of regional population, employment, and personal/business income

growth were tested through regression analysis to determine the greatest statistical relevance. The

combination of employment and income produced the best “fit” of the variables.

The following discussions presents the regression analysis for the Base Case Forecast that used PIPC and

Employment as the x-variables. The Base Case Forecast had the highest R Square of the three analyses, with

a value of 0.9569, indicating the linear model fits the data extremely well. Each of the two explanatory

variables and the F-statistic are less than the alpha 0.05, indicating that they are statistically significant, and

the residual plot shows a random distribution, which assumes a linear model is in fact appropriate for

predicting future enplanements.

The GFIA Base Case forecast for enplanements is provided in Table 3-23 GFIA Base Case Enplanement

Forecast. Over the 20-year forecast period, the AAGR is 2.66%. The trend line shows strong growth over

the next ten years and then moderating to the average growth of the last 25 years for GFIA over the long-

term.

The Base Case forecast assumes initiation of international service to Caribbean destinations sometime

around the 10 year time frame. In the scenario, initial service generates approximately two departures

weekly per destination.

Base Case Scenario Formula:

Y = -115,719 + (14.02292*PIPC) + (0.959092*Employment)



TABLE 3-23

GFIA BASE CASE ENPLANEMENT FORECAST


2016 1,312,644 4.58%

2017 1,361,868 3.75%

2018 1,410,895 3.60%

2019 1,461,688 3.60%

2020 1,512,847 3.50%

2021 1,565,796 3.50%

2022 1,612,770 3.00%

2023 1,653,089 2.50%

2024 1,694,417 2.50%

2025 1,732,541 2.25%

2026 1,771,523 2.25%

2027 1,811,383 2.25%

2028 1,852,139 2.25%

2029 1,893,812 2.25%

2030 1,931,688 2.00%

2031 1,970,322 2.00%

2032 2,009,728 2.00%

2033 2,049,923 2.00%

2034 2,090,921 2.00%

2035 2,132,740 2.00%

2036 2,175,394 2.00%

2016 – 2036 AAGR 2.67%


-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036

An

nu

al E

np

lan

emen

ts

Year

Base Case Enplanement Forecast

Forecast Historic



Low Scenario

The Low Scenario assumes one or more of the risk factors discussed in Section 3.3 Factors Affecting Aviation

Demand come to fruition. Given the strong economic growth anticipated for the GFIA Airport Market

Service Region, the consequences that would need to exist to generate a Low Scenario are long-term

economic downturn. A series of scenarios were analyzed prior to derive a plausible projection.

The Low Scenario enplanement forecast is based upon the slowing of growth of personal income per capita

in the Airport Market Service Area, i.e., significantly impacting the disposable income of area residents, to

resemble that of Michigan. This assumption carries the inference of decreases in employment, GRP, and

possibly population.

The following discussion presents a simple linear regression analysis for the Low Scenario that use the

growth rate of Michigan PIPC as the x-variable. A simple linear regression analysis was used to predict the

enplanements, for the Low Growth Scenario at GFIA. The Low Scenario had a high R Square value of

0.903148 which shows that the linear model fits the data very well.

Since this analysis is a simple linear regression analysis, it is imperative that the correlation coefficient, or

sole predicting variable is proven statistically significant, by having a P-value lower than the alpha P-value

of 0.05, which is the case, and having a Y-intercept that also is statistically significant.

While having some statistical validity, the assumptions generating the Low Scenario are also low probability.

Even during the recent pronounced recession, when the number of enplanements at GFIA dropped by 13.5%

during the 2007-2009 period, enplanements rebounded to the 2007 in the following year, 2010. By 2014,

enplanement growth had achieved and surpassed the historic 25 year average annual growth of 2.0%.

The Low Scenario forecast for enplanements is provided in Table 3-24. Over the 20-year forecast period,

the AAGR is 1.58%. The trend line shows average long-term growth for GFIA over the next five years and

decreasing enplanement growth over the remaining portion of the planning period.

Low Scenario Regression Formula:

=-522566.543830046+ (43.6748743706338*Personal Income Per Capita in 2009 U.S. Dollars)



TABLE 3-24

LOW ENPLANEMENT SCENARIO


2016 1,312,644 4.58%

2017 1,352,023 3.00%

2018 1,382,444 2.25%

2019 1,410,093 2.00%

2020 1,434,769 1.75%

2021 1,457,726 1.60%

2022 1,479,592 1.50%

2023 1,501,046 1.45%

2024 1,522,060 1.40%

2025 1,542,608 1.35%

2026 1,562,662 1.30%

2027 1,582,977 1.30%

2028 1,602,764 1.25%

2029 1,621,997 1.20%

2030 1,640,650 1.15%

2031 1,658,697 1.10%

2032 1,676,113 1.05%

2033 1,693,461 1.03%

2034 1,710,396 1.00%

2035 1,727,500 1.00%

2036 1,744,775 1.00%

2016-2036 AAGR 1.58%


-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036

An

nu

al E

np

lan

emen

ts

Year

Low Enplanement Scenario

Forecast Historic



High Growth Scenario

The High Growth scenario has basis in the very strong economic growth of the GFIA Airport Market Service

Region. With strong growth by all socioeconomic variables analyzed in this study, it is reasonable to assume

that the improving economic circumstances for both households and business would be a large incentive

for new carrier service and new non-stop service to popular destinations. With such strong demand, airlines

would recognize the potential for increased profitability on routes to GFIA and the competition may drive

down passenger yield making air travel available to more persons having more disposable income.

The primary assumption of the High Growth Scenario is the potential introduction of a new carrier at GFIA

that could include another ULCC. In addition, it also considers introduction of new non-stop growth to all

city pairs in the Top 25 for GFIA as well as a faster move to mainline service by American, United, and Delta

but to a lesser extent because of the already high percentage of mainline carrier service. Higher load factors

are not really an issue due to the already high load factors at GFIA. Initiation of international service is also

part of the High Growth Scenario.

Therefore, the High Growth scenario assumes continued strong regional economic growth. Various

combinations of population, employment, per capital personal income, and the regional gross product were

tested to generate the best fit equation for enplanement growth with the combination of population, PIPC,

and GRP providing the highest statistical relevance.

The following discussion presents the regression analysis for the High Growth Scenario that uses population,

PIPC, and GRP as the x-variables. Regression statistics for the High Growth Scenario show a high R Squared

value of 0.9405, which indicates that this model fits the data very well. The explanatory variables and the F-

statistic are also less than the alpha 0.05, indicating that they are all statistically significant, and the residual

plots show a random distribution, which assumes the linear model is appropriate for predicting future

enplanements.

The High Growth Scenario is provided in Table 3-25. Over the 20-year forecast period, the AAGR is 3.72%

which is about the same as the Base Case forecast in the 2004 Master Plan Update. The trend line shows

substantial growth over the next ten years with a new airline entering the market after that time. Growth

begins to taper off after that period but still remains above historic average throughout the planning period.

High Growth Scenario:

Y = 1,464,632.304 + (-1.861257082*population) + (25.24025084*PIPC) + (17.15083324*GRP)



TABLE 3-25

HIGH GROWTH ENPLANEMENT SCENARIO


2016 1,312,644 4.58%

2017 1,365,150 4.00%

2018 1,419,756 4.00%

2019 1,476,546 4.00%

2020 1,535,608 4.00%

2021 1,597,032 4.00%

2022 1,660,913 4.00%

2023 1,727,350 4.00%

2024 1,796,444 4.00%

2025 1,868,302 4.00%

2026 2,008,424 7.50%

2027 2,108,846 5.00%

2028 2,193,199 4.00%

2029 2,258,995 3.00%

2030 2,326,765 3.00%

2031 2,390,751 2.75%

2032 2,456,497 2.75%

2033 2,517,909 2.50%

2034 2,580,857 2.50%

2035 2,645,379 2.50%

2036 2,698,286 2.00%

2016-2036 AAGR 3.72%


-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036

An

nu

al E

np

lan

emen

ts

Year

High Growth Enplanement Scenario

Forecast Historic



GFIA Enplanement Forecasts Summary

Table 3-26 provides the TAF 2016 Forecast with the Base Case and two alternative enplanement forecasts.

Exhibit 3-14 presents a comparison of TAF 2016 with the three forecast enplanement trend lines.

TABLE 3-26

SUMMARY OF ENPLANEMENT FORECASTS

FAA TAF 2016 BASE CASE FORECAST LOW GROWTH SCENARIO HIGH GROWTH SCENARIO

YEAR ENPLANEMENTS AAG ENPLANEMENTS AAG ENPLANEMENTS AAG ENPLANEMENTS AAG

2016 1,312,757 4.44% 1,312,644 4.58% 1,312,644 4.58% 1,312,644 4.58%

2017 1,447,070 10.23% 1,361,868 3.75% 1,352,023 3.00% 1,365,150 4.00%

2018 1,477,718 2.12% 1,410,895 3.60% 1,382,444 2.25% 1,419,756 4.00%

2019 1,505,213 1.86% 1,461,687 3.60% 1,410,093 2.00% 1,476,546 4.00%

2020 1,533,542 1.88% 1,512,846 3.50% 1,434,769 1.75% 1,535,608 4.00%

2021 1,562,165 1.87% 1,565,796 3.50% 1,457,726 1.60% 1,597,032 4.00%

2022 1,589,273 1.74% 1,612,770 3.00% 1,479,592 1.50% 1,660,913 4.00%

2023 1,615,602 1.66% 1,653,089 2.50% 1,501,046 1.45% 1,727,350 4.00%

2024 1,641,409 1.60% 1,694,416 2.50% 1,522,060 1.40% 1,796,444 4.00%

2025 1,668,118 1.63% 1,732,540 2.25% 1,542,608 1.35% 1,868,302 4.00%

2026 1,697,356 1.75% 1,771,522 2.25% 1,562,662 1.30% 2,008,425 7.50%

2027 1,726,732 1.73% 1,811,381 2.25% 1,582,977 1.30% 2,108,846 5.00%

2028 1,755,768 1.68% 1,852,137 2.25% 1,602,764 1.25% 2,193,200 4.00%

2029 1,785,551 1.70% 1,893,810 2.25% 1,621,997 1.20% 2,258,996 3.00%

2030 1,815,140 1.66% 1,931,686 2.00% 1,640,650 1.15% 2,326,766 3.00%

2031 1,844,750 1.63% 1,970,320 2.00% 1,658,697 1.10% 2,390,752 2.75%

2032 1,874,445 1.61% 2,009,726 2.00% 1,676,113 1.05% 2,456,498 2.75%

2033 1,904,310 1.59% 2,049,921 2.00% 1,693,461 1.03% 2,517,910 2.50%

2034 1,935,346 1.63% 2,090,919 2.00% 1,710,396 1.00% 2,580,858 2.50%

2035 1,967,646 1.67% 2,132,737 2.00% 1,727,500 1.00% 2,645,379 2.50%

2036 1,999,870 1.64% 2,175,392 2.00% 1,744,775 1.00% 2,698,287 2.00%

20 Year (2017-2036) 2.25% 2.66% 1.58% 3.72%

SOURCE: TAF 2016 PUBLISHED JANUARY 2017, RS&H ANALYSIS, 2017



EXHIBIT 3-14

COMPARISON OF TAF AND ENPLANEMENT FORECAST TREND LINES


1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2,200,000

2,400,000

2,600,000

2,800,000

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

20

22

20

23

20

24

20

25

20

26

20

27

20

28

20

29

20

30

20

31

20

32

20

33

20

34

20

35

20

36

Low Growth Scenario Base Case High Growth Scenario TAF 2016



Air Cargo Forecasts

FAA Aeronautical Forecasts indicate there has been significant structural changes occurring in the air cargo

industry, including air cargo and security operations by the FAA and the TSA, maturation of the domestic

express market, and a shift to other transportation modes, especially truck. At GFIA, UPS discontinued their

flight facility in “what year.” The FAA forecasts domestic air cargo to grow only at an average annual growth

rate of 0.4% from 2016-203638.

For GFIA, there was a significant 19.5% reduction in the number of freight pounds carried by airlines to and

from GFIA between 2008 (95.2 million pounds) and 2009 (76.6 million pounds). Since 2009, though, there

has been slow, steady growth. Interestingly, the average annual growth rate for both the historical period

2003-2015 and the period since bottoming out of the recession (2009-2015) are almost the same, 1.2%

versus 1.3%.

During tenant interviews as part of the Chapter Two Inventory process, FedEx indicated there were

expectations for future growth to be similar to recent years which is about one to two percent annual

growth. The primary change anticipated is relative to the fleet of aircraft that serves the airport. Over the

next several years, FedEx will transition to an all-Boeing fleet of B-757, B-767, and B-777 aircraft. For GFIA,

the A-300 could transition to a B-767-300F or, depending upon aircraft availability, multiple B-757s.

Ultimately, FedEx would serve GFIA with B-767-300F aircraft.

Air cargo aircraft manufacturers develop annual forecast trends. The United States/ North American

domestic air freight market is considered to be the most mature market in the world meaning there is less

potential for growth than other continents. Airbus forecasts that domestic freight will grow at 1.7% CAGR

to 2025 and 1.6% CAGR to 203539. Boeing has a more robust forecast40, identifying a rebound of

approximately 2.2% AAGR over 2015-2035, rebounding from an AAGR of 1.4% over the past ten years.

The methodology used for projecting future air cargo freight and mail tonnage in these forecasts is

straightforward.

The growth rate forecast for freight at GFIA of 1.2% average annual growth matches the estimate provided

by FedEx during tenant interviews. The rate is three times the anticipated growth rate identified by the FAA

for the U.S. domestic market of 0.4% but lower than Boeing (1.6%) and Airbus (2.2%). While not anticipated

at this time, a new on-demand freight carrier or resumption of freight carrier service by UPS likely would

increase the growth rate to the level anticipated by Boeing and could approach the more optimistic Airbus

forecast.

Table 3-27 provides the forecast of air cargo based upon an average annual growth rate of 1.2%. This is

the growth rate over the period 2003-2015 and is in line with FedEx’s anticipated growth to be similar to

recent years. At this rate, GFIA freight levels will achieve the pre-recession cargo levels by about 2026

38 FAA Aeronautical Forecasts: Fiscal Years 2016-2036, pp. 19-20. 39 Global Forecast Airbus 2016-2035, Table – Freight Traffic Forecast. 40 Boeing World Air Cargo Forecast, 2016-2017, pg. 2.



TABLE 3-27

GFIA AIR CARGO FORECAST (POUNDS)

GFIA Forecast Air Cargo (Pounds)

2015 82,594,563

2021 88,700,000

2026 94,200,000

2031 100,000,000

2036 106,100,000


3.5 GENERAL AVIATION BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS

This section will discuss based aircraft forecasts for turbojets, turboprops, multi- and single-engine piston

aircraft, and helicopters.

The Base Case Forecast for GA based aircraft was developed in part as a result of consultation with Airport

tenants during the Inventory portion of the Master Plan Update. During tenant visits, there were discussions

about aircraft operated by each tenant as well as future plans for expanding fleet and facilities. The

comprehensive investigation provided input into generation of a long-term GA based aircraft forecast.

Table 3-28 provides the GA fleet mix at GFIA in 2016 that shows the number of based aircraft to be 93. The

table also shows the percent each aircraft category represents of the GFIA based aircraft fleet.

TABLE 3-28

CURRENT BASED AICRAFT BY TYPE

Current Based Aircraft by Type

Category Number Percent

Fleet

Turbojet 48 51.60%

Single-Engine Piston 30 32.30%

Turboprop 5 5.40%

Multi-Engine Piston 5 5.40%

Helicopters 5 5.40%

Total 93 100.00%


GFIA is a well-developed corporate airport. Multiple tenants have corporate fleets of five or more aircraft

and a large proportion of aviation activity is generated by jet aircraft, including significant activity by large

jets weighing 60,000 pounds or more. After conferring with tenants, it was clear that future fleet mix changes

likely will include a greater percentage of more jet aircraft larger seating capacities.



Therefore, the apparent trends in GA based aircraft at GFIA toward an increasing jet dominated fleet

supports developing a based aircraft forecast in line with United States GA trends.

Table 3-29 provides current forecast trends for GA aircraft categories in the United States from the FAA

2016 Aerospace Forecasts: Fiscal Years 2016-2036. The largest growth segment in United States aviation is

forecast to be turbojets. Trends indicate anticipated growth in the turbojet, turboprop, and helicopter

aircraft categories but a decline in piston aircraft.

TABLE 3-29

UNITED STATES GENERAL AVIATION TRENDS

United States General Aviation Trends

Year Single Engine

Piston

Multi-Engine

Piston Turboprop Turbojet Helicopter

2016 124,055 13,025 9,420 12,635 10,540

2021 119,045 12,760 9,215 13,975 11,985

2026 110,685 12,480 9,775 15,735 13,355

2031 107,160 12,095 10,990 18,015 14,730

2036 107,160 11,695 12,635 20,770 16,255

Average

Annual Growth -0.70% -0.50% 1.30% 2.50% 2.20%

SOURCE: FAA AEROSPACE FORECASTS: FISCAL YEARS 216-2036, TABLE 28-ACTIVE GENERAL AVIATION AND

AIR TAXI AIRCRAFT

At the same time, it is important to consider the anticipated aircraft fleet mix that would be generated by

taking into consideration tenant input. For example, there is anticipated increase in flight training activity

at GFIA over the planning period and the potential for a modest increase in based general aviation piston

aircraft. If United States aircraft trends were taken absolutely, there would be a decrease in general aviation

piston aircraft at GFIA over the time frame. Therefore, the fleet mix generated by applying United States

trend in aircraft growth by aircraft type that generated 139 based aircraft for 2036 were modified to consider

the number of piston aircraft derived from tenant interviews. The results from tenant interviews indicated

the potential for 142 based aircraft which is very similar to the forecast generated by using United States

GA aircraft trends by type.

Table 3-30Table 3-35 provides the Base Case forecast of based aircraft for GFIA. Using annual average

growth trends for the United States GA by aircraft type and building upon the existing GFIA fleet, there is a

forecast of 139 based aircraft. Interim years between 2016 and 2036 are interpolations.



TABLE 3-30

BASE CASE GENERAL AVIATION BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST

Base Case General Aviation Based Aircraft Forecasts

Base Year

Single Engine

Multi-Engine Turboprop Turbojet Helicopters Total

2016 30 5 5 48 5 93

Base Case Forecasts

2021 32 5 5 57 6 104

2026 32 4 6 66 8 116

2031 34 4 6 74 9 127

2036 35 4 7 83 10 139

SOURCE: RS&H ANALYSIS 2017

3.6 OPERATIONS FORECAST

This section of the forecasts provides operations forecasts for air carrier, air cargo, GA and military.

Air Carrier Passenger Operations Forecast

The air carrier operations forecast for GFIA is a product of the Design Day Flight Schedule (DDFS).

Information from the programmatic peak day schedule was used to generate the forecast of air carrier

operations.

Prior to beginning the exercise, information about the airlines’ fleets that might be serving GFIA in the future

were gathered from online sources. For example, the Delta Air Lines purchase of the new generation aircraft

has been discussed before in these forecasts, i.e., the Bombardier C-Series, in particular the CS-100 aircraft

with a seating configuration of 108.

Table 3-31 presents the information available about each airline that serves GFIA and their fleet. Information

for the forecasting exercises are the notes which identify known information about future fleet changes. In

addition to the CS-100 aircraft by Delta Air Lines, the following are adjustments for consideration in the

GFIA programmatic air carrier forecasts for 2021 and beyond:

» Phasing out all commuter/air taxi aircraft by 2021

» Phasing out MD80/88, MD90 by 2021

o Allegiant Air phasing out MD80s aircraft and replacing with A319, A320 aircraft by 2020

o American Airlines phasing out MD80 aircraft and replacing with 737 MAX Series aircraft

o Delta Air Lines phasing out MD80 aircraft and replacing with A321 and CS-100 aircraft

beginning in 2017/2018

» Southwest Airlines transitioning its older 737 models to 737 MAX7 and MAX8 aircraft

» SkyWest will begin accepting deliveries of Embraer 175 and Mitsubishi Regional Jet, MRJ 90 aircraft;

seating configuration for the MRJ90 is between 81 and 92

» Envoy Airlines retiring Bombardier Canadian Regional Jets CRJ-700 and Embraer Regional Jets ERJ-

140



TABLE 3-31

AIRLINE FLEET MIX

Airline Fleet Mix

Airline Aircraft In Fleet Orders

Seating

Configuration Notes

Air Wisconsin CRJ 200 67 — 50

Allegiant

757-200 4 — 217 Retiring by 2017

A319-100 18 17 156 Replacing MD80

A320-200 16 15 177 Replacing MD80

MD-80 Series 47 — 166 Replaced by A320 by 2020

American

737-800 285 20 160 Replacing MD80

737 MAX 8 — 100 TBA Deliveries begin 2017

757-200 51 — 184 Replaced by A321

767-300ER 31 — 209/218 All but 17 retiring 2018

A319-100 125 — 128

A320-200 50 — 150

A321-200 199 20 181/187 Replacing 757

A321neo — 100 TBA Deliveries begin 2019

E190 20 — 99 Retiring by 2019

MD-80 Series 57 — 140 Retiring by 2018

Compass E170 6 — 69

E175 56 — 76

Delta

717-200 91 — 110

737-700 10 — 124

737-800 73 4 160

737-900ER 70 50 180

Deliveries through 2019, replacing

MD88/90, 757-200 & 767-300

757-200 89 — 199 Replaced by 737-900ER & A321

767-300ER 58 — 208 Replaced by A330-900neo

A319-100 57 — 126/132

A320-200 69 — 150/157

A321-200 15 57 192

Deliveries through 2019, replacing

MD88/90, 757-200 & 767-300

MD-80 Series 181 — 149/160

Replaced by A321 & CS100 staring

2017

Endeavor CRJ 200 42 — 50

CRJ 900 81 — 76

Envoy

CRJ 700 35 — 63/65 Retiring

ERJ 140 40 — 44 Retiring

ERJ 145 79 — 50

E175 26 14 76 Deliveries ongoing



Airline Fleet Mix cont'd


Seating

Configuration Notes

ExpressJet

CRJ 200 54 — 50

CRJ 700 41 14 65

CRJ 900 28 — 76

ERJ-135 5 — 37

ERJ-145 160 — 50

Go Jet CRJ 700 47 — 65/70

CRJ 900 7 — 76

Mesa

CRJ 200 1 — 50

CRJ 700 20 — 70

CRJ 900 64 — 76/79

E175 48 — 76

Miami

International

737-400 2 — 68

737-800 6 — 168

PSA

CRJ 200 35 — 50

CRJ 700 26 35 63/65/67

CRJ 900 54 — 76

Republic E170 26 — 69/70

E175 92 — 76/80

Shuttle America E170 22 — 69/70

E175 16 — 76

SkyWest

CRJ 100 5 — 50

CRJ 200 156 — 50

CRJ 700 86 — 65/67/70

CRJ 900 36 — 76

E175 72 27 76 Deliveries through 2017

E175-E2 — 100 TBA Deliveries begin 2020

MRJ90 — 100 TBA Deliveries begin 2018

Southwest

737-300 87 — 137/143 Retiring by 2017

737-700 494 22 143

737-800 142 57 175 Deliveries through 2018

737 MAX 7 — 30 150 Deliveries begin in 2019

737 MAX 8 — 170 175 Deliveries begin in 2017

Sun Country 737-700 6 — 126/129

737-800 19 1 162

Trans States ERJ 145 49 — 50

MRJ90 — 20 76 Deliveries begin 2018



Airline Fleet Mix cont'd


Seating

Configuration Notes

United

A319-100 61 2 128

A320-200 97 — 150

737-700 40 — 118

737-800 137 4 154/166

737-900 12 — 167/179

737-900ER 136 — 167/179

737 MAX 9 — 99 TBA

757-200 56 — 142/169

767-300ER 35 — 183/214

E175 — 24 TBA

SOURCE: AIRLINE WEBSITES

Table 3-32 provides the GFIA forecast of air carrier passenger operations. As mentioned above, the

programmatic forecast fleet mix transitions to all air carrier operations by 2021 with the phasing out of all

commuter/air taxi aircraft, i.e., all aircraft with less than 60 seats.

TABLE 3-32

FORECAST AIR CARRIER PASSENGER OPERATIONS

Forecast Air Carrier Operations

Aircraft 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

CRJ/CR2/ERJ/ER4 12,936 0 0 0 0

E70 739 739 739 739 0

E75/E175 370 4,056 7,524 7,704 7,344

CR7 2,587 8,832 3,564 1,644 0

CR9 6,653 7,022 8,501 10,349 9,610

MRJ90 0 1,104 1,416 1,680 2,208

CS100 0 492 1,476 1,848 2,220

B717 1,848 3,696 3,696 2,957 2,957

B737W, B737C, B737H 5,174 5,914 5,914 5,914 6,283

B737-700 0 0 0 0 2,218

B738 370 370 739 2,218 2,218

M80/M88 1,502 0 0 0 0

M90 1,848 0 0 0 0

A319 739 4,435 6,653 7,392 8,870

A320 1,884 3,096 3,384 3,648 4,020

A321-200/neo 0 1,476 1,656 1,716 1,800

Totals 36,650 41,232 45,262 47,808 49,747




Air Cargo Operations Forecast

The air cargo operations forecast is a function of the amount of forecast freight. Using data from Table

3-27 GFIA Air Cargo Forecast (Pounds), an estimate of capacity of the current FedEx A-300 and B-757 fleet

was determined for the scheduled 1,040 total operations by these aircraft (five departures per week for

each).

The estimated CAGR of 1.2% annual growth for GFIA is consistent with historical volumes and is greater

than estimated for the United States air cargo growth. Considering that FedEx is anticipating transitioning

its fleet to the larger B-767-300F aircraft over time, the amount of cargo identified by 2036 can be

accommodated at today’s load factors the increased airlift capacity enabled by larger aircraft.

Therefore, air cargo operations are anticipated to remain virtually the same over the long-term forecast

period. As cargo volumes increase, FedEx will transition to larger aircraft and maintain the approximately

same schedule:

» 520 annual operations by A300/future generation aircraft

» 520 annual operations by B-757 aircraft transitioning to B-767-300F aircraft

» 3,200 annual operations by Cessna 208 Caravans. As Cessna continues to manufacture these aircraft

and upgrade with new technology such as integrated flight and de-icing systems, there are no

known plans for future replacement of these workhorse aircraft.

General Aviation and Military Operations Forecast

Forecasts of general aviation operations are highly speculative at best and involve numerous assumptions.

There are a myriad of factors that can be considered, such as the impact of the economy upon business and

recreational flying, the number of hours flown by type of aircraft, impact of jet fuel on aircraft operations,

cost of new aircraft models, the number of registered pilots, the rate at which new aircraft enter the fleet or

are retired from it, and other factors. Should all those factors be considered, the result is the individual

aircraft operators at a specific airport will operate entirely differently than anywhere else.

However, the methodology taken by these forecasts is straightforward. The implied growth rate of GA

activity assumed by the FAA in their Terminal Area Forecasts for GA itinerant and local operations is used

to generate itinerant and local operations for GFIA, with one caveat. Tenant interviews provided information

for consideration in the development of forecasts of local operations. Based upon these interviews, the

Base Case forecast will adjust the assumed rate of growth within the FAA TAF for local operations to include

tenant input. The West Michigan Aviation Academy anticipates expansion of their curriculum to bolster

their aviation program as well as add at least one additional aircraft to their flight training fleet. Therefore,

when considering increases in the aviation program and the likelihood of increases in flight training, an

additional 4,000 annual flight training operations is anticipated over time. The Base Case Forecast assumes

these additional local operations will be spread over the forecast period.

Prior to providing the Base Case Forecast, Table 3-33 FAA TAF General Aviation and Military Operations

Forecast presents the TAF GA forecast and the implied number of itinerant and local operations



comparing number of based aircraft at the airport. The FAA notes in its Aerospace Forecasts41 that

general aviation activity at FAA tower and contract tower airports recorded a 0.3% decline in 2015,

including a decrease in itinerant activity of 0.7 percent while local operations activity increased by 0.1%.

These trends going forward are reflecting in the GFIA forecasts where there is very slow growth in

itinerant operations, increased rate of growth in itinerant activity through about 2021 and then a gradual

decline in average activity thereafter.

41 FAA Aerospace Forecasts: 2016-2036, pg. 3.



TABLE 3-33

FAA TAF GENERAL AVIATION AND MILITARY OPERATIONS FORECAST

Itinerant Local Total

Based

Aircraft

General

Aviation

(GA)

Operations/

GA Based

Aircraft

Percent

GA

Itinerant Military

General

Aviation

Operations/

GA Based

Aircraft

% GA

Itinerant Military

General

Aviation Military Total

Base Case

2016 93 25,789 277 69.04% 534 11,566 124 30.96% 320 37,355 854 38,209

Forecast

2021 99 26,345 266 67.54% 534 12,662 128 32.46% 320 39,007 854 39,885

2026 103 26,743 260 67.66% 534 12,782 124 32.34% 320 39,525 854 40,379

2031 109 27,146 249 67.77% 534 12,912 118 32.23% 320 40,058 854 40,912

2036 114 27,555 242 67.87% 534 13,042 114 32.13% 320 40,597 854 41,451

CAGR 1.02% 0.33% 0.00% 0.60% 0.00% 0.42% 0.00% 0.41%




The Base Case Forecast for based aircraft is 139 which is 23 more aircraft than the TAF projects for 2036.

Because the number of based aircraft is higher, it suggests there will be more aircraft operations for the

Base Case Forecast than identified within TAF 2016 published in January 2017.

Table 3-34 presents the forecast of future general aviation operations for GFIA. The forecasts used the

implied operational activity levels assumed by TAF 2016 as presented in Table 3-33 above as well as the

adjustment for a future increase in local aviation activity from the anticipated growth in flight training and

local operations.

Regarding military operations, the conventional practice for forecasting military operations is to assume the

level of activity for the base year, in this case, 2016, to be held constant over the forecast period. Since the

level of military activity is determined by the Department of Defense with an imprecise requirement for

activity at any given time, any forecast of military missions cannot be anticipated. Both Base Case and

Scenario Forecasts show the same number of military operations over the forecast period as identified by

FAA TAF 2016 published January 2017 for 2016.



TABLE 3-34

BASE CASE GENERAL AVIATION AND MILITARY OPERATIONS FORECAST

Itinerant Local Total

Based

Aircraft

General

Aviation

(GA)

Operations/

GA Based

Aircraft

Percent

GA

Itinerant Military

General

Aviation

Operations/

GA Based

Aircraft

% GA

Itinerant Military

General

Aviation Military Total

Base Case

2016 93 25,789 277 69.04% 534 11,566 124 30.96% 320 37,355 854 38,209

Forecast

2021 104 27,675 266 66.95% 534 13,662 131 33.05% 320 41,337 854 42,191

2026 116 29,863 257 66.89% 534 14,782 127 33.11% 320 44,645 854 45,499

2031 127 31,628 249 66.53% 534 15,912 125 33.47% 320 47,540 854 48,394

2036 139 33,605 242 66.35% 534 17,042 123 33.65% 320 50,647 854 51,501

CAGR 2.03% 1.33% 0.00% 1.96% 1.53% 0.00% 1.50%




Summary Forecast of Total Aircraft Operations

Table 3-35 is the summary forecast of aircraft operations. Commercial passenger and cargo operations are

summed in this table to be an equivalent comparison with TAF 2016 air carrier and commuter/air taxi

operations. Operations forecasts were not developed to accompany alternative enplanement forecasts

since programmatic flight schedules were developed to confirm enplanement forecasts generated for Base

Case Forecast horizon years only.

Air carrier forecasts include a category referred to in this report as “Other” operations. The sum of passenger

and cargo operations generated independently by these forecasts closely approximated the total

operations identified by TAF 2016. In addition to these operations, it is to be expected that there will be

miscellaneous air carrier aircraft operations, such as non-scheduled activity and aircraft diverted to GFIA

from other airports, such as Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD), Detroit Metropolitan Wayne

County Airport (DTW), and General Mitchell International Airport (MKE). These operations are accounted

for as “Other” and represent approximately 1.4% of all commercial operations. The 1.4% ratio of “Other”

operations was held constant across forecast horizon years.

The forecast of total operations tracks closely with FAA operations forecasts. The Base Case Forecast is 2.4%

greater than TAF 2016 for 2021 and 3.5% greater than TAF 2016 for 2026. The Scenario forecast that

assumes a higher forecast of GA based aircraft and operations is 5.5% and 10.3% greater than TAF 2016

forecasts for 2021 and 2026, respectively.



TABLE 3-35

SUMMARY FORECAST OF TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

Base Case Forecast

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

Commercial Passenger/Cargo

CRJ/CR2/ERJ/ER4 12,936 0 0 0 0

E70 739 739 739 739 0

E75/E175 370 4,056 7,524 7,704 7,344

CR7 2,587 8,832 3,564 1,644 0

CR9 6,653 7,022 8,501 10,349 9,610

MRJ90 0 1,104 1,416 1,680 2,208

CS100 0 492 1,476 1,848 2,220

B717 1,848 3,696 3,696 2,957 2,957

B737W, B737C, B737H, 738 MAX,

737MAX 5,174 5,914 5,914 5,914 6,283

B737-700 0 0 0 0 2,218

B738 370 370 739 2,218 2,218

M80/M88 1,502 0 0 0 0

M90 1,848 0 0 0 0

A319 739 4,435 6,653 7,392 8,870

A320 1,884 3,096 3,384 3,648 4,020

A321-200/neo 0 1,476 1,656 1,716 1,800

A300F 520 520 520 520 520

B757F 520 364 0 0 0

B767F 0 156 520 520 520

Cessna 208C 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200

Other Commercial 566 621 676 711 737

Subtotal Commercial 41,456 46,093 50,178 52,760 54,725

Base Case GA Operations

General Aviation Itinerant 25,789 27,675 29,863 31,628 33,605

Military Itinerant 534 534 534 534 534

General Aviation Local 11,566 13,662 14,782 15,912 17,042

Military Local 320 320 320 320 320

Total Base Case GA Operations 38,209 42,191 45,499 48,394 51,501

Total Airport Base Case Operations 79,665 88,284 95,677 101,154 106,226




TABLE 3-36

BASE CASE-TAF COMPARISON

Comparison with TAF 2016

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

TAF 2016 79,665 83,923 87,478 91,889 96,510

Base Case, All Operations 79,665 88,284 95,677 101,154 106,226

Percent TAF 2016 100.00% 105.20% 109.37% 110.08% 110.07%


Annual Instrument Approaches

The instrument operations count is a reflection of workload for FAA facilities that are controlling aircraft at

airports. An instrument operation is defined as an arrival or departure of an aircraft in accordance with an

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan or an operation where IFR separation between aircraft is provided

by Air Traffic Control. Instrument operations are used in part by the FAA to determine an airport’s eligibility

for enhanced approach capability and additional navigational aids.

The FAA does not produce forecasts of individual airport annual instrument approaches but do forecast

TRACON operations. According to the FAA Aerospace Forecast 2016-203642, Terminal Radar Approach

Control (TRACON) operations are projected to grow at an average of 1.1% annually through 2036. TRACON

operations are defined as all itinerant IFR and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flights, including overflights.

Estimating only IFR itinerant operations provides a more accurate projection.

Analysis of historical data (FY 2004-2016) for IFR and VFR itinerant operations specifically conducted at GFIA

determined that 81.29% of total airport itinerant operations were IFR. This percentage share was used to

estimate the number of IFR itinerant operations throughout the planning period for GFIA and carried

forward though the planning period, as shown in Table 3-37. Use of this methodology resulted in an

estimated 33,660 IFR approach operations in 2036 with a CAGR of 0.99% over the planning period that is

consistent with estimated FAA growth rates for TRACON operations. IFR approaches were estimated as one

half of total IFR itinerant operations.

TABLE 3-37

FORECAST OF ANNUAL INSTRUMENT APPROACHES

Year

Baseline Total

Itinerant

Operations

Total Airport IFR

Operations

Total Airport IFR

Approaches

2016 67,979 55,260 27,630

2021 72,972 59,319 29,659

2026 77,455 62,963 31,482

2031 80,440 65,390 32,695

2036 82,814 67,320 33,660

SOURCE: FAA OPSNET, 2017; RS&H ANALYSIS, 2017

42 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2016-2036, p. 26.



3.7 DESIGN HOUR ACTIVITY FORECASTS

Capacity analyses and determination of future facility requirements of various elements of airport facilities

are often based on design day or design hour activity levels. To avoid the construction and operational

cost of acquiring capacity that would be rarely used, design day and design hour activity levels should not

be the absolute busiest period at the Airport.

Design day level of activity is often calculated in airport planning efforts using a Peak Month/Average Week

Day (PMAWD) definition. As is common when evaluating such data at various airports, the calendar month

that experienced the highest level of activity in a given year often varies as shown above in Table 3-8

GFIA Monthly Enplanements, (2011 – 2016), in Section 3.2.3 Historical Enplanements. For the past six years

at GFIA, the peak month has been either July or August with each being the busiest enplanement month

three times. In addition, the seasonal month of March is a very busy time as well. In the past six years,

March has been the 3rd busiest month four times and the second busiest two years (see Table 3-8).

Actual activity in the peak month expressed as a percentage of annual activity is usually fairly constant from

year to year. If annual activity were equally distributed among all 12 months in a year, monthly activity

would total approximately 8.25% of the year’s activity. Often the peak month for an airport comprises

between 9%-12%. Average peak month activity for GFIA for the past six years ranges from 9.09% (July 2016)

to 9.68% (August 2013). There is a tendency for monthly percentage distributions to continue to even out

as an airport becomes busier.

Busy Hour Arrivals and Departures

A number of design day/design hour activity statistics are useful for master planning including peak hour

activity and rolling peak 15-minute activity. Analysis of a number of data sources including Airport records,

FAA activity records, and actual flight operations data facilitates the estimation of these needed statistics.

A programmatic DDFS was constructed for the GFIA Base Case Forecast. The Base Case 2016 schedule used

Wednesday, July 20, 2016 as the PMAWD. From the Base Case schedule, programmatic PWAWD schedules

were prepared for 2021, 2026, 2031, and 2036. The schedules were derivatives of a full year schedule which

accounted for different airlines schedules for seasonal activity during months such as March. The actual

number of enplanements for 2016 was calibrated in the model so that the number of flights on routes by

airline and by aircraft type generated the 2016 enplanement level. That Base Case was used to create similar

outputs for the forecast horizon years. Programmatic schedule sort charts estimate arrivals and departures

for the forecast horizon years and generate statistics for Master Plan Update facility requirements.

The following paragraphs present busy hour arrivals and departures and the following subsection presents

graphs providing rolling 15-minute arrivals, departures, and combined passengers for the Base Case

Forecast. The 2016 distribution of arrivals and departures is in Exhibit 3-15 which is repeated from Section

3.2.2 Airline Markets Served, Exhibit 3-2.



Exhibit 3-15 identifies that the greatest number of arrivals during a particular hour of the day is six, between

the hour of 11:00 PM and midnight. For departures, the busy hours are 6:00 AM – 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM –

8:00 PM with six departures each. There are three busy combined arrival and departure hours – 12:00 PM

– 1:00 PM, 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM, and 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM. The total number of departures for the Base Case

design day in 2016 is 51.

However, it is significant that while the hour of the day with the most arrivals occurs from 11:00 PM to

midnight, the actual peak hour for arrival activity is the rolling 15-minute period of 10:15 PM - 11:15 PM.

Specific peak hour information for the Base Case and forecast horizon years is in Section 3.7.2 below.

Information for rolling 15-minute periods were derived from the programmatic DDFS to determine arrival,

departure, and combined peaks for purposes of developing facility requirements.



EXHIBIT 3-15

GFIA ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES FOR THE PEAK HOUR – JULY 2016


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

80

:00

1:0

0

2:0

0

3:0

0

4:0

0

5:0

0

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Arrivals Departures



Exhibit 3-16 through Exhibit 3-19 provides the number of daily flights for forecast horizon years 2021, 2026,

2031, and 2036. For each forecast succeeding forecast year, any additional arrivals or departures forecast

to occur over the base year or previous forecast year is shown in a dark or black color.

For each case, the greatest number of arrivals during a particular hour of the day is seven during the same

hour of the day, i.e. during the hour of 11:00 PM and midnight. However, beginning in 2031, a second busy

hour of the day emerges with seven arrivals, i.e., the hour between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM. As enplanement

activity grows on a route and, after assuming growth of load factors and models of aircraft with greater

seating, it is reasonable to assume increasing frequencies on a route. When that happens, an airline may

adjust its schedule slightly to make for a more competitive schedule that results in the “flattening” of the

schedule throughout the day. This is similar to increasing enplanements during off peak months of the year

at an airport resulting in a more even distribution in the percentage of activity over the course of a year.

Similarly with the programmatic schedule for horizon year 2021, while the hour of the day with the most

arrivals is seven for all future planning horizon years, the actual peak hour for arrival activity for 2021 and

2026 is eight arrivals during the rolling 15-minute period of 10:15 PM - 11:15 PM. Based upon the forecast

model, dual peaks of seven arrivals are identified in programmatic schedule for the forecast model for 2031

and 2036 when a second peak hour appears for arrival activity between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM. This earlier

peak becomes a slightly larger peak hour for the day.

Table 3-38 identifies the number of daily arrivals that occur on the PMAWD for the base year and forecast

years. Table 3-38 also identifies the number of busy hour arrivals, departures, and combined number of

arrivals and departures for the Base Case and forecast years.

TABLE 3-38

BUSY DAY AND BUSY HOUR ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES FOR FORECAST YEARS

Year

Busy

Day

Arrivals

Busy Hour

Arrivals Departures

Combination

Arrivals/ Departures

2016 51 6 6 9

2021 60 7 6 12

2026 60 7 7 13

2031 66 7 7 13

2036 70 7 7 13




EXHIBIT 3-16

GFIA ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES FOR THE PEAK HOUR – 2021


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

80

:00

1:0

0

2:0

0

3:0

0

4:0

0

5:0

0

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00

Arrivals Departures Flights Added



EXHIBIT 3-17



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0:0

0

1:0

0

2:0

0

3:0

0

4:0

0

5:0

0

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00




EXHIBIT 3-18



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

80

:00

1:0

0

2:0

0

3:0

0

4:0

0

5:0

0

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00




EXHIBIT 3-19



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

80

:00

1:0

0

2:0

0

3:0

0

4:0

0

5:0

0

6:0

0

7:0

0

8:0

0

9:0

0

10

:00

11

:00

12

:00

13

:00

14

:00

15

:00

16

:00

17

:00

18

:00

19

:00

20

:00

21

:00

22

:00

23

:00




Peak Hour Arrival and Departure Passengers

The preceding section provides the arrival and departure distribution of flights on an hourly basis. This

section provides information for rolling 15-minute periods of arrivals and departures derived from the

programmatic DDFS that will be used for developing facility requirements.

Table 3-39 presents the peak hour arrival and departure passengers for the base year and Base Case forecast

horizon years of 2021, 2026, 2031, and 2036. Exhibit 3-20 through Exhibit 3-24 provide the rolling 15-

minute passenger distribution curves showing arrival passengers, departure passengers, and combined

passengers. To derive the total peak hour arrival and departure passengers as identified on Table 3-38, it

is necessary to sum the four 15-minute segments constituting that hour. For example, the base year number

of arrival passengers during the peak hour is 570 and represents the peak hour of 22:15-23:15, consisting

of the four 15-minute segments: 22:15-22:29; 22:30-22:44; 22:45-22:50; and 23:00-23:14. The total peak

hour arrival passenger number can be calculated by summing those four segments as identified on Exhibit

3-17.

TABLE 3-39

PEAK HOUR ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES PASSENGERS FOR FORECAST YEARS

Year Arrival Peak Hour Passenger Count Departure Peak Hour Passenger Count

2016 22:15-23:15 570 4:30-5:30 457

2021 22:15-23:15 692 4:30-5:30 548

2026 22:15-23:15 826 4:30-5:30 558

2031 18:00-19:00 726 4:30-5:30 627

2036 18:00-19:00 782 4:30-5:30 642




EXHIBIT 3-20

GFIA COMBINED DISTRIBUTION OF PASSENGERS – JULY 2016


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0:0

0

0:3

0

1:0

0

1:3

0

2:0

0

2:3

0

3:0

0

3:3

0

4:0

0

4:3

0

5:0

0

5:3

0

6:0

0

6:3

0

7:0

0

7:3

0

8:0

0

8:3

0

9:0

0

9:3

0

10

:00

10

:30

11

:00

11

:30

12

:00

12

:30

13

:00

13

:30

14

:00

14

:30

15

:00

15

:30

16

:00

16

:30

17

:00

17

:30

18

:00

18

:30

19

:00

19

:30

20

:00

20

:30

21

:00

21

:30

22

:00

22

:30

23

:00

23

:30

Total Passengers Arriving Passengers Departing Passengers

Peak

Hour

Arr.

22:15-

23:15

Peak

Hour

Dep.

4:30-

5:30



EXHIBIT 3-21

COMBINED DISTRIBUTION OF PASSENGERS – PEAK DAY 2021


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

7000

:00

0:3

0

1:0

0

1:3

0

2:0

0

2:3

0

3:0

0

3:3

0

4:0

0

4:3

0

5:0

0

5:3

0

6:0

0

6:3

0

7:0

0

7:3

0

8:0

0

8:3

0

9:0

0

9:3

0

10

:00

10

:30

11

:00

11

:30

12

:00

12

:30

13

:00

13

:30

14

:00

14

:30

15

:00

15

:30

16

:00

16

:30

17

:00

17

:30

18

:00

18

:30

19

:00

19

:30

20

:00

20

:30

21

:00

21

:30

22

:00

22

:30

23

:00

23

:30


Peak

Hour

Arr.

22:15-

23:15

Peak

Hour

Dep.

4:30-

5:30



EXHIBIT 3-22



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0:0

0

0:3

0

1:0

0

1:3

0

2:0

0

2:3

0

3:0

0

3:3

0

4:0

0

4:3

0

5:0

0

5:3

0

6:0

0

6:3

0

7:0

0

7:3

0

8:0

0

8:3

0

9:0

0

9:3

0

10

:00

10

:30

11

:00

11

:30

12

:00

12

:30

13

:00

13

:30

14

:00

14

:30

15

:00

15

:30

16

:00

16

:30

17

:00

17

:30

18

:00

18

:30

19

:00

19

:30

20

:00

20

:30

21

:00

21

:30

22

:00

22

:30

23

:00

23

:30


Peak

Hour

Arr.

22:15-

23:15

Peak

Hour

Dep.

4:30-

5:30



EXHIBIT 3-23



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

7000

:00

0:3

0

1:0

0

1:3

0

2:0

0

2:3

0

3:0

0

3:3

0

4:0

0

4:3

0

5:0

0

5:3

0

6:0

0

6:3

0

7:0

0

7:3

0

8:0

0

8:3

0

9:0

0

9:3

0

10

:00

10

:30

11

:00

11

:30

12

:00

12

:30

13

:00

13

:30

14

:00

14

:30

15

:00

15

:30

16

:00

16

:30

17

:00

17

:30

18

:00

18

:30

19

:00

19

:30

20

:00

20

:30

21

:00

21

:30

22

:00

22

:30

23

:00

23

:30


Peak

Hour

Arr.

18:00-

19:00

Peak

Hour

Dep.

4:30-

5:30



EXHIBIT 3-24



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0:0

0

0:3

0

1:0

0

1:3

0

2:0

0

2:3

0

3:0

0

3:3

0

4:0

0

4:3

0

5:0

0

5:3

0

6:0

0

6:3

0

7:0

0

7:3

0

8:0

0

8:3

0

9:0

0

9:3

0

10

:00

10

:30

11

:00

11

:30

12

:00

12

:30

13

:00

13

:30

14

:00

14

:30

15

:00

15

:30

16

:00

16

:30

17

:00

17

:30

18

:00

18

:30

19

:00

19

:30

20

:00

20

:30

21

:00

21

:30

22

:00

22

:30

23

:00

23

:30


Peak

Hour

Dep.

4:30-

5:30

Peak

Hour

Arr.

18:00-

19:00



3.8 CRITICAL AIRCRAFT

At the time of the 2004 Master Plan, forecasts indicated the introduction of Airport Approach Category43

“D” and Airplane Design Group (ADG) ADG44 “IV” aircraft, including the B-757, B-767, and the A310 would

occur late in the forecast period and that the airport should be planned to provide the flexibility for aircraft

of D-IV. These aircraft now operate regularly at GFIA and represent the current critical aircraft.

Presently, these forecasts identify the critical aircraft for GFIA as the A300 and B-757 aircraft. These aircraft

performed more than 1,000 annual operations in 2016. The FAA classifies aircraft in terms of their approach

speeds, wing spans, and landing gear configurations. The Airbus and Boeing aircraft are categorized by the

FAA in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 145 as AAC-C, Airplane Design Group IV (ADG IV). The

Airbus aircraft are classified as being within Taxiway Design Group 5 (TDG-5)46 whereas the B-757 is TDG-

4. Detail explanation of the use of approach speeds, wing spans, and landing gear configurations in airport

design is described in Chapter 4 Facility Requirements.

Periodically larger aircraft such as B-777 and B747-800 aircraft do operate at GFIA today. As mentioned

above, GFIA is a divert airport for Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD), Detroit Metropolitan Wayne

County Airport (DTW), and General Mitchell International Airport (MKE), and a primary transition base for

military refuelers. In addition, GFIA has been a primary transition (practice) base for the Air National Guard

operating KC-135s out of Milwaukee from the west and the Detroit Selfridge Air National Guard Base from

the east.

In the future and beyond the five-year time frame, the critical aircraft will become the B-767-300F which is

the air freight model of the B-767-300ER passenger aircraft as well as the potential for resumption of KC-

135 military aircraft operations. The B-767-300F is classified as AAC-D, ADG-IV, and TDG-5. It is anticipated

that the B-767-300F will operate more than 500 operations annually at GFIA.

3.9 SUMMARY OF FORECASTS

Forecasts Table forecasts a summary of enplanements, aircraft operations, based aircraft, design hour, and

critical aircraft forecasts.

43 An FAA Classification relating to the aircraft approach landing speed in knots at its maximum certificated landing

weight. 44 An FAA classification relating to the greater of the wingspan or tail height of an aircraft. 45 Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, February 26, 2014. 46 A classification of airplanes based on outer to outer Main Gear Width (MGW) and Cockpit to Main Gear distance

(CMG).



TABLE 3-40

SUMMARY OF FORECASTS

Summary of Forecasts

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

Enplanements

Base Case 1,312,644 1,565,796 1,771,523 1,970,322 2,175,394

Scenario Enplanement Forecasts

Low 1,312,644 1,457,112 1,562,608 1,658,697 1,744,775

High Growth 1,312,644 1,597,032 2,008,424 2,390,751 2,698,286

Design Day

Total Daily Departures 51 60 60 66 70

Maximum Arrivals/Departures per Hour 10 12 13 13 14

Peak Hour Arrivals (Rolling 15 Minutes) 7 8 8 7 7

Operations

Air Carrier Operations 41,656 46,093 50,178 52,760 54,725

Air Cargo Freight and Mail

Freight and Mail (Pounds Millions) 83 89 94 100 106

Air Cargo Operations 4,240 4,240 4,240 4,240 4,240

General Aviation Base Case

Based Aircraft 93 104 116 127 139

GA Itinerant Operations 25,789 27,675 29,863 31,628 33,605

Military Itinerant Operations 534 534 534 534 534

GA Local Operations 11,566 13,662 14,782 15,912 17,042

Military Local Operations 320 320 320 320 320

Total General Aviation & Military Operations 38,209 42,191 45,499 48,394 51,501

Annual Instrument Approaches 27,630 29,659 31,482 32,695 33,660

Total Operations - Base Case Forecast 79,865 88,284 95,677 101,154 106,226




3.10 COMPARISON OF BASE CASE FORECAST WITH FAA TERMINAL AREA

FORECAST

This section compares the FAA TAF 2016 published January 2017 with the Base Case Forecast.

In accordance with FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions

for Airport Actions, paragraph 706.b(3), the FAA uses the following parameters to assess aviation forecasts,

including those prepared for airport master plans. To be consistent with the FAA TAF:

» The 5-year forecast should be within 10 percent of the TAF; and,

» The 10-year forecast should be within 15 percent of the TAF.”47

The Base Case Forecast of enplanements was generated through extensive analysis of GFIA aviation trends

since 2004 and particularly since 2010 and rebounding from the recession. Numerous interviews were

conducted with key players in economic development agencies throughout the five-county Airport Market

Service Region discussed in Section 3.3.2 Regional Economic Trends. From this research and investigation,

a Base Case enplanement forecast was generated from evaluation of aviation trends and socioeconomic

variables and use of regression analysis. Alternative forecast scenarios were also generated and are detailed

in these forecasts.

Programmatic Design Day Flight schedules were prepared for the Base Case Forecast for 2016 and horizon

years 2021, 2026, 2031, and 2036. A model was developed and was calibrated through the estimation of

the number of enplanements and operations associated with Fiscal Year 2016. These forecasts used fiscal

years for enplanements and operations forecasts to be directly comparable with the FAA TAF. In addition

to enplanements and peak hour statistics, the model generated aircraft operations based on programmatic

schedules.

The Base Case Forecast adopts the TAF 2016 GA based aircraft and operations forecasts. In addition, an

alternative based aircraft and operations forecast was identified and is detailed in these forecasts.

Table 3-41 Base Case Forecast Comparison with the FAA Terminal Area Forecast provides a percentage

comparison of key forecast parameters with the TAF; this table is also presented as Table 3-1 at the

beginning of the chapter.

In case of all air carrier enplanements, air carrier operations, and total aircraft operations forecasts, the Base

Case Forecast is well within the 5-year and 10-year FAA guidelines to be considered consistent with the FAA

TAF. The long-term number of commercial operations indicated by TAF 2016 is greater than the Base Case

level of operations predicted by the forecast model as a result of assuming larger average seating

configurations. In addition, long-term increases in forecast GA aviation operations over TAF 2016 levels

derives from a similar increase in the number of based aircraft and the high probability for increased flight

training operations.

47 December 23, 2004, memorandum from the FAA Director, Airport Planning and Programming, entitled Revision to

Guidance on Review and Approval of Aviation Forecasts.



TABLE 3-41

BASE CASE FORECAST COMPARISON WITH THE FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST

Base Case Forecast Comparison with FAA Terminal Area Forecast

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

Category Base Case TAF 2016 Base Case TAF 2016 Base Case TAF 2016 Base Case TAF 2016 Base Case TAF 2016

Enplanements 1,312,644 1,312,757 1,565,796 1,562,165 1,771,523 1,697,356 1,970,322 1,844,750 2,175,394 1,999,870

Commercial Operations 41,456 41,456 46,093 43,862 50,178 47,099 52,760 50,997 54,725 55,059

GA Based Aircraft 93 93 104 99 116 103 127 109 139 114

GA Operations 38,209 38,209 42,191 39,861 45,499 40,379 48,394 40,912 51,501 41,541

Total Operations 79,665 79,665 88,284 83,723 95,677 87,478 101,154 91,909 106,226 96,600

Comparison with TAF (Percent Base Case Forecast of TAF 2016)(1)

Enplanements 100.0% 100.2% 104.4% 106.8% 108.8%

Commercial Operations 100.0% 105.1% 106.5% 103.5% 99.4%

GA Based Aircraft 100.0% 105.1% 112.6% 116.5% 121.9%

GA Operations 100.0% 105.8% 112.7% 118.3% 124.0%

Total Operations 100.0% 105.4% 109.4% 110.1% 110.0%

SOURCE: RS&H ANALYSIS FOR FISCAL YEARS, 2017

NOTE: PERCENT IS CALCULATED BY BASE CASE DIVIDED BY TAF 2016

MASTER PLAN UPDATEgfia-master-plan-update.com/documents/...3-aviation-forecast-v3.0.pdf · Summary...

Documents

Transcript of MASTER PLAN UPDATEgfia-master-plan-update.com/documents/...3-aviation-forecast-v3.0.pdf · Summary...