Dubuque Air Service Market-An Air Service Analysis Prepared for the Dubuque Regional Airport Commission November 1991-1E,;r4,-4,0keWsrkz. • .
Ate,'
40,
An air service analysis prepared for the
Dubuque Regional Airport Commission
R 629.136 JAN Iowa Books
J. A. Nammack Associates, Inc.
The Dubuque air service market.
The Dubuque Air Service Market
An air service analysis prepared for the
Dubuque Regional Airport Commission
by
J.A. Nammack Associates, Inc.
Annandale, Virginia
November 1991
3 1825 00239 1798
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary
5
Introduction
Dubuque Compared With Other U.S Cities With Similar Population Levels
8
Comparison of Dubuque With Other Metropolitan Areas in the Region
13
Measures of Air Service Levels at Dubuque and Other Area Airports
16
Passenger Enplanements and True Origin -Destination Passengers at Dubuque and 21
Other Area Airports
26
The Dubuque Air Service Market
44
City -Pair Market Analysis
Comparative Fares in Largest 25 Area O&D Markets and Diversion From Dubuque 52
56
Results of the Dubuque Surveys
67
Concluding Observations and Recommendations
Table of Contents
Comparative Ground Distance Alternatives for a Cross -Section of Airports 73
Throughout the United States
Top 50 O&D Markets for DBQ, CID, Mil, MSN and RFD
75
Travel Agent Ticket Sales in Dubuque: July 1990 - June 1991 (Ranked)
80
Travel Agent Ticket Sales in Dubuque: July 1990 - June 1991 (By Market)
92
Percentage Distribution of Travel Agent Ticket Sales in Dubuque
100
Executive Summary
The Dubuque Regional Airport Commission engaged J.A. Nammack
Associates last summer to analyze the Dubuque air service market and to
develop a program designed to attract improved scheduled air services to the
Dubuque Regional Airport. The Commission understands the direct
relationship that exists between adequate and reliable air service and a
community's overall economic development potential.
We completed the Dubuque Air Service Market Analysis in November
and submitted it to the Commission for review.
Surrounding the Dubuque air service area, which includes eastern -
central Iowa, southwestern Wisconsin and northwestern Illinois, are five other
metropolitan areas served by scheduled airlines. All of them have larger
population bases, higher average income levels and higher levels of
scheduled air service. Two of these alternate airports -- Cedar Rapids and
Moline -- are located within a 90-minute drive of the Dubuque airport. As a
result of these factors, and confirmed by area travel agents, an estimated 40
percent of Dubuque area passengers currently use one of the alternate
airports for their air travel.
We concluded that Dubuque has the potential to generate
approximately 94,000 passenger enplanements per year, compared with the
34,560 actually enplaned at the local airport in 1990. In order to realize its
full potential, Dubuque area passengers would require a higher level of
1
ina
004
inN
1014
scheduled service -- more frequent flights to more destinations in larger
aircraft at more competitive fares.
Among the most encouraging indications of the basic strength of the
Dubuque air service market is the fact that Dubuque's annual enplanements
have remained relatively unchanged since 1978 when Congress deregulated
the airline industry. Despite the proximity of several alternate airports with
superior service, a situation aggravated by a substantial reduction in
scheduled departures and available seats since 1979, Dubuque has maintained
a larger percentage of its original passenger base than have some of its
competitors. One of the major reasons that it has is attributable to the
energetic marketing programs, led by the Airport Commission and community
leaders, which have developed a first-class facility, worked closely with area
travel agents and emphasized to the public the economic importance of the
Dubuque Regional Airport to the present and future well-being of every
resident of the metropolitan area.
We conclude that Dubuque can economically support improved
service, particularly to the St. Louis and Chicago hubs where on-line
connections can be made to key Dubuque markets to the south, west and to
the east. While we find that Dubuque's current enplanement level does not
justify any nonstop jet service, we believe that improved service by regional
affiliates of the major carriers is a realistic possibility. A renewed marketing
effort focused on recapturing many of the 40 percent of area passengers who
now bypass the local airport must be undertaken. Another marketing
2
campaign, implemented cooperatively with Dubuque's tourism, convention
and gaming entities, should be designed to attract visitors interested in these
activities.
We recommend that meetings be conducted with Dubuque's two
incumbent carriers to review this market analysis and to seek their
cooperation in recommending expanded schedules at the Dubuque Airport.
Fares must be monitored on a continual basis so that inadvertent scheduling
of non-competitive fares can be corrected. Dubuque should attempt to attract
additional carriers only after the incumbents have been given an opportunity
to resolve existing service gaps.
In the event that the American Eagle and Northwest Connection
carriers decline to work with the Commission for service improvements, we
would then recommend that service proposals be made to TWA and Midwest
Express calling for service by their affiliates connecting Dubuque to their St.
Louis and Milwaukee hubs. Finally, we would recommend that Great Lakes
Aviation, now a United affiliate be approached for service either to Des
Moines, Kansas City or Omaha.
The Airport Commission need not invest another dollar in this
program until it has contacted these carriers to determine their potential level
of interest in improving services at Dubuque. We are prepared to assist the
Commission in making these initial contacts.
We would conclude this summary by reiterating our first and most
urgent recommendation. Dubuque will attract the level of air sere :ce it both
3
s•
needs and can support only when the public at large living within the
metropolitan area becomes convinced that its own economic future is
intimately tied to the Dubuque Regional Airport. Failure to materially
support the airport and its existing services can only result in a further
deterioration of those services with negative impacts on the area's economy.
Dubuque has knowledgeable leadership in place. What it now needs is
public support.
4
Introduction
The analyses in this report are directed toward the goal of evaluating
the potential of Dubuque to attract and support improved and increased levels
of scheduled air service. With that aim in mind the analysis is structured in
three basic parts.
In the first section there are comparisons of Dubuque with other U.S.
cities with similar population levels. These are designed to view Dubuque's
situation in a national context.
The first section also contains a number of comparative analyses to
illustrate how Dubuque fits in to the geographic region of which it is roughly
the center. These include demographic/economic comparisons and
examination of trends in air service levels and airline passenger traffic.
A second section deals with defining the dimensions of the market
and evaluating its potential for generation of traffic.
The third section, which somewhat overlaps both of the others, will
examine the current travel patterns based on the Dubuque travel agent O&D
data, the U.S. DOT O&D survey, and the results of the surveys of
businesses, individuals, and travel agents in the Dubuque area. The purpose
of this section will be to attempt to find market situations that might need
(and can support) additional air service.
Following the three analytical sections there will be a concluding
section which will contain specific recommendations that are su_gested by
the analyses.
5
Before proceeding to the analysis, however, there are some
observations about Dubuque's situation that we believe should be stated.
There are several positive elements working for Dubuque in its quest
for better air service that we have not found in working with many other
cities.
First, and most important in our view, the Dubuque community has
shown, and continues to show, active interest in its air service. It has an
active committee which has already effected some improvements, such as
working with carriers to eliminate fare differentials between Dubuque and
competing airports. Such community activism and support is essential for
any air service improvement program to succeed. In this sense Dubuque is
ahead of the game.
Second, the cooperative arrangement between the Dubuque airport and
travel agents, which has produced an O&D data base drawn from all tickets
sold, is unique. It is a valuable information source and is a luxury which
we have never before had in the many air service studies we have done.
We congratulate those responsible for devising this system. We wish we
could make it a model for other clients.
Third, there are no problems or limitations that we are aware of, in
the physical and operational capabilities of the Dubuque Regional Airport
that might constrain the development of improved air service. The airport's
runways are sufficient to accommodate jet aircraft of any size whch might
be appropriate for Dubuque service. The terminal has recently undergone
6
an extensive remodeling and expansion. It is currently used well below
capacity. The instrument landing system at Dubuque has recently had its
technical problems corrected so that the allowable takeoff and landing
minimums are in line with those of other airports in the region.
Dubuque Compared With Other U.S Cities With Similar
Population Levels
In an effort to look at Dubuque's situation in a national perspective,
we compared it with nine other metropolitan areas which had similar
population levels. (The cities selected for comparison had populations within
a band approximately 10 percent higher or lower than Dubuque's.) The
comparisons are shown in Table 1 which follows.
In terms of population, Dubuque is the third largest of the 10 cities.
However, the 30.7 thousand households in the Dubuque metro area ranked
sixth among the group.
The median household effective buying income (EBI) for the Dubuque
area was $26,304 which was only exceeded by Bismarck, N.D. with a
median EBI of $26,381. All of the EBI's of the group were lower than the
median EBI for the U.S. which was $27,912. Only 12.4 percent of the
households in the Dubuque metro area had EBI's greater than $50,000 per
year. This percentage makes Dubuque the second lowest in the group.
Owensboro, KY. had the lowest percentage, 11.5 in the group.
Of the 10 cities, six --including Dubuque --have scheduled air service.
The cities without air service all are relatively close to major air service
centers. Sherman, Texas is just north of Dallas -Ft. Worth. Lawrence,
Kansas and St. Joseph, Mo. are each within about an hour drive of Kansas
City. Pine Bluff is slightly more than an hour southeast of Little Rock. the
cities with the greatest amounts of air service and traffic, Bisma.ck, North
8
Ina
Dakota, Rapid City, South Dakota, and Great Falls, Montana, are all
geographically isolated from other air service sources. Jackson, Tennessee
and Owensboro, Kentucky are in somewhat the same position as Dubuque in
that they are located where there are several alternative sources of air service
within reasonable driving distances. Jackson is between Nashville and
Memphis and Owensboro is near Evansville, Indiana but is within driving
distance of Nashville and Louisville.
In terms of enplaned passengers per 1,000 population Dubuque
performs well above the levels of Owensboro and Jackson but well below
the levels experienced by the isolated cities in the Dakotas and Montana.
All things considered it appears that Dubuque compares relatively
favorably with other similar sized cities. However, this is not a suggestion
that Dubuque -- or any of the other cities, for that matter -- are living up to
their full potential as generators of airline passenger traffic. This element
will be discussed more fully in other parts of this analysis.
In order to impart a more midwestern cast to the economic and
demographic comparisons, we also looked at Dubuque in conjunction with 10
selected metro areas in the midwest. This comparison is contained in Table
1 a.
All of the other cities had larger populations and greater numbers of
households than Dubuque. The median effective buying income (EBI) at
Dubuque was almost in the middle of the group -- higher than that of four
cities and lower than six. In terms of the percentage of households with
9
median household EBI's greater than $50,000 a year, Dubuque was the
second lowest, exceeding only the percentage at Columbia, MO.
Three of the cities have no air service. Of the cities with air service,
the situation at Dubuque was roughly in line with those of Columbia, Eau
Claire and Decatur.
10
IMO
lit
Mt a
MI MR
Metropolitan Area
Population Households
HAMS
41114 t
R illh! 1l1lifs full li '.tOµl 1.11113
!UM /i1111:.
1111% 0111111
1•
IMO
1'1/1t rPlite •• sM}If
Table 1
Dubuque Compared to Other Cities With Similar Populations
,llfli, fYll1
Percent of
Median Households w/
1990 1990 # of Household EBI Greater
EBI /1 than $50,000
Air
Service
Monthly
1990 Departures
Enplanements (9/91)
Monthly Enplanements
Seats per 1,000
(9/91) Population
Sherman -Dennison, TX 95,000 36,800 $24,190 14.7% no 0
Owensboro, KY 87,200 33,000 $22,824 11.5% yes 12,776
Dubuque, IA 86,200 30,700 $26,304 12.4% yes 34,640
Pine Bluff, AR 85,400 30,000 $20,222 13.7% no 0
Bismarck, ND 83,800 31,400 $26,381 15.3% yes 129,417
Lawrence, KS 82,900 30,600 $23,820 17.3% no 0
St. Joseph, MO 82,800 32,400 $23,788 14.2% no 0
Rapid City, SD 82,400 31,000 $24,780 17.1% yes 160,775
Jackson, TN 78,100 29,700 $23,818 16.2% yes 6,059
Great Falls, MT 77,500 30,100 $24,015 13.0% yes 115,348
0 0 0
192 3,967 147
292 8,652 402
0 0 0
359 34,906 1,544
0 0 0
0 0 0
658 39,764 1,951
162 3,166 78
766 40,702 1,488
/1 E131 - ELLecLi.ve Buyiny income. The median level o1 household EB1 for the O.S. was $27,912 in 1990.
¢Ui
fRtr /U((� ---r1jU(- IIUti 111111'AMClk14111 HIM OM klittll 4HI11 111111 RWrs 4,111111 O1HMown mm. wow
-
Table la
Dubuque Compared to Midwestern Cities With Slightly Larger Populations
Percent of
Median Households w/
1990 1990 # of Household EBI Greater
Metropolitan Area Population Households EBI /1 than $50,000
Air
Monthly Monthly Enplanements
1990 Departures Seats per 1,000
Service Enplanements
(9/91)
(9/91) Population
Dubuque, IA 86,200 30,700 $26,304 12.4% yes 34,640
Kankekee, IL 96,000 34,500 $26,554 15.7% no 0
LaCrosse, WI 98,400 36,900 $26,270 15.4% yes 98,379
Rochester, MN 107,600 40,500 $33,352 25.2% yes 152,521
Columbia, MO 113,100 42,200 $26,132 8.3% yes 39,572
Wausau, WI 115,900 41,700 $27,274 14.1% yes 123,640
Decatur, IL 116,200 45,600 $29,857 21.1% yes 41,429
Kenosha, WI 129,000 47,300 $35,536 29.2% no 0
Terre Haute, IN 130,300 49,000 $23,765 13.9% yes 13,543
Eau Claire, WI 138,200 50,600 $24,049 12.8% yes 31,248
Beloit -Janesville, WI 139,300 52,200 $29,129 15.9% no 0
292 8,652 402
0 0 0
405 19,978 1,000
247 31,356 1,417
282 5,358 350
698 29,747 1,068
385 9,355 357
0 0 0
90 3,240 100
171 4,800 226
0 0 0
Comparison of Dubuque With Other Metropolitan Areas
in the Region
Dubuque is the geographic center of the area where eastern -central
Iowa borders southwestern Wisconsin and northwestern Illinois.
Consequently, it is important to examine how Dubuque's demographic and
economic factors compare with the other metropolitan areas that surround it,
and to look at the comparative histories of air service and air traffic.
Demographic and Economic Elements
Dubuque's 1990 population was the smallest of the six metropolitan
areas that make up this region. At 86,200, Dubuque's population amounted
to 6.1 percent of the combined total of the six metro areas which was just
over 1.4 million. This and other demographic and economic measures are
contained in Table 2 which follows. Dubuque's metro area contained 5.7
percent of the area's combined total of households.
In terms of relative ability to buy goods and services, Dubuque's
metro area had the lowest potential of any of the other metro areas. Its
median Effective Buying Income (EBI) of $26,304 annually was 19 percent
below the median EBI's of Cedar Rapids and Waterloo -Cedar Falls, 18
percent below that of Rockford, 16 percent under Davenport-Moiine's, and
15 percent less than the EBI of Madison.
Of more significance, particularly in assessing air travel demand, the
percentage of households in the Dubuque area with EBI's of more than
13
$50,000 a year was the lowest in the group. The percentage for Dubuque
was 12.4. Percentages of households with EBI's greater than $50,000 a year
exceeded 20 percent in each of the other metro areas.
The median household EBI at Dubuque was about six percent lower
than the national average EBI of $27,912. The EBI's of the other metro
areas ranged from 8 to 12 percent above the national average.
14
ll t
d(lil(I MIA Mlla Nlltll •IIfU1 blll(L1 141t1I8 iflilti *UM lIID . It! lTiilll iifllll ti1111/ NMI Il)111
hilt titl[I
t Nit V Mit ; Itit •-tilt Iltt ;tin -Nt1l+ 1111I, #OM /11/I Nilll .,1JIIt pIJIJ tuft it/M
Table 2
Demographic and Economic Comparison
Dubuque and Other Area Metropolitan Areas
Percent of
1990 % of 1990 1990 % of Median Household EBI Households w/
1990 Combined Number of Combined Index EBI Greater
Metro Area Population Total Households Total Annual DBQ = 100 than $50,000
Dubuque 86,200 6.1% 30,700 5.7% 26,304 100 12.4%
Cedar Rapids 169,300 12.1% 65,700 12.2% 31,314 119 20.2%
Madison 370,400 26.4% 144,100 26.8% 30,218 115 21.9%
Davenport/ 348,400 24.8% 135,200 25.1% 30,570 116 20.6%
Moline
Rockford 284,200 20.2% 107,800 20.0% 31,155 118 20.5%
Waterloo/ 145,400 10.4% 54,800 10.2% 31,229 119 21.7%
Cedar Falls
Source: Sales & Marketing Management: Survey of Buying Power, August 1991
Measures of Air Service Levels at Dubuque and Other
Area Airports
Comparison of pre -deregulation air service to recent levels at Dubuque
and at other area airports (See Table 3) illustrate the changes that have
occurred since 1978 in the way air carriers provide service to small -to -
medium -sized communities. Looking at the combined total of monthly seats
at Dubuque and the other airports shows an overall increase of 1,580 seats
from April 1978 to September 1991. On the other hand the number of seats
offered for sale in September 1991 was down 51,584 from the April 1978
level of 333,533. The average number of seats per departure for all area
airports combined dropped from 93 to 55 over the same interval.
The increase in departures along with the decreases in overall seats
and average seats per departure reflect the change in emphasis by carriers
serving these cities and other similar points throughout the country. Since
deregulation in 1978 the carriers have opted for increased frequency of
service with smaller seat -capacity aircraft.
Of the cities in the area, Dubuque is the only one that experienced
declines over the period in all three elements --departures, seats, and aircraft
capacity. Monthly departures dropped from 442 in April 1978 to 292 in
September 1991. Seats in September 1991 amounted to 8,652, down from
15,645 in 1978. Average seats per departure declined from 35 to 30 over
the same period. This latter change in the measure of aircraft size is one
area where Dubuque fared better than the other area airports. The decline in
16
Table 3
Monthly Departures, Seats and Average Seats
per Departure at Dubuque and Other Area Airports
Average Seats
Monthly Departures Monthly Seats per Departure
City - Carrier 4/78 4/91 9/91 4/78 4/91 9/91 4/78 4/91 9/91
Dubuque
American 0 180 180 0 6,480 6,480 0 36 36
Northwest 0 142 112 0 2,586 2,172 0 18 19
Ozark 195 0 0 11,940 0 0 61 0 0
United 247 0 0 3,705 0 0 15 0 0
Total 442 322 292 15,645 9,066 8,652 35 28 30
Cedar Rapids
American 0 228 232 0 10,488 10,672 0 46 46
America West 0 60 90 0 7,590 11,520 0 127 128
Northwest 0 82 81 0 7,892 7,044 0 96 87
Ozark 385 0 0 31,940 0 0 83 0 0
TWA 0 202 227 0 14,993 14,524 0 74 64
United 300 258 254 42,000 28,350 28,678 140 110 113
0 100 106 0 1,900 2,014 0 19 19
Total 685 930 990 73,940 71,213 74,452 108 77 75
Madison
American 0 296 300 0 13,616 13,800 0 46 46
Midway 0 176 180 0 4,424 3,420 0 25 19
North Central 307 0 0 29,818 0 0 97
Northwest 420 262 262 56,700 30,266 31,943 135 116 122
Ozark 200 0 0 18,800 0 0 94
TWA 0 116 141 0 5,568 5,718 0 48 41
United 0 234 226 0 27,968 27,750 0 120 123
Midwest Exp. 0 194 187 0 7,196 7,322 0 37 39
Total 927 1,278 1,296 105,318 89,038 89,953 114 70 69
Moline
American 0 206 210 0 7,416 7,560 0 36 36
America West 0 90 90 0 11,790 11,250 0 131 125
Midway 0 150 150 0 3,120 2,850 0 21 19
Northwest 0 130 131 0 3,870 4,414 0 30 34
Ozark 610 0 0 48,680 0 0 80 0 0
TWA 0 238 275 0 14,929 19,130 0 63 70
United 330 285 308 45,810 23,345 27,546 139 82 89
Total 940 1,099 1,164 94,490 64,470 72,750 101 59 63
17
Monthly Departures Monthly Seats
City - Carrier 4/78 4/91 9/91
4/78 4/91 9/91
Average Seats
per Departure
4/78 4/91 9/91
Rockford
American 0 298 300 0 11,418 13,200 0 38 44
Midway 0 202 171 0 4,378 3,249 0 22 19
Northwest 0 78 77 0 1,629 1,463 0 21 19
Ozark 120 0 0 10,800 0 0 90 0 0
Midwest Exp. 0 118 192 0 2,242 3,648 0 19 19
Total 120 696 740 10,800 19,667 21,560 90 28 29
Waterloo
American 0 116 116 0 5,036 5,036 0 43 43
Northwest 0 194 194 0 3,687 3,928 0 19 20
Ozark 470 0 0 33,340 0 0 71 0 0
TWA 0 112 161 0 2,128 3,334 0 19 21
Great Lakes 0 239 208 0 2,629 2,288 0 11 11
Total 470 661 679 33,340 13,480 14,586 71 20 21
Combined Total
Area Airports: 3,584 4,986 5,161 333,533 266,934 281,953 93 54 55
Source: Departures and seats compiled by the U.S. DOT from. Official Airli:
Seats per departure calculated by Nammack Associates.
18
average seats per departure at each of the other airports was relatively more
pronounced than at Dubuque.!
All of the area airports, except Dubuque, experienced increases in
monthly departures in 1991 over 1978. the largest relative gainer in this
case was Rockford which had 120 departures in April 1978 and 740 in
September 1991.
In terms of the numbers of monthly seats, Rockford also was the
leader, its seats going from 10,800 in 1978 to 21,560 in 1991. The only
other airport to show an absolute increase in seats over the period was Cedar
Rapids. There, however, the gain was marginal with September 1991 seats
at 74,448 versus 73,940 in April 1978.
A better sense, we believe, of the relative changes in service at the
Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin airports in the area can be gained from Table 4
which shows the percentage shares of each airport of the combined totals of
monthly seats and departures.
For example, Dubuque's share of area combined departures dropped
from 12.3 percent in April 1978 to 5.7 percent in September 1991. Over the
same interval its share of area seats declined to 3.1 percent from 4.7 percent.
Cedar Rapids maintained its relative share of area departures over the
period but increased its share of seats by more than four percentage points.
I At all of the area airports, the change in aircraft size is heavily influenced by the
departure of Ozark Airlines (and, in the case of Madison, also North Central) which
had operated jet service throughout the area from the late 1960's through the mid-
1980's when it was merged into TWA. (North Central be:.ame a part of
Northwest.)
19
Madison showed the most stable performance by roughly maintaining its
shares of both seats and departures from 1978 to 1991. Moline experienced
relative share declines of about 3.5 percentage points in both departures and
seats. Waterloo maintained its share of area departures but its share of
monthly seats was down by half from 10 percent to about 5 percent.
Rockford was the big gainer from 1978 to 1991. Its relative share of
departures was up from 3.3 percent in 1978 to over 14 percent in the most
recent period. Rockford's share of seats went from 3.2 percent to over 7.5
percent.
TABLE 4
Percentage Distribution of Monthly Departures and Seats
At Dubuque and Other Area Airports
Monthly Departures Monthly Seats
4/78 4/91 9/91 4/78 4/91 9/91
Dubuque 12.3 6.5 5.7 4.7 3.4 3.1
Cedar Rapids 19.1 18.7 19.2 22.2 26.7 26.4
Madison 25.9 25.6 25.1 31.6 33.4 31.9
Moline 26.2 22.0 22.6 28.3 24.2 25.8
Rockford 3.3 14.0 14.3 3.2 7.4 7.6
Waterloo 13.1 13.3 13.2 10.0 5.0 5.=
Total* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
* Note: Percentages may not add to exactly
100.0% because of independent rounding
of individual airport percentages.
Source: Calculated from data in Table 3
20
PO
1010
1010
Passenger Enplanements and True Origin -Destination
Passengers at Dubuque and Other Area Airports
We have used two measures to describe the trends and relative shares
of traffic at Dubuque and the other area airports. The first is a comparison
of passenger enplanements at each airport and the combined total for the area
(See Table 5). Enplanements are passengers who board aircraft at the
various airports without regard for where their journeys ultimately began or
where they terminate. The second measure, true origin -destination (O&D)
passengers, are those passengers who originate their journeys at an airport
and those passengers that originate at other U.S. airports that are terminating
their trips at that airport (See Table 6). Enplanements are a one -direction,
outbound concept. O&D passengers are both inbound and outbound.
We have more confidence in the accuracy of the enplanement data
because they are based on reports by carriers of actual boarding counts. The
origin -destination data are based on a 10 percent sample of tickets used.
Our experience has been that O&D traffic has had a tendency to understate
the actual levels of traffic, particularly at smaller airports. Both
enplanements and O&D data are collected by the U.S. department of
Transportation. We do not have the confidence that quality controls now
being maintained are equal to those that existed when the Civil Aeronautics
Board was the custodian of aviation data. Having said all this, we use both
measures of traffic because they are nevertheless, the best available indicators
of relative traffic performance currently available.
21
Table 5
Annual Passenger Enplanements at Dubuque
and Other Area Airports
% Change
Airport 1979 1984 1988 1990 1990 vs. 1979
Dubuque 34,586 23,495 28,690 34,640 0.2
Cedar Rapids 261,585 228,783 377,775 402,271 53.8
Madison 382,286 365,961 420,718 523,269 36.9
Moline 320,248 249,594 302,232 315,272 < 1.6>
Rockford 12,578 22,647 15,175 92,488 635.3
Waterloo 85,437 54.443 58,516 57.600 <32.6>
Total 1,096,720 944,923 1,203,106 1,425,540 30.0
Percentage Distribution
Change
Airport 1979 1984 1988 1990 1990 vs. 1979
Dubuque 3.1 2.5 2.4 2.4 <0.7>
Cedar Rapids 23.9 24.2 31.4 28.2 4.3
Madison 34.9 38.7 35.0 36.7 1.8
Moline 29.2 26.4 25.1 22.1 <7.1>
Rockford 1.1 2.4 1.3 6.5 5.4
Waterloo 7.8 5.8 4.9 4.0 <3.8>
Total* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
* Note:
Individual airport percentages may not add to exactly 100%
because of independent rounding of individual airport
percentages.
Source: Dubuque enplanements from airport records. Enplanements at
other airports from U.S. DOT compilation.
22
Table 6
True O&D Passengers at Dubuque
and Other Area Airports
% Change
Airport 1979 1984 1988 1990 1990 vs. 1979
Dubuque 59,030 24,110 37,040 58,650 < 0.6>
Cedar Rapids 458,820 315,270 537,300 680,580 48.3
Madison 621,630 624,230 701,950 926,410 49.0
Moline 545,840 368,250 241,840 511,720 < 6.3>
Rockford 15,470 34,720 44,100 166,630 900.8
Waterloo 147,620 80,340 65,900 80.810 <45.3>
Total 1,848,410 1,446,920 1,808,130 2,424,800 31.2
Percentage Distribution
% Change
Airport 1979 1984 1988 1990 1990 vs. 1979
Dubuque 3.2 1.7 2.0 2.4 <0.8>
Cedar Rapids 24.8 21.8 29.7 28.1 3.3
Madison 33.6 43.1 38.8 38.2 4.6
Moline 29.5 25.5 23.3 21.1 <8.4>
Rockford 0.8 2.4 2.4 6.9 6.1
Waterloo 8.0 5.6 3.6 3.3 <4.7>
Total* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
* Note:
Individual airport percentages may not add to exactly 100%
because of independent rounding of individual airport
percentages.
Source: O&D Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic, as compiled by Data
Base Products, Dallas, Texas.
23
For Dubuque and the other airports in the area, enplanement levels
and O&D traffic show consistent patterns over the period 1979-1990. For
the combined group of airports the level of enplaned passengers was 30
percent higher in 1990 than in 1979. The combined number of true O&D
passengers was up 31.2 percent over the same interval. In terms of absolute
increases in the number of enplanements or O&D passengers the big gainers
among the area airports were Cedar Rapids and Madison. The largest
increase in traffic in percentage terms was at Rockford where 1990
enplanements were seven times higher than in 1979 while the level of O&D
passengers was over 10 times higher at the end of the period than at the
beginning.
The biggest decline in traffic by either measure, both in absolute and
relative terms, was at Waterloo. Moline experienced more modest declines
in both, relatively and absolutely in enplanements and in O&D traffic.
Dubuque held its own over the period. Enplanements were marginally
higher in 1990 than in 1979 although its share of the regional total declined
by 0.7 percent. 2 The reported level of O&D traffic at Dubuque was down
slightly over the period and its relative share dropped by 0.8 percent.
In the face of the service declines discussed in the previous section,
the fact that Dubuque virtually maintained the status quo with regard to
traffic is no small achievement.
2 Yearly enplanement levels for Dubuque for all years since 19-6 are shown in
Chart l
24
r(nri, figtH MS 1411111 1144jUi*MI HUI 1#1111111 iUI1JJI 111111 114101, 11-19I114WO-
' vow our t MVP PIM P 1 PHU PrI19,0 PPM!, WM, #1,1111-1 101110 1 'Ars Loon,
60
55
50
45
40
Ln 35
30
25
20
15
10
CHART 1
Enplanements by Carrier at Dubuque
1976 - 1991
Thousands
/7
Ozark
AA*
Am. Central \ Iowa Air.
Other
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991
Source: Dubuque Regional Airport
Note: 1991 includes Jan - Aug only
The Dubuque Air Service Market
The previous section highlighting the area's historic traffic and service
shows that Dubuque has been able to maintain the level of traffic through its
own airport even in the face of declining service. But the analysis also
demonstrates that Dubuque has not been a major player in relation to the
other airports in the area. Its percentage of the region's combined totals of
either enplaned passengers or O&D passengers has remained quite small.
The question which now must be addressed is whether this historic
performance represents the full potential of the Dubuque market. This is a
complicated task in large part because of Dubuque's geographic location. It
is situated in the center of an area that is served by several other airports all
of which compete to some degree for the same pool of traffic as the
Dubuque Regional Airport. In addition, all of the other airports have service
at much higher levels than Dubuque.
In our analyses of the air service experiences of a number of
communities throughout the country we have concluded that a community's
development of total passenger traffic at its own airport is primarily
dependent on its distance from a larger airport or airports. The closer a
community is to a larger airport the more likely its residents (the potential
pool of traffic demand) will consider themselves to be within the larger
airport's service orbit.
We collected data from 80 communities throughout the United States
concerning distance to a major alternate airport land the numbers of enplaned
26
passengers per 1,000 population at each locality. See Appendix 1 for details.
these can be grouped into 10 25-mile intervals according to the distances
from alternate airports. These are shown in the following table.
TABLE 7
Distance to Enplaned Passengers
Alternate Airport Per 1,000 Population
Range (Average) (Average) No. Communities
(miles)
under 50 25 71 5
51-75 63 415 16
76-100 88 699 11
101-125 113 934 17
126-150 138 1,395 8
151-175 163 1,216 4
176-200 188 1,383 5
201-225 213 1,287 3
226-250 238 1,290 1
251 and over 344 2,164 10
Because of the observed relationship between distance to an alternate
airport and the average number of enplanements per 1,000 population shown
in the data in Chart 2, we fitted a least -squares regression line to the data.
The dependent variable (in this case enplanements per 1,000 population) is
represented on the Y axis and the independent variable (distance to an
alternate airport) is on the X axis. The actual averages in each of the 10
distance intervals are shown as shaded dots on this chart. The least -squares
line, represented by an equation in the mathematical form Y = a + bX, is
the straight line around which the dots are scattered.
27
1144(1 f(ft( r f (N(tl
(B(1 Hlfls itlttl
Hite
MIL 1111111 1111111 1111111 111;111 .111111
'iIUt 111411 111111 111111 Inn
?N1
lal lFt� 11114.*1 � 11111.
I.)
GO
l 11114 111111 1tt'8 111414- 1`!111111 111114
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
61611111
CHART 2
Relationship of Passenger Traffic
To Distance From Another Airport
WO{ MITI{ over/ ts'vF
Enp. Pax./1,000 Population
Y5.874x + 161.4204
1
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance From a Major Air Terminal (Miles)
CHART 2 (con't.)
Note: Another evaluation, Chart 3, reveals that the top passenger traffic
production for each 1,000 people is about 3,000 O&D passengers.
Tying this related investigation to our current problem indicates that
1,500 annual enplanements per 1,000 people is most likely the top
generating level. Such a level is reached at about 225 - 230 miles
distance from an alternate airport. We anticipate further investigation
into this aspect of traffic generation, especially at the mega hubs, at a
later time. It should be emphasized that the O&D study included
only airports more than 200 miles from alternative air service.
Therefore, we believe it represents the probable theoretical outside
limit of traffic potential under what might be termed "ideal
circumstances".
29
-tr;.UC .1411( 111111 4Ili 1111 411181 1111111 111/91 1/1/1 1 1 /1111 111111 1,111111 1)1111 1141H
41“
0
1141. .1 MI FRIA' 1IJ f "f1111 IflfV *MI
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
CHART 3
Relationship: O&D Traffic to Population
Passengers (000)
0
Source: Appendix 19
100
200
300
400
600
500
Population (000)
700
800
900
1000
0011 91110
In this regression the Y = a+ bX turns out to be Y = 161.4207 +
5.873X. The coefficient of correlation for this regression turns out to be .89
which indicates a close relationship between the variables. A coefficient of
1.0 indicates a perfect relationship.
An example of how this relationship can be applied to a real situation
follows. A locality with 100,000 population is 100 miles from an alternate
airport. Then the formula (decimals rounded) would estimate the number of
enplanements as follows: Y = 161 + (100 x 5.9) = 161 + 590 = 751. In
other words, the formula would predict that the city should generate about
750 passenger enplanements per 1,000 population. If the same city were 200
miles from an alternate airport, the formula would estimate the enplanements
to be 161 + (200 x 5.9) = 161 + 1,180 = 1,341 passengers per 1,000
population.
Because the mathematically -computed results so closely compare to
experienced data and to the logic underlying the idea, we are convinced that
the formula and its techniques can be used as a benchmark forecast method
for an average city to determine its ability to generate traffic depending on
its distance from an alternate airport or airports which have superior service
levels.
Our experience in the numerous studies done over the past few years
indicate that a large number of potential passengers from any given area do
drive, and will continue to drive (or use public transportation) many miles to
major terminals where jet service and low fares are available. Our
31
experience also indicates that when jet service and low fares are inaugurated
at a local airport, passengers will return.'
All available evidence corroborates the trends and implicit
ramifications of our mathematically computed equation. A previous study for
Lake Charles indicates that as much as 60% of the area's passengers used
other than the Lake Charles airport to take advantage of lower fares and
better schedules in early 1982.4 For the full year of 1982, enplaned
passengers at the airport dropped by about 27% compared with 1981 -- an
indication that the total dependence on commuter carriers may have added to
the passenger exodus to Houston, despite the fact that total travel agent ticket
sales between 1982 and 1981 decreased by only 1.5%.5
It appears that under most circumstances passengers will not drive
more than 200 miles for alternate air service. This conclusion is backed by
some recent travel agent information obtained from several agencies in the
Shreveport, LA area -- located about 195 to 200 miles from Dallas/Ft. Worth
Airport. The Civil Aeronautics Board reported that Shreveport, between June
1978 and June 1983, lost some 30 weekly flights and over 4,000 weekly
3 Passenger traffic growth at Melbourne, FL (People Express inaugurated service in
late April 1982) changed from 19% in 1981, to 25% in 1982, and further to 66%
through July in 1983 (City of Melbourne Airport Authority).
° Lake Charles, Louisiana Air Service Improvement Study, August 1982, Crenshaw
Associates.
5 Other recent studies in the late 1980's at Reading, Jefferson Cite. Evansville and
Lexington all confirm that passengers, particularly pleasure travelers, will drive
many miles for service and lower fares (and their availability).
32
seats on scheduled service. While its total enplanements between 1978 and
1982 did drop about 18%, total passengers currently driving to Dallas/Ft.
Worth, the nearest alternate larger airport, were insignificant, running only
about 4-5%.6 Thus, we can conclude that the Shreveport traffic drop
between 1978 and 1983 was due to an actual reduction in market demand,
precipitated primarily by the nationwide recession and particularly by the
negative economics affecting the oil industry.
Application of the 200-mile outer limit criteria indicates that there are
about 1,341 enplaned passengers per 1,000 population at a city where the
alternate airport is too far to comfortably reach via ground travel.' Assuming
that this level of traffic generation is applicable to the country as a whole,
we can then project the percentage of passengers who drive from any area to
an alternate airport. Chart 4 illustrates this division.
In order to apply our benchmark formula to the Dubuque situation, it
is necessary to define the population of the air service market area. We
have approached this task by looking at Dubuque in relation to the rest of
the area. We believe, based on our experience and judgement, that an
airport's core market area is generally the region that is within approximately
an hour driving time. In terms of distance, we think of this as
approximately 50 miles, at least in areas which are not pans of major urban
metropolitan complexes.
6 Responses to a Fall 1985 travel agent survey in Louisiana.
The approximate generating power of cities 200 miles from a large- airport.
33
ffffd HtFI tllff9 VWW It /)fU'l 7HIII IHUI I4Flta 1111110 NA1 11111s I1,111%1 pi111111 04110-
'
lfNlM a-ottm -tlt! AC7lH'1 1 flit f4Ufi
Stift 11t11 ► ite 11I1t4 1111 lfftf lIM spoof iiii)i-9 41114 (11101 NII 171H)
CHART 4
Market Share Lost to Ground Travel Is
High Up to 100 Miles from Alternate Air Service
# of Passengers
1500
1400
1300 --
1200 -
1100 -
1000 -
900 -
800
700
600
500 -
400 -
300
200///
100 0 //////////// /
0 50
100
Distance From a Major Air Terminal (Miles)
150
200
We have, as illustrated in Chart 5, drawn 50-mile radius circles
around Dubuque and the other area airports with which it potentially
competes. As is evident, there are major overlaps in the core market areas
of Dubuque and Cedar Rapids, Dubuque and Moline, and Dubuque and
Madison to a lesser degree. The populations in the overlap areas we think
would gravitate to the airports with the most service. Therefore, we believe
it is logical to exclude them from the Dubuque core market area.
Under the market boundary concept just described, the population of
the market we estimate to be just over 200,000 persons. The table following
shows how this population figure was arrived at. It includes the entire
population of Dubuque County, one-half of the populations of each of three
other Iowa counties-- Clayton, Jackson, and Allamakee--and a quarter of the
population of Delaware County. In addition, it encompasses the entire
populations of Grant County in Wisconsin and Jo Daviess County in Illinois
plus half the population of Lafayette County, Wisconsin. Also, included is a
quarter of the population of Iowa County, Wisconsin. It could be argued
that a portion of Dubuque County's population should be excluded. We
considered but decided that the relatively small number would not materially
affect the total estimate my much.
35
Chart 5
The Dubuque Market Area
36
State - County
Estimated Population in Defined
Dubuque Air Service Core Market Area
Total Population in
Population Dubuque Market
Iowa - Dubuque 86,200 86,200
Delaware 18,000 6,000
Jackson 19,800 9,900
Clayton 18,900 9,500
Allamakee 13,800 6,900
Wisconsin -
Grant 49,100 49,100
Lafayette 16,000 8,000
Iowa 20,200 5,000
Illinois -
Joe Daviess 21,700 21,700
Total 263,700 202,300
Our estimate of the population in the Dubuque air service market area
appears to be quite consistent with the estimates made by the Iowa
Department of Transportation for other purposes. That estimate was
concerned only with the Iowa portion of the area and came up with a
population of 111,500. Our estimate for Iowa only is 118,500. Our estimate
is also generally in line with the Chamber of Commerce definition of the
population of the Dubuque trade area. (Iowa DOT and the Chamber
estimates are shown in Charts 6 and 7, respectively.
Before attempting to apply our enplanement-per-1,000-population
relationship we believe it is necessary to make another adjustment to the
base population figure to account for the proportion of the population that
does not fly at all. According to a 1990 survey done by the Air Transport
37
i Z
CHART 6
3 4KPW.o.a
, r ,e
38
TRANSPORTATION N!t
towa Departme
of jransportat c
• Agpra xieruuicioenia..
"Rvilla.iciAjon --' s s, sac,
a tinativ-i s a Act pr4 xi ena+
! . NI-. C ,' ,
..ria . O
001
---
0. DA
-t.
3
CHART 7
1980 CENSUS
Dubuque Trade Area Population - 246,290 -
TRADE AREA
1
� CIeC A • s.>.
1
rliCL MA.A
1
IttwTOw LINO
•
•WA
IMI
ALLA...ate
•
is
i, JO,.rSON
co"
rIZSCATINIS
L-
1 SCOTT
_L.
1
+x. oSL..O
7lCMLr1Mp 11
WISCONSIN
� � I
yaw -J
3Aetw ACC=
S'Er-ErSJw
acme L--_-
L[I
ILLINOIS
39
Association, some 26 percent of the population has never flown. Although
this was a national survey there is no reason to believe that the results
should not apply to Dubuque or any other locality. Therefore, we believe it
is appropriate to adjust the total population pool downward by 25 percent to
150,000 before applying the formula.
Because the benchmark traffic potential formula is based on distance
from an alternate airport it is essential to make a judgement as to the
distance to an alternate airport. This is difficult in the case of Dubuque
because there are several area airports that are alternates. It is also
complicated by the fact that not all locations in what we have defined as the
Dubuque market area are the same distance from the airports. consequently,
we have elected to use what might be described as a representative mileage,
measuring from Dubuque as the center of the market area.
In arriving at a representative distance the alternate airports we
included are Cedar Rapids, Moline, Madison, and Rockford. La Crosse is
excluded because of distance. Waterloo is not really an alternate for
Dubuque, partly because of distance and partly because of its declining level
of service.'
Based on the mileages shown in an AAA automobile atlas we
calculated the mileage from Dubuque to the Cedar Rapids airport to be 77
miles, the distance to the Moline airport as 81 miles, to the Rockford airport
' The results of the travel agent O&D data, which will be discussed in detail in
another section, support this. Those data indicate that few passengers from
Dubuque use Waterloo.
40
95 miles and to the Madison airport, 100 miles. The average of these
distances is approximately 88 miles, which we think can be used as a
representative distance.
Because the population of the Dubuque market area and the
representative distance are both estimates, we believe it justified to round
them when used in the application of our benchmark formula for market
potential. We think that population can be rounded to 150,000 and the
representative distance to 90 miles. This will make our calculations
somewhat more understandable and will guard against implying more
precision in the estimates of market potential than is justified.
Under what may be best described as ideal circumstances --air service
of sufficient quality and quantity to maximize demand, no air service closer
than 200 miles, and income and other economic demographic elements at the
national average --our formula would predict enplanements per 1,000
population to be 1,341. Therefore, for a market of the population size of
150,000 the total number of enplanements at the airport would be 201,150
(1.341 x 150). Very few airports would ever achieve this theoretical
maximum level, which we refer to as maximum unconstrained potential.
Application of the formula to Dubuque at the estimated representative
distance to alternate airports produces an expected enplanements-per-1,000
population figure of 692. Thus, for the estimated adjusted population of the
market area -- 150,000 -- the maximum potential would be almost 104,000.
(150 x 692 = 103,800). It is important to emphasize that this only attempts
41
to adjust for the fact that alternative service exists at points less than 200
miles away. Therefore, it too is a maximum concept which assumes that
service is tailored to the demand and that demographic/economics of the
market are at or near national averages.
In our judgement the 104,000 estimate should be adjusted downward
by about 10 percent to reflect the fact that the effective buying income of
the Dubuque metro area --the core of the market area-- is about five percent
under the national average and the fact that the proportion of households
with EBI's of greater than $50,000 is relatively low. This adjustment would
make the potential enplanements at the Dubuque airport 94,000 in round
numbers (103,800 x .9 = 93,600).
In 1990 some 34,560 passengers were enplaned at the Dubuque
airport representing only about 37 percent of the potential after adjustments.
Much of the discrepancy between actual and potential enplanements may be
attributed to declining service levels and lack of sufficient competitive fares
to attract more passengers.
While we think it is entirely plausible to believe that there is a pool
of some 94,000 potential passengers in the Dubuque area, we are skeptical
that in the real world enough service at competitive fares can be attracted to
the Dubuque airport to fully exploit this potential. To come close to
capturing this level of traffic would require that there be
service with jet equipment several times a day to more than two hubs at
fares below, on the average, the fares available at other airports in the area.
42
There will always be, we are convinced, some travelers who will
choose to drive to alternate airports to obtain service. Many pleasure
travelers will probably continue to drive to Chicago. Time is not as
important a consideration to them as are other factors. A very important
consideration to them is to limit the number of plane changes and thereby
reduce the chances of luggage being lost in the transfers. Therefore, the
94,000 pool of potential passengers should be viewed as an objective to
strive for but one which may not be reached in spite of best efforts.
In addition we do not see much chance of any carrier inaugurating jet
service at Dubuque. The carriers now operating in the area have committed
their jet service to the larger competing airports in the area. Given the
mood of retrenchment stemming from the financial troubles being
experienced throughout the industry, their inclinations probably are to
maintain the status quo. The niche carriers, except for Southwest Airlines,
are also having troubles and are not in an expansive frame of mind.
43
City -Pair Market Analysis
In order to evaluate the potential for new or improved air services at
Dubuque, it is essential to examine city -pair markets. Thanks to participating
Dubuque interests, we have more data and information than usual. In
addition to the information from the U.S. Origin -Destination (O&D) Survey,
we have the O&D data made available by the unique cooperative agreement
among the travel agencies in Dubuque. These sources are supplemented by
information gleaned from the four surveys conducted in the Dubuque area.
Since Dubuque and other area airports compete, to one degree or
another for traffic from the same general area, we thought it reasonable to
determine what are the major O&D markets to and from the area and how
the various airports share in these markets. To do this we have created a
combined area O&D by adding together the O&D data for Dubuque, Cedar
Rapids, Moline, Madison and Rockford. The numbers of passengers and
shares for the largest 25 area O&D markets are presented in Table 8.
As is evident from the table, the largest 25 O&D markets to and from
the area total almost 1.5 million passengers, or 64 percent of the 2.3 million
total area O&D traffic for all city -pair markets. The six largest markets --
Phoenix, Las Vegas, Chicago, Minneapolis, Washington and Denver --
account for 39 percent of the total O&D traffic in the top 25 city -pair
markets. These same markets account for 25 percent of the total area
combined O&D.
44
Table 8
True O&D Passengers To/From Dubuque and Competing Area Airports
Year Ending March 1991
DBQ O&D Percent CID O&D Percent MLI O&D Percent MSN O&D Percent RFD O&D Percent
Passengers Passengers of Total Passengers of Total Passengers of Total Passengers of Total Passengers of Total
Phoenix 112,960 2,740 2.43% 38,520 34.10% 31,780 28.13% 30,820 27.28% 9,100 8.06%
Las Vegas 99,340 2,160 2.17% 29,250 29.44% 34,760 34.99% 29,090 29.28% 4,080 4.11%
Chicago - ORD 98,670 5,710 5.79% 46,420 47.05% 21,710 22.00% 22,760 23.07% 2,070 2.10%
Minneapolis 95,000 3,920 4.13% 26,490 27.88% 19,350 20.37% 34,710 36.60% 10,470 11.02%
Washington - DCA 81,120 1,700 2.10% 20,570 25.36% 13,090 16.14% 42,290 52.13% 3,470 4.28%
Denver 80,160 1,370 1.71% 24,890 31.05% 18,260 22.78% 27,500 34.31% 8,140 10.15%
Los Angeles 77,950 2,380 3.05% 24,690 31.67% 19,410 24.90% 26,680 34.23% 4,790 6.14%
New York - LGA 73,690 1,820 2.47% 15,720 21.33% 9,490 12.88% 42,790 58.07% 3,870 5.25%
Orlando 66,640 1,000 1.50% 17,510 26.28% 13,120 19.69% 31,110 46.68% 3,900 5.85%
Detroit 65,350 2,210 3.38% 10,190 15.59% 8,280 12.67% 29,690 45.43% 14,980 22.92%
Dallas 60,350 1,630 2.70% 17,390 28.82% 13,420 22.24% 20,590 34.12% 7,320 12.13%
Boston 58,680 1,390 2.37% 14,370 24.49% 8,260 14.08% 30,510 51.99% 4,150 7.07%
Newark 51,220 1,140 2.23% 12,030 23.49% 10,800 21.09% 24,450 47.74% 2,800 5.47%
"' San I•'ranci,co 51,140 1,400 2.74% 13,950 27.28% 9,440 18.46% 24,430 47.77% 1,920 3.75%
Atlanta 47,940 1,650 3.44% 12,290 25.64% 10,560 22.03% 19,250 40.15% 4,190 8.74%
Seattle 45,960 1,280 2.79% 14,530 31.61% 9,750 21.21% 16,990 36.97% 3,410 7.42%
Tampa 41,960 620 1.48% 8,400 20.02% 9,690 23.09% 20,000 47.66% 3,250 7.75%
Philadelphia 41,890 1,070 2.55% 8,680 20.72% 9,230 22.03% 19,350 46.19% 3,560 8.50%
San Diego 39,550 1,500 3.79% 12,500 31.61% 8,890 22.48% 12,730 32.19% 3,930 9.94%
St. Louis 35,600 700 1.97% 11,360 31.91% 12,070 33.90% 6,190 17.39% 5,280 14.83%
Miami 31,850 490 1.54% 9,480 29.76% 5,760 18.08% 14,020 44.02% 2,100 6.59%
b'r. Myer:. 27,420 510 1.86% 6,300 22.98% 6,080 22.17% 12,140 44.27% 2,390 8.72%
Kansas City 26,610 390 1.47% 1,160 4.36% 7,000 26.31% 8,680 32.62% 9,380 35.25%
Baltimore 23,540 610 2.59% 6,160 26.17% 5,510 23.41% 10,190 43.29% 1,070 4.55%
, 1, .,, I.,,,,, 22,74n F1n 2.99% 4,860 21.37% 4,030 17.72% 9,720 42.74% 3,450 15.17%
Total Top 25: * 1,457,330 40,070 2.75% 407,710 27.98% 319,740 21.94% 566,740 38.89% 123,070 8.44%
Other Markets 832,080 21,070 2.53% 229,230 27.55% 194,390 23.36% 315,910 37.97% 60,420 7.26%
Total All Markets 2,289,410 61,140 2.67% 636,940 27.82% 514,130 22.46% 882,710 38.56% 183,490 8.01%
Accounts for 63.96% of total area O&D; 65.54% of DBQ; 64.10% of CID; 62.19% of MLI; 64.20% of MSN; an 67.07% of RFD.
The percentage distribution of the combined O&D in the top 25
markets among the area airports is: Dubuque - 2.75%; Cedar Rapids -
27.98%; Moline - 21.94%; Madison - 38.89%; and Rockford - 8.44%.
It is evident that the individual O&D markets into and out of
Dubuque are quite small in comparison to those of other area airports. In
fact, they are small by any standards.' The largest true O&D markets at
Dubuque, in both absolute numbers of passengers and in percentage shares of
the area's combined O&D, are Chicago and Minneapolis. This reflects the
fact that these markets are the only ones which have nonstop air service to
and from Dubuque. In terms of percentage shares, the smallest markets are
Orlando, Miami, Tampa, Kansas City, Denver, Ft. Myers and St. Louis.
The relatively small size of Dubuque's true O&D markets is in some
part a function of the fact that Dubuque's population is the smallest of any
of the metro areas associated with other area airports. However, it should be
noted that if Dubuque's share of O&D passenger traffic was proportional to
its relative population share, the O&D traffic would be about double the
present number.
Another explanation -- possibly more important than relative
population -- is that significant numbers of Dubuque passengers use other
airports in the area. The Dubuque travel agency O&D data clearly show
this. The travel agencies' ticket sales each month reported to the airport
9 Appendix 2 shows true O&D markets for Dubuque and other area airports ranked
by the number of passengers per day in each direction. The largest DBQ market
has fewer than 10 passengers a day each way.
46
authorities are broken down by the airport of destination and the airport of
departure so that the numbers of passengers and their points or origin and
points of destination can be tracked with precision. Any Dubuque
originating passenger who departs from or arrives at another airport will
show up in the national O&D survey in the market associated with the
airport used.
Table 9 shows the total number of tickets sold by Dubuque travel
agents during the 12-month period from July 1990 through June 1991. It is
broken down by the number and percentages of Dubuque ticket purchasers
using various airports in the region.
TABLE 9
Airports Used as Point of Departure by Purchasers of
Tickets From Dubuque Travel Agencies
(July 1990 - June 1991)
Departure
Airport
Number of Percent
Tickets of Total'°
Dubuque 12,089 59.3
Cedar Rapids 3,349 16.4
Chicago 2,537 12.4
Madison 676 3.3
Rockford 659 3.2
Moline 480 2.4
Minneapolis 212 1.0
Des Moines 202 1.0
Milwaukee 165 .8
Waterloo 24 .1
Total 20,393 100.0
Source: Appendix 3
io Excludes 953 tickets for passengers who departed from airports other than those
listed. A significant number of these appear to be tickets purchas,t at Dubuque for
the use of individuals traveling to Dubuque and other area airports from elsewhere
in the U.S.
47
Ing
PoM
During the year ended June 1991, some 59 percent of the tickets
purchased from the participating Dubuque travel agencies were for use at the
Dubuque Regional Airport. However, more than 16 percent of the tickets
were for Cedar Rapids departures and over 12 percent from Chicago. More
than three percent of the tickets sold were for use at the Madison and
Rockford airports. Some two percent used Moline and lesser percentages
employed Minneapolis, Des Moines, Milwaukee and Waterloo.
We do not know what proportions of travelers in the area who
purchased tickets directly from airlines and used each of the various airports
in the region. But the travel agency data which totaled more than 20,000
tickets during the 12-month period suggest that a similar pattern might exist
for those travelers dealing directly with the air carriers. The fact that the
12,000 travel agency tickets that used the Dubuque airport constitute just
over one third (33.6%) of the 35,962 enplanements at Dubuque seems to
indicate that significant numbers of Dubuque passengers obtain tickets from
sources other than the Dubuque agencies -- from travel agencies outside the
immediate Dubuque area or by dealing with the airlines' reservation systems
directly.
In Appendix 4, the travel agent ticket sales are ranked by the largest
destination markets. Appendix 5 shows the percentages of passengers using
each departing airport in the area. These data tie in quite well with the data
for the top 25 markets in the combined area O&D. The top mar'kets, while
not identical, are largely the same.
48
IMM
The amount of O&D traffic in the top markets diverted from the
Dubuque airport is illustrated vividly in Table 10 which shows the
percentages of travel agent tickets sales using the Dubuque and other area
airports. These percentages indicate a close relationship with the Dubuque
shares of the combined O&D market. For the two markets which had the
largest shares of combined O&D -- Chicago and Minneapolis -- the
percentages of travel agent sales using Dubuque were the highest also -- 87
percent and 92 percent, respectively. Those with the lowest percentage
shares of combined O&D also had the lowest percentages of travel agent
sales using the Dubuque airport. The two markets which were the largest in
terms of absolute numbers of passengers in both the combined O&D and the
travel agent O&D -- Phoenix and Las Vegas -- also showed considerable
diversion from Dubuque. Half of the travel agent sales to Phoenix used
Dubuque and only 46 percent of the sales to Las Vegas departed from the
Dubuque airport.
The airports diverting the most traffic from Dubuque, according to the
travel agent data, varied widely depending on the markets. For Phoenix, Las
Vegas and denver the most diversion of passengers was through Cedar
Rapids. Some 37 percent of the Phoenix passengers used Cedar Rapids as
did 42 percent of Las Vegas passengers and 24 percent of those going to
Denver.
The travel agent data also showed that 20 percent of the passengers to
St. Louis departed from Chicago while 14 percent used Moline, and 10
49
Ine
Phoenix
Las Vegas
Chicago - ORD
Minneapolis
Washington - DCA
Denver
Los Angeles
New York - LGA
Orlando
Detroit
Dallas
Boston
Newark
San Francisco
Atlanta
Seattle
Tampa
Philadelphia
San Diego
St. Louis
Miami
Ft. Myers
Kansas City
Baltimore
Cleveland
Source: Appendix 5
Table 10
Percentages of Dubuqe Travel Agency Tickets Sales
For Use at Dubuque Airport - Top 25 Area O&D Markets
Percent
Using DBQ
50.35%
45.76%
66.72%
91.96%
70.83%
55.89%
64.20%
68.97%
25.30%
52.44%
65.38%
71.64%
70.77%
61.80%
64.87%
69.61%
32.95%
84.58%
67.12%
49.45%
45.00%
25.37%
50.00%
73.33%
81.73%
Percentage Use
of Other Airports
CID (37.31), CHI (3.70), MLI (3.00)
CID (42.21), MLI (2.05)
CHI (10.87), MSN (8.33), CID (4.35)
CID (23.55), CHI (7.03), RFD (4.22), MLI (2.99)
CID (14.20), CHI (6.17), MLI (5.25)
CHI (14.01), CID (6.68)
CHI (33.13), CID (18.07), MSN (15.29), MKE (2.21), MLI (1.91)
RFD (19.51), CHI (17.99), CID (2.44)
CID (13.94), CHI (6.07), RFD (4.45), MSN (2.43), MSP (2.43)
CHI (7.71) , CID (5.22) , RFD (5.22) , MSN (5.22)
CHI (17.95), CID (3.08), MSN (3.08)
CID (16.55), CHI (5.11), MLI (3.16), MSN (1.95), MKI (1.95)
CHI (10.07), RFD (8.43), CID (5.62), :•'::v (2.34)
CID (14.64), CHI (3.87), MKE (3.59), MSN (2.21)
CHI (21.43), CID (16.59), MSN (14.98), MLI (3.69), MKE (2.76)
CHI (2.99)
CID (19.41), CHI (3.88), RFD (3.20), __M (2.74)
CHI (20.33), MLI (14.29), CID (10.44)
CHI (25.00), CID (12.33), MSN '8.00), ::_I (2.33)
CHI (22.71), CID (15.93), MSN '12.9E'. MKE (5.90), RFD (5.31)
CID (16.94), CHI (12.40), MLI '5.79), MSP (2.48)
CHI (8.72), CID (5.64), RFD (3.59), _ (2.05)
CHI (5.77), RFD (5.77), CID (1.88)
50
percent used Cedar Rapids. For Kansas City, 17 percent of the tickets were
through Cedar Rapids, 12 percent through Chicago and six percent at Moline.
One third of the tickets for Orlando were written for Chicago
followed by 18 percent at Cedar Rapids and 15 percent through Madison.
Some 25 percent of Miami passengers went through Chicago, 12 percent
through Cedar Rapids and eight percent via Madison. Tampa bound travelers
routed out of Chicago 21 percent of the time, Cedar Rapids 17 percent and
Madison 15 percent. The pattern was similar for traffic to Ft. Myers with
23 percent through Chicago, 16 percent through Cedar Rapids and 13 percent
over Madison.
Passengers destined for Detroit also used airports other than Dubuque
in significant numbers. Some 20 percent of the tickets were for departures
from Rockford and 18 percent from Chicago.
One thing is clear from the data in Table 10 and in Appendices 3, 4
and 5 -- that the most serious cases of diversion tend to be in the markets
which might be categorized as mostly pleasure markets -- the destinations in
Florida and Las Vegas. However, there is very significant diversion in some
business markets such as Detroit, St. Louis and Kansas City and the markets
like Phoenix and Denver which might be either business or pleasure oriented.
The travel agent data provide the most concrete evidence that we have
ever had that travelers will drive considerable distances to obtain services or
fares not available at their home airports. We have seen evidence of this
throughout the country but the Dubuque travel agent data provide the most
dramatic documentation we have seen.
51
Comparative Fares in Largest 25 Area O&D Markets
and Diversion From Dubuque
The only basis we have for comparing fares in the various O&D city -
pair markets in and out of the area airports are the average fare data from
the national O&D survey. We recognize that this may be an imperfect tool
in today's world given the sophisticated yield management programs used by
all major airlines. These systems alter the levels and availability of fares
literally on a minute -by -minute basis. Nevertheless, the comparison of fares
may give a sense of whether the average passenger in the top O&D markets
have some comparative advantage or disadvantage by using any of the area
airports. Because Chicago is an alternative for area travelers, we have
included the average fares in the same markets in and out of O'Hare.
The average fares in the top 25 area O&D markets for Dubuque,
Chicago and other area airports are shown in Table 11. Also, in that table
we have constructed indexes of the fares in each market using Dubuque's
average fare as the base in each market. The use of indexes illustrate the
percentage differences of the average fares at other airports compared to the
Dubuque average fare in each market.
We thought there would be a closer relationship between the fare
differentials and the diversion from Dubuque indicated in the travel agent
data than appears to be the case. In the Florida markets, for example, there
is a mixed picture. In the Orlando and Tampa markets the average fares
were significantly lower than Dubuque's at the other airports which would be
52
Table 11
Comparison of Average Fares in Top 25
True ODD Markets - Year Ending March 1991
- - Average Fare ($) - - - - Indax: DBQ Fare = 100.0 - -
DBQ CHI CID MLI MSN RFD DBQ CHI CID MLI MSN RFD
Phoenix 123 148 122 128 137 136 100.0 120.3 99.2 104.1 111.4 110.6
Las Vegas 127 125 101 104 116 130 100.0 98.4 79.5 81.9 91.3 102.4
Chicago - ORD 98 - 132 101 90 58 100.0 0.0 134.7 103.1 91.8 59.2
Minneapolis 106 176 139 153 135 140 100.0 166.0 131.1 144.3 127.4 132.1
Washington - DCA 145 185 164 157 149 137 100.0 127.6 113.1 108.3 102.8 94.5
Denver 149 160 148 139 136 131 100.0 107.4 99.3 93.3 91.3 87.9
Los Angeles 158 202 166 152 170 165 100.0 127.8 105.1 96.2 107.6 104.4
New York - LGA 161 210 169 167 138 156 100.0 130.4 105.0 103.7 85.7 96.9
Orlando 135 118 127 130 106 106 100.0 87.4 94.1 96.3 78.5 78.5
Detroit 153 47 162 146 135 39 100.0 30.7 105.9 95.4 88.2 25.5
Dallas 153 202 154 162 176 157 100.0 132.0 100.7 105.9 115.0 102.6
Boston 159 188 163 189 141 137 100.0 118.2 102.5 1:8.9 88.7 86.2
Newark 163 208 194 188 152 148 100.0 127.6 119.0 1:5.3 93.3 90.8
San Francisco 175 238 177 182 188 212 100.0 136.0 101.1 1,:4.0 107.4 121.1
Atlanta 182 174 172 172 142 125 100.0 95.6 94.5 94.5 78.0 68.7
Seattle 190 220 195 167 172 265 100.0 115.8 102.6 57.9 90.5 139.5
Tampa 133 126 131 119 110 120 100.0 94.7 98.5 59.5 82.7 90.2
Philadelphia 195 203 179 181 150 155 100.0 104.1 91.8 32.8 76.9 79.5
San Diego 182 190 163 169 172 245 100.0 104.4 89.6 82.9 94.5 134.6
St. Louis 154 55 160 147 161 42 100.0 35.7 :03.9 73.5 104.5 27.3
Miami 99 134 154 137 125 111 100.0 135.4 155.6 123.4 126.3 112.1
Ft. Myers 107 114 127 118 107 106 100.0 106.5 118.7 11D.3 100.0 99.1
Kansas City 161 54 170 170 160 39 100.0 33.5 :05.6 1:5.6 99.4 24.2
Baltimore 198 194 187 191 158 184 100.0 98.0 94.4 76.5 79.8 92.9
Cleveland 190 162 196 198 138 155 100.0 85.3 :03.2 1.4.2 72.6 81.6
Source: Average fares: Data Base Products; Indices computed by Na--ack Associates
53
a logical explanation for the large diversions in those markets. However, for
Miami and Ft. Myers, the Dubuque average fares were lower than other area
airports but the diversion was also large in those markets.
In the two largest area O&D markets, the relationship between
average fares and the diversion from Dubuque appears anomalous also. Only
half the tickets sold by Dubuque travel agencies used Dubuque as the point
of departure for Phoenix although the fare at Dubuque was less than a
percentage point higher than at Cedar Rapids and significantly lower than at
other area airports. Las Vegas passengers in the travel agent data used
Dubuque 46 percent of the time even though average fares at all are airports,
except for Rockford, were significantly lower than at Dubuque. Careful
examination of the data in Tables 10 and 11 reveal other such situations.
All of this suggests that other considerations such as schedule times,
routings, number of flights, and other service factors are strong influences on
many passengers. In other words, comparative fares do not tell the whole
story.
The best sense of the extent to which travel is diverted for whatever
reasons from the Dubuque Regional Airport can be gained from the travel
agent data which has been sorted to show the percentages of ticket sales
departing from the various airports to the various destinations (Appendix 5).
There are several patterns which emerge when this very detailed data is
examined.
54
The significant diversion that was indicated in the Florida markets
when the top 25 O&D markets were analyzed exists in all Florida markets.
Although Chicago appears as the leading diversion point overall, there is
significant diversion from Dubuque over Cedar Rapids, Madison and in some
markets, Rockford.
According to the travel agency data, most of the ticket buyers
destined for points in Europe, Mexico and other international destinations
departed from Chicago.
Diversion over Cedar Rapids, in addition to the Florida markets,
centered mainly on routes involving points in the Midwest, the Mountain
West, the Southwest, Pacific Northwest and points in California.
Although much of the diversion from Dubuque that was accounted for
by Madison was in the Florida markets, there also were instances of
significant numbers of passengers destined for modest -sized business markets
such as White Plains, Buffalo and Jamestown.
The main markets where significant diversion occurred from Dubuque
over Rockford were business markets in the east and south, such as Detroit,
Nashville, Pittsburgh and Akron. But there were also significant portions of
traffic destined for the northwest and midwest, some Florida and Caribbean
markets and a few European markets.
Most of the diversion over Moline was to business markets in the
midwest and mid -south such as St. Louis, Little Rock, Knoxville and
Springfield.
55
Results of the Dubuque Surveys
In an effort to obtain the views of the broadest possible spectrum of
the Dubuque community about air service, four separate surveys were
conducted. One survey was directed at the travel agencies in the area. A
second was aimed at Dubuque area businesses and institutions. A third was
conducted at the airport seeking the views of users of the Dubuque Regional
Airport. A fourth, a newspaper survey, sought the opinion of members of
the community at large. Overall, the response rates were excellent.
Taken together, the results of the various surveys complement and
confirm much of our analysis. In addition to the relevance to this study, the
responses contain many comments and suggestions which relate to the day-
to-day operation of the Dubuque airport. These are being passed on to the
airport authorities and management.
Responses were received from three of four travel agencies in
Dubuque and from three travel agencies in outlying localities. There were
116 responses to the survey of businesses and institutions. Tne survey
conducted at the airport resulted in 179 replies and the newspaper survey
generated comments from 62 individuals.'
The salient elements of the surveys are summarized in the following
sections which are arranged generally in terms of the subject matter covered
in the survey questionnaires.
11 Some responses received very late -- several weeks after the deadline -- are not
included in these totals.
56
Business vs. Pleasure Travel
The surveys of travel agencies and the survey conducted at the airport
inquired as to the mix of business and pleasure travel. Responses of the
three Dubuque travel agencies indicated 70, 65 and 50 percent pleasure travel
in their respective bookings. Three travel agencies in outlying cities reported
their sales were 93, 90 and 50 percent pleasure. The individuals responding
to the airport survey breakdown as follows: 76 were on business travel, 72
were traveling for pleasure and 31 indicated that their travel was business
and pleasure combined.
Percent of Travel From Dubuque and Other Area Airports
All of the surveys asked respondents to estimate the proportion of
their travels which used the Dubuque airport and other area airports. As
Table 12 shows, the surveys of businesses, the airport survey and the
newspaper survey reported estimates which tend to confirm the percentages
revealed in the Dubuque travel agent O&D analysis which was discussed in
an earlier section of this report. The travel agencies in the outlying areas
presented a different picture, however. Two of the agencies are south of
Dubuque and closer to the Moline -Quad Cities airport. These agencies
reported that one percent or less of their bookings used the Dubuque airport
and that 80-85 percent of their travelers used Moline with the rest either
using Chicago or Cedar Rapids. The other travel agency, located in
southwest Wisconsin, reported that 25 percent of their travelers used
57
BUSINESS
TABLE 12
Percent of Travelers Using Each Area Airport
As Compiled From Survey Responses
AIRPORT ; NEWSPAPER
DBO CID RFD MSN CHI MLI DBQ CID RFD MSN CHI MLI ;DBQ CID RFD MSN CHI MLI
10 90 100 100
50 50 100
50 40 10 100
100 25 50 25
100 100 100
60 25 15 80 15 5 100
95 5 100
100 50 50 90 10
100
50 50
100
80
90
60 20 20
90 10
100
5 100
10 90 10 5 70 5 5 10 5
40 10 10 40 25 30 55
50 50 10 40 10 40
100
I 100
90 10 100
50 15 15 15 5 100
80 10 2 8 50 50
90 2 8 ' 95 5 100
50 20 10 20 100 67 33
100
70 15 15 ' 100 73
60 40 20 40 40 100
15
50
80 20
95
50 50
85 15
100
90
100
90 5
25 45
100 75
100 60
100 100
50
12
35
33 33
10 80 10 100
50 60 __ 20
100 100
100 100
75 25 100
60 10 20
100 100
100
100
100 100
100
5 ' 90 40 1 20 25
50
100
10 40 50
30
100
100
100
50 100
-- 58-
100
50
50
100
90
50 10 10 15
100
Pug
PHI
Ifflu
plPEI
33 33 33 10 10 100
80 20 1 80 20
100
10 65 5 20
90 10 100
80
100 25 75
90 10 1 100 99 1
100 80 20 75
35 2 10 1 1 100
95 25 50 25 100
100 1 50 50
90 5 2.5 2.5 60
10 1 100
10 80 10
100
100 100
100 30 50 20
80 10 10 1 90 5 5
50 50
96 1 3
10 60 30
50 50 80 20
100
85 10 3
90 10
95 5 1 •1 99
30 70 1 100
100
100
90 1 100
75 25 1 70 20 10
100 1 100
50 50 1 96 2 2
90 10 1 75 15 10
40 60 1
40 60 �0 1 900 10 10
100 1 100
50 10 40
80 20 1 90 10
1100
100 1 90 10
95 2.5 2.5 1 100
80 20 1
54 46 1 75 5
20 10 5 10 45 5 1 95 0 1
80 20 1
100 1 70 10 10 10
1 90 _ 59 _ 10
95 2 01 1 100
90 10
30 70 100
5 10 10
50 50 100
90 i 9 100
67 33 50
98 2
80 15 5
90 10 ; 100
90 10
30 20 80 5
59 1 6 28 6 100
100 100
80 20 95
66 33
80 10 5
50
100
15
5
80 15 5
50 35 15
100
70 30
95 5
25 25 50
50 50
90 10
90 5 5
100
100
100
20 30
67 33
.3 10 1 2 80 15
100
100
20 35 30 15
85 10 5
50 50
90 10
50 50
100
20 70 10
80 1 19
50 50
25 75
90 10
90 5 5
60 20 10 10
100
90 10
100
100
100
100
75
-60-
25
MIR
IMO
PAR
100
100
100
75 10 5 10
100
75 25
100
100
10 25 15 25 25
3
100
33 33 33
61
Dubuque, 25 percent used Cedar Rapids, 30 percent went in and out of
Madison and 10 percent each used Chicago and Rockford.
Distance from the Dubuque Regional Airport
The survey conducted at the airport and the newspaper survey asked
respondents to indicate how far they lived from the Dubuque airport. The
combined results show that some 85 percent of the respondents live within
25 miles of the airport and 98 percent within 50 miles. The results are
summarized in the following table.
Miles to Dubuque Regional Airport
0 - 25 26 - 50 50 + Total
Airport Survey 103 20 5 128
Newspaper Survey 56 4 1 61
Total 159 24 6 189
Percent 85% 98% 2% 100%
Transportation to the Airport
Almost without exception, all of the surveys showed that the
predominant method of travel to and from the airport was by private
automobile.
62
Where Tickets Are Purchased
The airport survey contained a question about where travelers
purchased their tickets. An overwhelming majority responded that they used
travel agencies. Out of 170 who answered the question, 108 (64%) said they
bought their tickets through travel agencies, 36 (21%) dealt directly with the
airlines and 26 (15%) used corporate travel offices.
State Where Respondents Live
The airport surveys asked respondents to report the state where they
resided. For the airport survey respondents, 112 reported they lived in Iowa,
15 reside in Wisconsin and 13 in Illinois. Of the persons who answered the
newspaper survey, 49 live in Iowa, 4 in Wisconsin and 3 in Illinois.
Levels of Satisfaction With Dubuque Air Service
In all of the surveys respondents were asked if they were satisfied
with air service at Dubuque or, alternatively, if they thought Dubuque needed
improved service. In the business and institution survey, 53 responses
indicated a need for improved services, 8 said no. Many organizations did
not respond to the question.
Among the respondents to the airport survey, 107 said they were
satisfied with Dubuque's air service while 47 said they were not. Among
those answering the newspaper questionnaire, 23 indicated satisfaction and 36
expressed dissatisfaction with air service. Five of the six travel agencies
indicated they saw a need for better service at Dubuque.
63
Competitiveness of Dubuque Fares
The surveys of travel agencies and of business and institutions
inquired whether respondents regarded fares at Dubuque as competitive with
those at other area airports. The travel agencies indicated that fares at
Dubuque were currently competitive with Cedar Rapids, Moline and Madison
but not with those at Rockford. Some also indicated that special fares were
slow in becoming available at Dubuque and that fares for international trips
were often not competitive.
Among respondents to the business survey, 62 said fares were
competitive and 12 indicated they were not.
Comments on Air Service at Dubuque
All of the surveys requested that the survey participants comment on
the air services at Dubuque. These requests stimulated expressions of what
appear to be rather strongly held views about the quality and quantity of air
service at Dubuque.
There were a number of negative perceptions; among them:
o There were a many comments in all of the surveys about the lack
of reliability of air services at Dubuque. Almost all of the negative
comments in the business survey pointed out that delays and
cancellations -- many allegedly due to poor weather -- were the cause
of many business travelers choosing not to use Dubuque or using it
reluctantly and with trepidation. The other surveys also contain many
reported instances of hardship or inconveniences resulting from lack
of reliability (The recent improvements in the instrument landing
system and the consequent reduction in allowable weather minimums
should help to remedy this situation. However, it appears :hat many
travelers are not yet aware of these events).
64
o A number of responses were critical of the aircraft used by
carriers serving Dubuque. Generally, these comments reflected a
belief that the aircraft were too small, too slow, unpressurized and
had uncomfortable seating. Although there was considerable
sentiment for service with jet equipment, there appears to be even
stronger desires for aircraft that are clean, attractive to the eye,
pressurized and with larger cabins.
o There were a number of responses which indicated that -- partly
because of the relatively small aircraft -- there were too many
instances of overbooked flights and that there were not enough
discount fares available.
o Some respondents indicated that they thought air travel was too
expensive at Dubuque and a number of others indicated it was too
costly, but did not specify whether they meant out of Dubuque or just
in general.
o Some respondents were disappointed that there were not more
flights to Chicago by American and to Minneapolis by Northwest.
They appear to be advocating more frequencies by the two incumbent
carriers (In justice to the carriers, we would point out that the average
number of passengers per flight for both carriers over the past two
years were around 12 to 14 for each of the carriers.12 While this
represents a healthy load factor in the 19-seat equipment used by
Northwest, it is not a very good average load factor in the 36-seat
equipment employed by American).
Perceived Needs for New/Improved Air Service
In addition to the desire for improved service to the two existing hubs
for Dubuque which was discussed briefly in the previous section. a number
of survey respondents suggested new services that they thought were needed
at Dubuque.
The most prominent service need in the minds of those who offered
suggestions was for improved service from Dubuque to points in the south
12 Carrier monthly operations reports
65
and west generally. A number of comments suggested that this need could
best be met by service to St. Louis where there are good connecting
opportunities to points in the south and west. A majority of travel agency
responses reflected a desire for service to St. Louis.
Some travel agencies and several respondents to other surveys pointed
out a perceived need for better service and connections in Florida markets.
There was considerable sentiment for other specific points besides St.
Louis. A number expressed a desire for renewed service to Midway Airport
in Chicago, and there was a relatively high sentiment for service to Des
Moines and to Kansas City.
Several rather general views were expressed for services to almost any
midwestern hub in addition to Chicago and Minneapolis and for more point-
to-point service which would eliminate the need for connections.
A few respondents thought that service between Dubuque and Cedar
Rapids would be desirable.
It is striking, and somewhat reassuring, that the service suggestions
offered by survey participants tend to mirror and confirm the needs for new
services that are implied by the city -pair analyses of the DOT O&D data and
the Dubuque travel agency O&D.
In addition to scheduled air services, at least one travel agent and
several other respondents indicated that more charter air service would be
desireable. Apparently, it is very difficult for groups traveling together to be
accommodated by the current services at Dubuque.
66
MN
Mia
Concluding Observations and Recommendations
Our analysis leads to a conclusion that there is considerable inherent
potential for the growth of passenger traffic at the Dubuque Regional Airport.
However, with the current levels of air service at Dubuque, much of this
potential is being captured by the greater volumes and varieties of air service
at the other area airports that surround Dubuque's core market area.
If Dubuque could attract sufficient additional services at competitive
price levels, we believe a good deal of the traffic now diverted to other
airports would return to the Dubuque Regional Airport. In fact, if the services
were attractive enough, there is every reason to think that the diversion could
be reversed in some cases and Dubuque could capture traffic from the other
area airports.
Attracting significant new air services to Dubuque requires concerted
community efforts and will demand convincing evidence of market potential.
Dubuque, in at least two areas however, is much better positioned than a
number of other localities to mount a marketing program seeking new services.
Dubuque starts with one important advantage. Its airport is a modern
facility which is technically up-to-date and is capable of handling much more
traffic than it now does without expanding facilities.
Even more important is the fact that the community is actively
interested in and supports efforts to obtain better service. This is evidenced
by the active air service committee which has already achieved some success
and by the interest shown in the hundreds of responses to our various surveys.
67
Dubuque's location, nested among four other airports each serving
larger populations with relatively greater disposable income, along with the
fact that all of its city -pair O&D markets -- even the largest -- are relatively
small, does not make it particularly attractive to air carriers. In fact, until
Dubuque can demonstrate its ability for traffic generation, we see only
marginal hope of attracting jet service. Additional commuter service is a
definite possibility.
There is also the conservative mood of air carriers generally regarding
any expansionary activity at this particular time. The industry is in
precarious financial condition and many -- if not nearly all -- carriers are
looking for ways to retrench rather than expand. Compounding this effect in
the case of Dubuque are the commitments of the major carriers and their
affiliates to the airports with which Dubuque competes for traffic. These
carriers may be reluctant to serve Dubuque unless it can be convincingly
demonstrated that they can carry more traffic from Dubuque than they can
with their services at other area airports.
Finally, the sluggish condition of the nation's economy is a negative
factor. Tough economic conditions impair people's incomes and have
historically had a very negative effect on the demand for air tray el. With
business in a slump, companies seek ways to reduce travel budgets. The
effect is even more pronounced with regard to pleasure travel, which now
accounts for more than two thirds of all travel.
68
Having recited what we consider to be the pros and cons regarding
improved air services at Dubuque, what are our recommendations?
There is an important general recommendation that we urge be
adopted regardless of whatever may be decided about the specific
recommendations that will follow. The efforts now underway to organize
and galvanize community support for the use of air services at the Dubuque
Regional Airport should be continued and strengthened if possible. It is
absolutely essential that there be solid community backing for any program
to improve air service to succeed.
It must be emphasized that community backing cannot stop with
expressions of support, but must demonstrate that the community will
patronize air services -- existing and any new operation -- at levels sufficient
to assure their viability and continuation.
There are two other actions that we think should be explored by
Dubuque airport officials and civic interests. One is to work with the
riverboat "gaming" interests and the air carriers serving Dubuque to develop
cooperative promotions targeted at areas throughout the country to promote
tourist visits to the Dubuque area and encourage their patronage of the
riverboat gambling enterprises.
Another would be for these groups to examine, in cooperation with
travel agencies and with tour operators, the feasibility of developing public
charter programs to accommodate vacationers from the area with complete
package vacations.
69
Ina
The DOT Public Charter Program allows charter flights (and related
ground service packages) to be sold to individuals. Operators of Public
Charters are required to file prospectuses with the U.S. DOT and to maintain
certain financial safeguards to protect the funds of Public Charter participants
(Our organization includes individuals with some expertise in the workings of
the Public Charter Program).
During our last visit, some Dubuque parties mentioned the possibility
of seeking subsidized jet service such as the "minimum revenue guarantee
service" program offered by American Airlines to interested cities. This is,
of course, another possibility, but is one that requires careful analysis to
determine the levels of financial expense to the contracting party.
Our recommendation with regard to existing nonstop services to
Chicago and Minneapolis by American and Northwest, respectively, is that
the Dubuque Air Service Task Force continue to monitor the services and to
press for improvements in schedules, fares and equipment. While we do not
envision dramatic results from these efforts, even some small steps to
improve services can stimulate usage once the community is aware of them.
The analyses of the city -pair O&D markets and the proportions of
diversion to other airports in these markets point to needs for better service
to points south, east and west of Dubuque. Much of the diversion is in
pleasure markets such as those in Florida, Nevada and Colorado. although
there is considerable diversion in such predominately business markets as
Kansas City and St. Louis. In our judgement, the logical connecting point to
70
loml
1NP
achieve improved service in these O&D market would be at St. Louis.
Therefore, our priority recommendation is to explore the viability of service
to St. Louis in detail.
Because TWA is the dominant carrier at St. Louis, a detailed route
analysis would focus on the economic feasibility of that carrier, or its
commuter affiliate to enter the Dubuque market. Such an analysis would
look at the potential of combining service to Dubuque with service to points
beyond Dubuque, such as LaCrosse, Rochester or Wausau, or combining
Dubuque with an intermediate point between it and St. Louis, such as
Burlington or Cedar Rapids. By the time such a study can be undertaken,
more should be known about the stability of TWA.
A second, but somewhat lower priority recommendation is to look at
the possibility of attracting service from the commuter affiliate of Midwest
Express. Such service would give Dubuque good connections through
Milwaukee to major cities in the east, points in California, and to Atlanta,
Tampa and Ft. Lauderdale in the southeast.
There are a couple of other specific routes that we think might also
merit additional study. Renewed service between Dubuque and Midway
Airport in Chicago might be viable, but this should be undertaken when
more is known about what kind of operations will emerge at Midway
Airport. Another proposal we think could be worthy of more study would
be service to Des Moines and possibly Kansas City and/or Omaha by a
commuter carrier, such as Great Lakes.
71
We conclude with a final caveat. While it would be most desireable
if all passengers in the Dubuque market area returned to use the services at
Dubuque, we do not think that this will take place even if new services can
be attracted. We have no doubt that new services will reduce the proportion
of diversion in a number of markets. But there will always be a number of
pleasure travelers who -- for one reason or another -- will prefer to drive to
another area airport or to Chicago to obtain service. The international
travelers who now use Chicago to a great degree will continue to do so
regardless of the services at Dubuque or any other area airport. Passengers
planning extensive trips abroad are not very time sensitive and, to a greater
degree than domestic travelers, wish to avoid unnecessary connections,
thereby reducing the potential for missed flights and lost luggage.
We look forward to meeting with Dubuque airport officials, members
of the Air Service Committee and other interested parties in the near future
to personally present our report and to discuss possible follow-up activities.
72
APPENDICES
Comparative Ground Distance Alternatives
for a Cross -Section of Airports
Throughout the United States
En p/000
Distance Population
Appendix 1
Portland, OR 172 2,435
Oklahoma City 207 1,514
Louisville 101 1,114
Birmingham 150 1,055
Jacksonville 145 1,467
Albany/Sch/Troy 155 1,209
New Haven/Meriden 56 67
Austin 145 2,576
Allentown/Beth 75 578
Tucson 118 2,146
Toledo 60 486
Knoxville 178 1,036
El Paso 266 2,457
Baton Rouge 80 729
Charleston, SC 207 1,289
Wichita 200 1,439
Chattanooga 123 710
Lancaster 37 31
Jackson, MS 208 1,059
Des Moines 197 1.890
Beaumont/Pt. Arthur 80 204
Ft. Wayne 125 836
Spokane 280 2,161
Madison 140 1,955
Manchester/Nashua 53 736
Trenton 36 36
Atlantic City 65 273
Montgomery 95 687
Erie 123 583
Salem, OR 50 6
Charleston, WV 174 1,010
Sarasota 50 3,329
New London/Norwich 55 167
Savannah 255 2,145
Huntsville 120 1,800
Roanoke 98 1,478
Lubbock 329 2,594
Kalamazoo 135 980
Lafayette, LA 120 553
73
En p/000
Distance Population
Boise 310 2,607
Springfiled, IL 105 535
Waco 95 232
Yakima 145 105
Ft. Smith 116 504
Asheville 112 1,656
Lake Charles 125 271
Cedar Rapids 115 2,234
Topeka 60 134
Muskegon 40 165
Parkersburg/Marietta 75 297
Tyler 120 315
Fargo/Moorehead 235 1,290
Jackson, MI 57 2
Athens 70 147
Tuscaloosa 60 95
Monroe 101 814
Redding/Red Bluff 163 273
Bangor 132 1,349
Joplin 105 273
Terre Haute 68 60
Panama City 98 769
Mansfield 78 13
Sioux Falls 183 1,877
Charlottesville 115 1,065
Abilene 180 677
Texarkana 82 376
Florence 80 371
Wilmington, NC 124 1,679
Billings 555 2,424
Midland/Odessa 325 2,538
Santa Fe 60 26
Danville 46 117
Rochester, MN 88 1,587
Dubuque 70 312
Bismark 432 1,457
Rapid City 417 2,012
Cheyene 101 477
Grand Forks 78 1,255
Casper 279 1,250
Enid 93 6
74
MIR
Ing
Appendix 2
Top 50 O&D Markets for DBQ Ranked by Passengers
per Day Each Way (PDEW) - Year Ending 1st Qtr. 1991
O&D Revenue Yield Average Average Annual #
Rank Market PDEW $(000) (Cents) Fare Haul Passengers
1 ORD 7.8 561 66.82 98 147 5,694
2 MSP 5.4 414 48.74 106 217 3,942
3 PHX 3.8 337 7.86 123 1,563 2,774
4 LAX 3.3 376 8.55 158 1,847 2,409
5 DTW 3.0 338 34.92 153 438 2,190
6 LAS 3.0 273 7.82 127 1,619 2,190
7 LGA 2.5 292 17.71 161 907 1,825
8 DCA 2.3 246 18.04 145 802 1,679
9 ATL 2.3 300 22.92 182 794 1,679
10 DFW 2.2 250 15.59 153 985 1,606
11 SAN 2.1 273 9.94 182 1,829 1,533
12 SFO 1.9 245 9.25 175 1,895 1,387
13 BOS 1.9 220 14.89 159 1,065 1,387
14 DEN 1.9 204 15.34 149 972 1,387
15 SEA 1.8 243 10.90 190 1,743 1,314
16 EWR 1.6 186 17.88 163 910 1,168
17 PHL 1.5 209 21.71 195 901 1,095
18 MCO 1.4 135 9.54 135 1,419 1,022
19 IAH 1.1 117 13.30 143 1,076 803
20 BDL 1.1 157 20.10 198 985 803
21 STL 1.0 108 35.85 154 431 730
22 PDX 0.9 162 13.22 234 1,772 657
23 CLE 0.9 129 39.63 190 479 657
24 SNA 0.9 102 8.58 157 1,835 657
25 TPA 0.8 83 9.75 133 1,365 584
26 BWI 0.8 121 23.67 198 837 584
27 SJC 0.8 96 8.38 166 1,976 584
28 RSW 0.7 55 7.00 107 1,531 511
29 PIT 0.7 90 31.01 176 567 511
30 ONT 0.7 93 10.37 186 1,792 511
31 MIA 0.7 49 6.83 99 1,457 511
32 IAD 0.6 62 15.88 131 825 438
33 SAT 0.6 70 13.24 160 1,207 433
34 MSY 0.6 66 15.40 158 1,026 438
35 HNL 0.6 108 5.88 256 4,363 438
36 MCI 0.5 63 29.19 161 553 365
37 TUS 0.5 48 8.07 127 1,572 365
38 AUS 0.5 57 14.03 157 1,119 365
39 RDU 0.5 43 14.83 121 813 365
40 MEM 0.5 71 24.29 198 815 365
41 CAK 0.5 94 53.70 276 513 365
42 ABQ 0.5 45 10.32 134 1,297 365
43 ROC 0.5 40 17.32 117 677 365
44 CVG 0.5 71 52.39 215 411 365
45 BNA 0.5 44 23.63 134 567 365
46 TUL 0.4 42 17.96 132 733 292
47 OMA 0.4 64 39.90 206 515 292
48 SLC 0.4 66 16.60 220 1,325 292
49 SMF 0.4 47 8.59 156 1,813 292
50 OKC 0.4 48 19.01 160 84C 292
75
Top 50 O&D Markets for CID Ranked by Passengers
per Day Each Way (PDEW) - Year Ending 1st Qtr. 1991
O&D Revenue Yield Average Average Annual #
Rank Market PDEW $(000) (Cents) Fare Haul Passengers
1 ORD 63.6 6,109 67.02 132 196 46,428
2 PHX 52.8 4,694 9.16 122 1,330 38,544
3 LAS 40.1 2,966 7.18 101 1,412 29,273
4 LISP 36.3 3,685 61.08 139 228 26,499
5 DEN 34.1 3,675 20.06 148 736 24,893
6 LAX 33.8 4,103 9.44 166 1,761 24,674
7 DCA 28.2 3,368 18.68 164 876 20,586
8 MCO 24.0 2,226 10.62 127 1,197 17,520
9 DFW 23.8 2,682 16.77 154 920 17,374
10 LGA 21.5 2,662 17.09 169 991 15,695
11 SEA 19.9 2,837 11.02 195 1,772 14,527
12 BOS 19.7 2,335 14.36 163 1,132 14,381
13 SFO 19.1 2,476 9.48 177 1,871 13,943
14 SAN 17.1 2,041 9.88 163 1,653 12,483
15 ATL 16.8 2,116 21.87 172 787 12,264
16 EWR 16.5 2,334 19.84 194 978 12,045
17 STL 15.6 1,816 66.96 160 239 11,388
18 DTW 14.0 1,646 31.27 162 517 10,220
19 MIA 13.0 1,353 10.18 143 1,402 9,490
20 PHL 11.9 1,552 19.22 179 930 8,687
21 TPA 11.5 1,101 11.09 131 1,182 8,395
22 RSW 8.6 801 10.08 127 1,261 6,278
23 IAD 8.5 1,108 21.25 178 836 6,205
24 BWI 8.4 1,150 21.11 187 884 6,132
25 MSY 7.6 852 16.00 153 958 5,548
26 BDL 7.5 892 15.52 162 1,043 5,475
27 SJC 7.5 1,044 10.81 191 1,768 5,475
28 ONT 7.3 923 10.58 172 1,63C 5,329
29 PDX 7.3 937 9.89 176 1,777 5,329
30 SNA 7.2 1,078 11.58 204 1,760 5,256
31 CVG 6.9 1,093 45.27 217 48C 5,037
32 CLE 6.7 955 34.08 196 577 4,891
33 HOU 6.7 752 14.34 155 1,080 4,891
34 HNL 6.6 1,016 4.90 212 4,315 4,818
35 SLC 6.5 784 13.75 164 1,193 4,745
36 TUS 6.5 636 9.37 133 1,42C 4,745
37 CMH 6.1 662 26.60 149 562 4,453
38 SMF 6.0 810 10.61 184 1,732 4,380
39 IND 5.9 793 44.69 183 409 4,307
40 FLL 5.7 599 10.82 143 1,322 4,161
41 RDU 5.5 652 18.87 164 86 4,015
42 PIT 5.4 740 27.62 188 68C _,942
43 RNO 5.4 520 8.06 132 1,63- ::942
44 SAT 5.3 542 11.64 139 1,19- ,869
45 OAK 5.1 710 10.47 190 1,81: -,723
46 CLT 4.6 587 21.60 174 80- ,358
47 AUS 4.3 528 14.87 167 1,12: :139
48 BNA 4.1 529 31.27 176 564 2,993
49 ABQ 3.9 371 11.28 132 1,16- 2,847
50 PBI 3.7 397 11.59 148 1,27- 1,701
76
MIN
Top 50 O&D Markets for MLI Ranked by Passengers
per Day Each Way (PDEW) - Year Ending 1st Qtr. 1991
O&D Revenue Yield Average Average Annual #
Rank Market PDEW $(000) (Cents) Fare Haul Passengers
1 LAS 47.6 3,631 7.13 104 1,464 34,748
2 PHX 43.5 4,054 9.22 128 1,384 31,755
3 ORD 29.7 2,194 72.69 101 139 21,681
4 LAX 26.6 2,954 8.52 152 1,786 19,418
5 MSP 26.5 2,954 51.52 153 296 19,345
6 DEN 25.0 2,535 17.07 139 813 18,250
7 DFW 18.4 2,180 19.43 162 836 13,432
8 MCO 18.0 1,707 11.74 130 1,108 13,140
9 DCA 17.9 2,050 19.28 157 812 13,067
10 STL 16.5 1,761 75.33 146 194 12,045
11 EWR 14.8 2,028 20.82 188 902 10,804
12 ATL 14.5 1,812 23.86 172 719 10,585
13 SEA 13.4 1,627 9.10 167 1,833 9,782
14 TPA 13.3 1,156 10.87 119 1,097 9,709
15 LGA 13.0 1,589 18.05 167 927 9,490
16 SFO 12.9 1,718 9.52 182 1,913 9,417
17 PHL 12.6 1,669 21.17 181 854 9,198
18 SAN 12.2 1,506 9.96 169 1,702 8,906
19 DTW 11.3 1,209 35.38 146 413 8,249
20 BOS 11.3 1,557 17.85 189 1,056 8,249
21 MCI 9.6 1,188 38.45 170 441 7,008
22 PIT 9.4 1,403 34.70 205 592 6,862
23 RSW 8.3 713 9.79 117 1,197 5,059
24 MIA 7.9 783 10.58 136 1,285 5,767
25 BWI 7.5 1,055 23.13 191 827 5,475
26 HOU 6.9 944 19.95 186 933 5,037
27 TUS 6.5 661 9.75 140 1,440 4,745
28 ONT 6.3 853 11.05 186 1,686 4,599
29 IAD 6.1 645 18.67 144 773 4,453
30 MSY 5.9 629 16.83 146 867 4,307
31 SJC 5.8 766 9.66 181 1,876 4,234
32 HNL 5.7 986 5.51 237 4,304 4,161
33 FLL 5.6 529 10.26 130 1,268 4,088
34 CLE 5.5 798 38.60 198 513 4,015
35 PDX 5.3 699 9.77 180 1,844 '.,869
36 BDL 5.3 804 21.31 208 978 _,869
37 MDW 5.3 399 72.19 104 144 869
38 SMF 5.0 659 9.98 181 1,810 ,650
39 SNA 5.0 620 9.55 170 1,784 1,650
40 RNO 4.9 545 8.83 153 1,739 3,577
41 CMH 4.5 560 34.75 169 486 1,285
42 PBI 4.5 437 10.79 133 1,233 _,285
43 OMA 4.5 509 32.41 155 478 ,285
44 SLC 4.2 595 15.17 194 1,277 ,066
45 MDT 4.1 517 23.03 173 750 1,993
46 CLT 4.1 554 24.67 187 758 .993
47 SAT 4.0 441. 13.88 151 1,091 _.920
48 CVG 3.8 688 56.84 246 432 _,774
49 SRQ 3.8 359 11.55 129 1,11 .1.774
50 RDU 3.8 491 22.08 179 809 _.774
Top 50 O&D Markets for MSN Ranked by Passengers
per Day Each Way (PDEW) - Year Ending 1st Qtr. 1991
O&D Revenue Yield Average Average Annual #
Rank Market PDEW $(000) (Cents) Fare Haul Passengers
1 LGA 58.6 5,887 16.35 138 841 42,778
2 DCA 57.9 6,318 20.65 149 723 42,267
3 MSP 47.6 4,707 57.47 135 236 34,748
4 MCO 42.6 3,301 8.76 106 1,212 31,098
5 PHX 42.2 4,219 8.97 137 1,526 30,806
6 BOS 41.8 4,292 14.46 141 973 30,514
7 DTW 40.7 3,998 42.31 135 318 29,711
8 LAS 39.8 3,360 7.30 116 1,583 29,054
9 DEN 37.7 3,736 13.83 136 982 27,521
10 LAX 36.5 4,532 9.24 170 1,839 26,645
11 EWR 33.5 3,724 18.43 152 827 24,455
12 SFO 33.5 4,582 9.77 188 1,920 24,455
13 ORD 31.2 2,049 82.56 90 109 22,776
14 DFW 28.2 3,627 18.72 176 941 20,586
15 TPA 27.4 2,200 9.03 110 1,218 20,002
16 PHL 26.5 2,895 18.99 150 788 19,345
17 ATL 26.4 2,727 18.42 142 769 19,272
18 SEA 23.3 2,917 9.93 172 1,729 17,009
19 MIA 19.2 1,754 8.96 125 1,397 14,016
20 SAN 17.4 2,184 9.45 172 1,815 12,702
21 RSW 16.6 1,296 8.03 107 1,330 12,118
22 BWI 14.0 1,613 21.36 158 741 10,220
23 CLE 13.3 1,346 32.76 138 423 9,709
24 CMH 12.6 1,279 32.69 139 426 9.198
25 MSY 12.0 1,204 14.26 137 964 8,760
26 MCI 11.9 1,385 29.49 160 541 8,687
27 PDX 10.9 1,459 10.37 183 1,763 ,957
28 FLL 10.6 951 8.93 123 1,376 -,738
29 PIT 10.5 1,142 28.16 150 532 -,665
30 BDL 9.8 1,176 18.66 165 884 -,154
31 RDU 9.1 950 18.34 143 780 5,643
32 SNA 9.0 1,183 9.96 179 1,799 5,570
33 SMF 8.8 1,100 9.34 172 1,838 5,424
34 STL 8.5 997 45.69 161 353 ,205
35 PBI 8.4 724 8.75 118 1,348 =,132
36 IAD 8.4 920 21.21 150 708 ,132
37 SJC 8.2 1,238 10.77 207 1,919 =,986
38 SLC 8.2 952 12.19 160 1,311 =,986
39 BNA 7.7 1,038 32.54 184 565 5,621
40 IND 7.5 871 46.47 158 341 5,475
41 SRQ 7.5 542 7.79 99 1,274 =,475
42 CVG 7.5 950 42.84 174 407 =,475
43 ONT 7.0 932 10.20 182 1,785. 5.110
44 HNL 6.8 1,475 6.89 299 4,332 4.964
45 HPN 6.5 673 17.04 141 829 4,745
46 SYR 6.4 818 24.50 175 714 4.672
47 TUS 6.1 714 10.37 160 1,54C 4,453
48 RNO 6.1 698 9.27 158 1,70, 4,453
49 ABQ 6.0 725 13.20 166 1,259 4,380
50 OMA 5.9 616 27.80 144 518 4,307
78
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
ALO
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
Travel Agent Ticket Sales in Dubuque
July 1990 - June 1991
Orlando
Los Angeles
Seattle
Tucson
Washington
Atlanta
Columbus
Dallas
Harrisburg
Indianapolis
Las Vegas
Miami
Nashville
New York
Tampa
Yankton
Orlando
Dubuque
Tampa
Fort Myers
Miami
New York Laguar
Washington
Detroit
Phoenix
Frankfurt
Houston
London
Atlanta
Denver
Los Angeles
New Orleans
Fort Lauderdale
Puerto Vallarta
Newark
Boston
Dallas
Kansas City
St. Louis
Las Vegas
Cancun
Pittsburgh
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24
330
124
93
77
75
65
60
59
53
52
47
47
43
40
40
39
38
37
35
31
30
30
30
29
27
22
80
DSM : Las Vegas
DSM : Phoenix
DSM : Portland
DSM : San Diego
DSM : Orange County
DSM : Orlando
DSM : Albuquerque
DSM : Washington
DSM : Ontario
DSM : Seattle
DSM : Boston
DSM : Denver
DSM : Fort Myers
DSM : Honolulu
DSM : Los Angeles
DSM : Tampa
DSM : Chicago
DSM : Dallas
DSM : Fort Lauderdale
DSM : Minneapolis
DSM : St. Thomas
DSM : Nassau
DSM : Philadelphia
DSM : San Antcnio
DSM : Fayetteville
DSM : Kansas City
DSM : Miami
DSM : Salt Lake City
DSM : San Francisco
DSM : Akron
DSM : Colorado Springs
DSM : Columbus
DSM : Dayton
DSM : Detroit
DSM : Grand Rapids
DSM : Hartford
DSM : Houston
DSM . Hyannis
DSM : Indianapolis
DSM : Jacksonville
DSM : Liberal
DSM : Milwaukee
DSM . Nashville
DSM : New Orleans
DSM : New Yoram Lagu__d
Appendix 3
24
17
12
12
10
10
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHI : West Palm Beach
CHI : Munich
CHI : San Francisco
CHI : Sarasota
CHI : Savannah
CHI : Baltimore
CHI : Nassau
CHI : San Diego
CHI : Acapulco
CHI : Rockford
CHI : Grand Cayman
CHI : Montego Bay
CHI : Nashville
CHI : Ontario
CHI : Portland
CHI : Jacksonville
CHI : San Antonio
CHI : Seattle
CHI : Vancouver
CHI : Cincinnati
CHI : Mexico
CHI : Oklahoma City
CHI : Hartford
CHI : Jamaica
CHI : Raleigh
CHI : Cozumel
CHI : Greensboro
CHI : Madrid
CHI : San Jose
CHI : Zurich
CHI : Guadalahara
CHI : Guatemala City
CHI : McAllen
CHI : Minneapolis
CHI : Paris
CHI : Pensacola
CHI : Toronto
CHI : Albany
CHI : Billings
CHI : Charlotte
CHI : Honolulu
CHI : Indianapolis
CHI : Montreal
CHI : Omaha
CHI : St Louis
CHI : Vienna
CHI : Birmingham
CHI : Buffalo
CHI : Calgary
CHI : Charleston
CHI : Cleveland
22
21
21
21
19
17
17
17
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
13
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
81
DSM
DSM
DSM
DSM
DSM
DSM
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
Newark
Palm Springs
Savannah
South Bend
Springfield
Tucson
1
1
1
1
1
1
Orlando
Fort Myers
Seattle
Tampa
Washington
San Francisco
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Portland
Columbus
Kansas City
Orange County
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Baltimore
Denver
Boston
Detroit
Fayetteville
Jackson Hole
Memphis
Mobile
Nassau
New Orleans
Phoenix
Sarasota
Bozeman
Charlotte
Chicago
Dubuque
Fort Laurderda_e
Frankfurt
Idaho Falls
Juneau
Knoxville
Little ?.ock
Miami
New York Lagua=d
Newark
Ontaric
Sacramento
Saginaw
202
22
20
13
12
9
8
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHI : Long Beach
CHI : Manchester
CHI : Melbourne
CHI : Mexico City
CHI : Mobile
CHI : Myrtle Beach
CHI : Orange County
CHI : Philadelphia
CHI : San Juan
CHI : St. Thomas
CHI : Tallahassee
CHI : Tulsa
CHI : Austin
CHI : Boise
CHI : Columbus
CHI : Norfolk
CHI : Oakland
CHI : Rochester
CHI : Salt Lake City
CHI : St Martin
CHI : Tokyo
CHI : Burlington
CHI : Colorado Springs
CHI : Dayton
CHI : Dublin
CHI : Ft Walton Beach
CHI . Gainesville
CHI . Hamburg
CHI : Idaho Falls
CHI : Lincoln
CHI : Little Rock
CHI : Memphis
CHI : Providence
CHI : Reno
CHI : Roanoke
CHI : Shannon
CHI : Wausau
CHI : Asheville
CHI : Athens
CHI Berlin
CHI : Burbank
CHI : Cedar Rapids
CHI : Chattanooga
CHI : Glascow
CHI : Grand Rapids
CHI : Italy
CHI : Key West
CHI . Knoxville
CHI : Luxembourg
CHI : Milan
CHI . New York Kennedy
6
6
6
6
6
6
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MKE
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
MLI
Shreveport
St. Louis
Tucson
West Palm Beach
Worchester
1
1
1
1
1
Phoenix
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
Fort Myers
St. Louis
Orlando
Denver
Tampa
Honolulu
Kansas City
San Francisco
West Palm Beach
Atlanta
Chicago
Miami
Sacramento
San Diego
San Jose
Washington
Colorado Springs
Freeport Bah
Jacksonville
. Ontario
. Sarasota
: Dallas
. New York Lagua=C
Palm Springs
Seattle
Springfield
Baltimore
Ft. Smith
Minneapolis
Norfolk
Boston
Burbank
Columbia
Detroit
Dubuque
Knoxville
Little Rock
Memphis
Mexico
Nassau
165
43
36
34
27
26
19
17
16
14
14
13
10
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
82
111
0111
Top 50 O&D Markets for RFD Ranked by Passengers
per Day Each Way (PDEW) - Year Ending 1st Qtr. 1991
O&D Revenue Yield Average Average Annual #
Rank Market PDEW $(000) (Cents) Fare Haul Passengers
1 DTW 20.5 581 12.89 39 301 14,965
2 MSP 14.3 1,463 47.98 140 291 10,439
3 MCI 12.8 364 8.24 39 470 9,344
4 PHX 12.5 1,238 9.01 136 1,510 9,125
5 DEN 11.2 1,063 13.39 131 975 8,176
6 DFW 10.0 1,152 17.81 157 884 7,300
7 STL 7.2 224 13.18 42 322 5,256
8 LAX 6.6 791 9.08 165 1,818 4,818
9 ATL 5.7 525 18.54 125 676 4,161
10 BOS 5.7 568 14.59 137 938 4,161
11 LAS 5.6 529 8.17 130 1,587 4,088
12 SAN 5.4 962 13.68 245 1,789 3,942
13 MCO 5.3 412 9.77 106 1,082 3,869
14 LGA 5.3 605 19.50 156 802 3,869
15 PHL 4.9 551 20.70 155 748 3,577
16 DCA 4.8 475 19.85 137 689 3,504
17 CLE 4.7 534 40.23 155 385 3,431
18 SEA 4.7 904 14.98 265 1,769 3,431
19 TPA 4'.5 392 11.02 120 1,093 3,285
20 EWR 3.8 413 18.87 148 782 2,774
21 RSW 3.3 253 8.73 106 1,215 2,409
22 MIA 2.9 233 8.76 111 1,267 2,117
23 ORD 2.8 120 91.65 58 63 2,044
24 BNA 2.7 221 23.21 111 478 1,971
25 SNA 2.7 277 7.77 140 1,802 1,971
26 CMH 2.7 319 45.14 163 361 1,971
27 IAH 2.6 285 14.86 148 995 1,898
28 PIT 2.6 317 34.14 164 481 1,898
29 SFO 2.6 408 11.02 212 1,927 1,898
30 IND 2.5 168 38.88 93 239 1,825
31. SAT 2.4 191 9.92 110 1,104 1,752
32 ONT 2.3 366 12.24 216 1,767 _,679
33 CVG 2.2 317 59.33 197 332 1,606
34 MSY 2.2 172 11.87 107 905 1,606
35 BDL 2.2 251 18.62 158 847 1,606
36 MDW 1.9 116 110.86 83 75 1,387
37 TOL 1.9 68 17.69 49 277 1,387
38 DAY 1.8 227 54.19 168 310 1,314
39 RDU 1.8 212 21.62 161 744 1,314
40 TUL 1.7 117 14.31 93 648 1,241
41 SJC 1.7 355 14.79 284 1,918 1,241.
42 MDT 1.5 243 32.93 217 658 _,095
43 PDX 1.5 183 9.43 169 1,794 _,095
44 SRQ 1.5 119 9.61 110 1,149 _,095
45 OMA 1.5 148 27.92 138 495 _ 095
46 BWI 1.5 197 26.04 184 708 095
47 ABQ 1.4 141 11.65 138 1,187 .022
48 FLL 1.4 109 8.56 108 1,26.3 _,022
49 SLC 1.3 181 14.36 192 1,338 949
50 PVD 1.3 176 20.99 191 912 949
imn
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
Ottawa
St. Croix
Tucson
Wichita Falls
Amsterdam
Aspen
Bangor, ME
Bankok
Bridgeport
Brussels
Chicago
Daytona Beach
Des Moines
Elmira
Erie
FT. Smith
Green Bay
Greensville
Harrisburg
Jackson
Jackson Hole
Kalmar
Lake Tahoe
Laredo
Lexington
Louisville
Lynchburg
Macon
Milwaukee
Missoula
Monterrey
Montgomery
Newport News
Oaxaca
Panama City
Quebec
Quito
Rome
Sacramento
Singapore
South Bend
Syracuse
Teguclgalpa
Tri Cities
White Plains
Worchester
Aguasclalientes
Akron
Albuquerque
Alexandria
Allentown
3 MLI .
3 MLI .
3 MLI .
3 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2 MLI .
2
2
2
2 MSN .
1 MSN .
1 MSN
1 MSN .
1 MSN .
1 MSN .
83
St. Thomas
Wichita
Beaumont
Casper
Fort Lauderdal
Frenso
Grand Junction
Houston
New Orleans
Omaha
Orange County
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Tulsa
Yuma
Aberdeen
Baton Rouge
Buffalo
Canton/Akron
Charlotte
Cleveland
Dayton
Greensboro
Harlingen
Hartford
Huntsville
Idaho
Jackson
Joplin
Lansing
Missoula
Nashville
Paris
Roanoke
Salt Lake City
Savannah
Scranton
Spokane
Toronto
Tucson
Turin
Valdosta
Orlando
Tampa
Washingzon
Fort Myers
Las Vegas
Miami
480
152
65
46
44
27
24
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
Altoona
Anchorage
Atlantic City
Belize City
Bermuda
Bogota
Canberra
Champagne
Columbia
Coppenhagen
Decatur
Duluth
Dusseldorf
Eau Claire
El Paso
Evansville
Fayetteville
France
Gothenburg
Harlingen
Helena
Hickory
Huntington
Huntsville
Iron Mountain
Japan
Juneau
Kalamazoo
Kalispell, MT
Kona
Lafayette
Lancaster
Lubbock
Lyon
Madison
Manhattan
Manila
Moline
Moncton
Monroe
Nairobi
Naples
New York
Palm Springs
Peoria
Presque
Saginaw
Salisbury
San Jose Costa F
San Salvador
Santiago
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
Boston
Fort Lauderdale
New York LaGuard
Detroit
Jacksonville
Dallas
Atlanta
Hartford
Los Angeles
Minneapolis
Chicago
San Francisco
Sarasota
Seattle
Sacramento
West Palm Beach
Montego Bay
New Orleans
Newark
Salt Lake City
Albany
Buffalo
Colorado
Jackson
Phoenix
White Plains
Nassau
Syracuse
Baltimore
Columbus
Denver
Honolulu
Kansas City
Raleigh
Victoria
Allentown
Billings
Cancun
Charlotte
Cleveland
Columbia
Evansville
France
Great Falls
Houston
Louisville
Nashville
Philade _chia
Portland
Souix Falls
St. Lou_s
21
18
16
13
13
12
10
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
Springa 5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
84
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
CHI
Sapporo
Scranton
Seoul
St Maarten
Stuttgart
Taiwain
Timmins
Turin
Villahermosa
Waterloo
Wilmington
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CID : Las Vegas
CID : Phoenix
CID : Orlando
CID : Denver
CID : Los Angeles
CID : San Diego
CID : Tampa
CID : Dallas
CID : San Francisco
CID : Fort Myers
CID : Honolulu
CID : Seattle
CID : Palm Springs
CID : Reno
CID : Kansas city
CID . Tucson
CID : Portland
CID : Miami
CID : Houston
CID : Fort Lauderdale
CID : San Antonio
CID : Ontario
CID : Colorado Springs
CID : Atlanta
CID : Washington
CID : New York Laguard
CID : San Jose
CID : Wichita
CID : Boston
CID : New Orleans
CID : Omaha
CID : Burbank
CID : Fresno
CID : St. Louis
CID : Jackson Hole
CID : Oakland
CID : West Palm Beach
2,537
760
535
180
134
92
85
72
69
68
54
53
53
48
48
41
41
40
37
36
35
29
28
26
24
24
23
22
22
21
21
20
19
19
19
17
17
17
85
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSN
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
Albuquerque
Birmingham
Bloomington
Boise
Charleston
Cincinnati
Dublin
Fargo
Fort Wayne
Grand Rapids
Indianapolis
Knoxville
LaCrosse
Lansing
Long Beach
Longview
Memphis
Missoula
Norfolk
Oakland
Omaha
Pittsburgh
Rochester
San Diego
Traverse City
Tucson
Dubuque
Anchorage
Dallas
Reno
Honolulu
Atlanta
Kansas City
San Francisco
Boston
Denver
Miami
Chicago
Edmonton
Frankfur `.
Phoenix
Salt Late City
Buffalo
Detroit
Green Bay
New York Laca_:
Portlanol
Spokane
676
25
14
12
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
CID . Sarasota
CID : Albuquerque
CID : Charlotte
CID : Orange County
CID : Salt Lake City
CID : Anchorage
CID : Norfolk
CID : Baltimore
CID : Memphis
CID . Sacramento
CID : Spokane
CID : Austin
CID : Chicago
CID : Jacksonville
CID : Burlington
CID : Boise
CID : Detroit
CID : Eugene
CID : Greensboro
CID : Laguardia
CID : Raleigh
CID : Aspen
CID : Savannah
CID : Bakersfield
CID . Charleston
CID : Columbus
CID : Newark
CID : Oklahoma City
CID : Port au Prince
CID : Winnipeg
CID . Durango
CID . Fairbanks
CID : Flagstaff
CID : New York Kennedy
CID : Palm Beach
CID : Pueblo
CID . Santa Barbara
CID : Springfield
CID : Buffalo
CID : Nashville
CID : Pittsburgh
CID : Scottsdale
CID : Sioux City
CID : Binghamton
CID : Cleveland
CID : Columbia
CID : Dayton
CID : Farmington
CID : Frankfurt
CID : Grand Juction
CID : Hartford
16 MSP : Baltimore
15 MSP : Bismarck
15 MSP : Burlington
14 MSP : Charlotte
14 MSP : Dayton
12 MSP : Des Moines
12 MSP : Fort Myers
11 MSP : Grand Cayman
11 MSP : Grand Rapids
11 MSP : Las Vegas
11 MSP : Little Rock
10 MSP : Louisville
10 MSP : Madison
10 MSP : Newark
9 MSP : Richmond
8 MSP : San Diego
8 MSP : Seattle
8 MSP : St. Louis
8 MSP : Toronto
8 MSP : Winnipeg
8 MSP : Aberdeen
7 MSP : Akron/Canton
7 MSP : Athens
6 MSP : Boise
6 MSP : Champagne
6 MSP : Cheyenne
6 MSP . Cincinnati
6 MSP : Eugene
6 MSP : Fargo
6 MSP : Hawaii
5 MSP : Huron
5 MSP : Iceland
5 MSP : Jamestown
5 MSP : Los Angeles
5 MSP : Marseille
5 MSP : Memphis
5 MSP : Minot
5 MSP : Moline
4 MSP : Montreal
4 MSP : Munich
4 MSP : Omaha
4 MSP : Palm Springs
4 MSP Philadelphia
3 MSP : Pittsburgh
3 MSP : Rhinelander
3 MSP : Rochester
3 MSP : Salem
3 MSP : Sarasota
3 MSP : Savanna:
3 MSP : Sioux City
3 MSP : Sioux Falls
86
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
Indiana
Joplin
Lexington
Lihue
Little Rock
Louisville
Medford
Midland/Odessa
Montrose
Paris
Philadelphia
Richmond
Rochester
Scranton
Toronto
Vancouver
Yuma
Akron
Aruba
Berlin
Calgary
Casper
Edmonton
Florence
Ft Smith
Gulfport
Harrisburg
Kona/Kailua
Long Beach
Manchester
Minneapolis
Monterey
Rapid City
Redding
Salisbury,MD
San Juan
Alexandria
Appleton
Atlantic City
Augusta, GA
Bangor
Bermuda
Billings
Birmingham
Cheyenne
Cody
Colima
Corpus Christi
Dothan
Dusseldorf
El Paso
MSP
MSP
MSP
MSP
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Tampa
Tyler
Washington
Williamsport
Dubuque
Chicago
Las Vegas
Phoenix
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Tampa
Cedar Rapids
New York
Denver
Orlando
Atlanta
Kansas City
Rockford
Dallas
Nassau
Houston
Portland
Madison
Miami
Minneapolis
Moline
Pittsburgh
Wichita
Philadelphia
Indianapolis
Long Beach
Memphis
New Orleans
San Antcnio
Seattle
Fort Myers
Governors harbor
Greensbcro
Kona
San Diego
San Jose
Tulsa
Albuquerque
Austin
Baltimcre
Boston
Cairns
Raleigh
1
1
1
1
212
103
59
52
42
31
30
26
22
Laguard 21
20
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
12
11
11
10
10
10
10
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
87
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
Gallup
Grand Island
Grand Rapids
Great Falls
Guaymas
Huntsville
Kahului
Kalispell
London
Madrid
Melbourne
Mendoza,Argentin
Milan
Narita
New York
Rhode Island
Seoul
Sioux Falls
St John
State College
Steamboat Spring
Stuttgart
Syracuse
Traverse City
Wellington
White Plains
Witchita
Las Vegas
Chicago
Phoenix
Minneapolis
Los Angeles
Washington
Dallas
New York,Laguar
Denver
San Diego
Boston
Atlanta
San Francicso
Orlando
Seattle
Detroit
New Orleans
Houston
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Tampa
3,349
805
738
722
446
416
391
323
320
318
294
288
277
254
252
252
172
172
171
170
143
143
88
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Washington
Burbank
Colorado Springs
Des Moines
Honolulu
Kahului
La Paz
Lincoln
Ontario
Sacramento
St. Louis
Tallahassee
Buffalo
Charlotte
Cincinatti
Detroit
El Paso
Frankfurt
Freeport
Fresno
Harlingen
Jacksonville
Leonguanajuato
Lubbock
Melbourne
Mexico City
Newark
Oakland
Omaha
Reno
Syracuse
Toronto
Albany
Allentown
Anchorace
Aruba
Aukland
Chadron
Columbus
Evansville
Fort Lauderda_a
Gladstone
Hilo
Joplin
Kaua Ka_lua
Lewiston
London
Long Island
Maui
Medford
Milan
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
Newark
Raleigh
Miami
Portland
Kansas City
Ontario
Orange County
Hartford
San Antonio
Nashville
Pittsburgh
Reno
Sacramento
St. Louis
Tucson
Fort Myers
Salt Lake City
Cleveland
Austin
Columbus
San Jose
Cincinnatti
Toronto
Honolulu
Louisville
Albuquerque
Charlotte
Indianapolis
Greensboro
Palm Springs
Tulsa
Memphis
Spokane
Toledo
Montreal
Rochester
South Bend
Fort Lauderdale
Grand Rapids
Omaha
Albany
Norfolk
Anchorage
Harrisburg
Providence
Syracuse
Akron
Frankfurt
Jacksonville
Savannah
El Paso
138 Other:
137 Other:
135 Other:
124 Other:
121 Other:
119 Other:
109 Other:
104 Other:
103 Other:
100 Other:
93 Other:
92 Other:
90 Other:
90 Other:
87 Other:
86 Other:
86 Other:
85 Other:
84 Other:
81 Other:
80 Other:
78 Other:
78 Other:
75 Other:
72 Other:
65 Other:
59 Other:
59 Other:
58 Other:
57 Other:
55 Other:
54 Other:
47 Other:
43 Other:
42 Other:
42 Other:
39 Other:
38 Other:
37 Other:
37 Other:
36 Other:
35 Other:
34 Other:
34 Other:
34 Other:
34 Other:
33 Other:
32 Other:
29 Other:
28 Other:
27 Other:
Milwaukee
Nashville
Orange County
Pensacola
Portland, Maine
Rome
Salt Lake City
Sarasota
Singapore
Treasure
Tucson
Vancouver
Vero Beach
Yuma
Amarillo
Aspen
Baton Rouge
Brindis
Burlington, IA
Cabimas
Cancun
Charleston
Chattanooga
Chile
Cleveland
Columbia
Corpus Cristi
Dayton
Daytona Beach
Dusseldorf
Elkins
Elmira
Eugene
Flagstaff
Fort Wayne
Ft Collins
Gambell
Grand Forks
Grand Rapids
Green Bay
Greensv_ lle
Gulfporo
Gustavus
Hartford
Ireland
Jackson :sole
Jakarta
Ketchikan
Knoxville
Lafayet _e
Lancaster
n
89
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
DBQ
Oakland
Oklahoma City
Birmingham
Dayton
Evansville
London
West Palm Beach
Charleston
San Juan
Sioux Falls
Buffalo
Columbia, SC
Knoxville
Laredo
Sarasota
Traverse City
Harlingen
Richmond
Allentown
Burlington
Corpus Christi
Lexington
Shreveport
Duluth
Fayetteville
Kalamazoo
Long Island
Myrtle Beach
Billings
Boise
Tokyo
Winnepeg
Davao
Daytona Beach
Fargo
Greensville
Long Beach
Manchester
Montgomery
Colorado Springs
Eugene
Fresno
Minot
Newport News
Sioux City
Tallahassee
Vancouver
Medford
Turin
Amarillo
Cancun
24 Other:
24 Other:
23 Other:
23 Other:
23 Other:
23 Other:
23 Other:
20 Other:
20 Other:
20 Other:
19 Other:
19 Other:
19 Other:
18 Other:
18 Other:
18 Other:
17 Other:
17 Other:
16 Other:
16 Other:
16
16
16
15 RFD .
15 RFD .
15 RFD .
15 RFD .
15 RFD .
14 RFD .
14 RFD .
14 RFD .
14 RFD .
13 RFD .
13 RFD .
13 RFD .
13 RFD .
13 RFD .
13 RFD .
13 RFD .
12 RFD .
12 RFD .
12 RFD .
12 RFD .
12 RFD .
12 RFD .
12 RFD .
12 RFD .
11 RFD .
11 RFD .
10 RFD .
10 RFD .
Lexington
Lihue
Little Rock
Monterey
New York
Obisco
Oklahoma City
Palm Springs
Presque Isle
Rapid City
Rochester
Saginaw
San Juan
San Salvador
Sioux City
St. Thomas
Tawian
Theif River Fall
Tokyo
West Palm Beacn
Orlando
Detroit
St. Louis
Tampa
Atlanta
Kansas City
Denver
Dallas
Boston
West Palm Beac
Phoenix
Fort Myers
Nashville
Chicago
Philadelphia
New York Lagu
Washington
New Orleans
Las Vegas
Sarasota
Toledo
Daytona Beach
Miami
Akron
Baltimore_
San Ant:n_o
Cleveland
Fort Lai erda_a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
953
65
64
46
38
36
28
24
22
21
20
19
18
18
17
16
15
14
13
11
11
11
10
10
9
7
7
6
6
90
DBQ : Fort Wayne
DBQ : Huntsville
DBQ : Lansing
DBQ : Little Rock
DBQ : McAllen
DBQ : Paris
DBQ : Pensacola
DBQ : Wichita
DBQ : Bakersfield
DBQ : Canton/Akron
DBQ : Rapid City
DBQ : Zurich
DBQ : Baton Rouge
DBQ : Kahului
DBQ : Kalispell
DBQ : Lubbock
DBQ : Melbourne
DBQ : Milwaukee
DBQ : Mobile
DBQ : Roanoke
DBQ : Springfield
DBQ : Chattanooga
DBQ : Monterey
DBQ : Newburgh
DBQ : Parkersburg
DBQ : Thief River Fall
DBQ : Thunder Bay
DBQ : Aberdeen
DBQ : Asheville
DBQ : Bangor
DBQ : Bismarck
DBQ : Brainard
DBQ : Calgary
DBQ : Gainesville
DBQ : Great Falls
DBQ : Green Bay
DBQ : Jackson
DBQ : Missoula
DBQ : Steamboat Spring
DBQ : White Plains
DBQ : Youngstown
10 RFD
10 RFD
10 RFD
10 RFD
10 RFD
10 RFD
10 RFD
10 RFD
9 RFD
9 RFD
9 RFD
9 RFD
8 RFD
8 RFD
8 RFD
8 RFD
8 RFD
8 RFD
8 RFD
8 RFD
8 RFD
7 RFD
7 RFD
7 RFD
7 RFD
7 RFD
7 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6 RFD
6
6
12,089
91
Jacksonville
Orange County
Albany
Los Angeles
Houston
Indianapolis
Lansing
Minneapolis
Muskegon
Newark
Raleigh
Austin
Chattanoga
Columbus
Flint
Harlingen
Lynchburg
Oklahoma City
San Diego
Albuquerque
Charlotte
Cincinnati
Corpus Cristi
Greensboro
Hartford
Honolulu
Louisville
Memphis
New York
Ontario
Pittsburgh
Rapid City
Reno
Rochester
Syracuse
Toronto
Tulsa
Wichita
Wichita Falls
Appendix 4
Travel Agent Ticket Sales in Dubuque
July 1990 - June 1991
DBQ CHI Other MICE CID DSM MLI MSN MSP RFD ALO Total
Las Vegas 805 29 52 5 760 24 36 27 2 18 1 1759
Phoenix 722 53 42 2 535 17 43 5 4 11 1434
Orlando 252 330 20 22 180 10 19 152 7 4 996
Chicago 738 2 59 1 10 4 8 8 4 17 851
Los Angeles 416 40 30 5 92 5 34 9 1 13 3 648
Denver 318 40 20 3 134 5 17 3 5 24 569
Washington 391 60 5 9 24 7 7 46 1 2 552
Dallas 323 30 16 69 4 5 12 12 22 1 494
Minneapolis 446 9 10 2 4 4 9 1 485
New York-LGA 320 65 21 1 31 1 5 16 3 1 464
San Diego 294 17 6 85 12 7 1 2 14 438
Tampa 143 93 26 12 72 5 16 65 1 1 434
Atlanta 277 43 19 3 24 8 10 6 36 1 427
San Francicso 254 21 31 8 68 2 13 8 6 411
Boston 288 31 5 2 21 5 3 21 5 21 402
Seattle 252 14 7 13 53 6 5 8 2 2 362
Fort Myers 86 77 6 20 54 5 27 44 2 18 339
Detroit 172 59 3 2 8 1 3 13 3 64 328
Miami 135 75 11 1 37 2 7 24 5 2 1 300
Houston 171 47 14 36 1 2 2 2 275
New Orleans 172 39 7 2 21 1 2 6 16 266
Dubuque 124 103 1 3 25 256
Kansas City 121 30 18 4 41 2 14 3 6 3 242
Portland 124 15 12 5 40 12 2 3 213
Philadelphia 170 6 8 4 3 3 2 2 2 201
Baltimore 143 17 5 3 11 4 3 2 7 195
Newark 138 35 3 1 6 1 6 2 3 195
Nashville 100 15 2 4 1 1 2 65 1 191
St. Louis 90 37 4 1 19 26 2 2 1 182
Ontario 119 15 4 1 28 6 6 1 180
Pittsburgh 93 22 10 4 2 1 _ 46 179
Honolulu _ 75 8 4 53 5 14 3 7 1 170
Reno 92 4 3 48 e 11 166
Raleigh 137 11 5 8 3 1 165
San Antonio 103 14 7 29 3 1 157
Orange County 109 6 2 4 14 10 2 1 148
Fort Lauderdale 38 38 2 1 35 4 2 18 6 144
Tucson 87 3 2 1 41 1 1 1 2 139
Hartford 104 11 1 3 1 1 13 1 132
San Jose 80 10 6 22 7 125
Sacramento 90 2 4 1 11 7 7 122
Salt Lake City 86 5 2 14 2 1 6 - 120
Palm Springs 57 1 1 48 1 5 _ 114
Austin 84 5 5 10 2 106
92
DBQ CHI Other MAE CID DSM MLI MSN MSP RFD ALO Total
Poi
411q1
Columbus 81 5 2 4 6 1 3 2 1 105
Cleveland 85 6 1 3 1 2 6 104
Cincinnatti 78 13 3 1 1 1 97
Toronto 78 9 3 3 1 2 96
Albuquerque 65 1 5 15 7 1 1 95
Frankfurt 32 52 3 1 3 4 95
Sarasota 18 21 2 2 16 6 8 1 20 94
Charlotte 59 8 3 1 15 1 2 2 1 92
Jacksonville 29 14 3 10 1 6 13 10 86
Memphis 54 4 7 2 11 3 1 1 3 86
West Palm Beach 23 22 1 1 22 10 7 86
Greensboro 58 10 6 8 1 1 84
Louisville 72 2 3 2 2 1 82
Indianapolis 59 7 7 1 1 1 1 77
London 23 47 2 1 73
Omaha 37 7 3 20 2 1 1 71
Tulsa 55 6 6 2 69
Anchorage 34 1 2 12 14 63
Spokane 47 11 1 3 62
Colorado Springs 12 4 4 26 1 6 5 58
Akron 42 1 2 1 1 _ 9 57
Norfolk 35 5 12 4 1 57
Savannah 28 19 7 1 1 1 57
Albany 36 8 2 5 4 55
Rochester 42 5 1 3 1 _ 1 54
Rapid City 9 1 2 38 50
Oakland 24 5 3 17 1 50
Montreal 42 7 _ 50
Nassau 2 17 15 2 3 3 4 46
Grand Rapids 37 3 1 1 1 1 2 46
Wichita 10 10 23 3 46
Syracuse 34 2 3 1 4 1 45
Oklahoma City 24 12 1 6 1 44
Toledo 43 43
South Bend 39 2 1 42
Buffalo 19 6 3 4 1 5 41
Cancun 10 27 1 2 40
Harrisburg 34 2 2 1 39
Providence 34 4 38
Puerto Vallarta 37 37
Fresno 12 3 19 2 36
Dayton 23 4 1 3 1 1 _ 35
Charleston 20 6 1 6 1 34
Rockford 16 17 33
El Paso 27 1 3 1 32
Burlington 16 4 1 9 - 32
Hibbing 3 28 31
Vancouver 12 14 2 3 31
Burbank 2 3 4 19 3 31
93
Rim
Imo
Birmingham
Boise
Long Beach
Columbia, SC
San Juan
Knoxville
Evansville
Daytona Beach
Montego Bay
Cedar Rapids
Billings
Harlingen
Sioux Falls
Little Rock
New York
Jackson Hole
Paris
Lexington
Winnepeg
Munich
Richmond
Tallahassee
Eugene
Pensacola
Allentown
Myrtle Beach
Manchester
Tokyo
Laredo
Fayetteville
Traverse City
Corpus Christi
McAllen
Zurich
Springfield
Sioux City
Acapulco
Mexico
Melbourne
Lynchburg
Madison
Shreveport
Long Island
Grand Cayman
Greensville
Medford
Kalamazoo
Duluth
Mobile
DBQ CHI Other MKE CID DSM MLI MSN MSP RFD ALO Total
23
14
13
19
20
19
23
13
5
1
14
17
20
10
6
5
6 7
1 1
6 1
3 1 1
1 2
2 1
15
3 22
8
1 3
1
8
2
3
2
1
1
4 1 1 3
1 1 1
1 2 1 2 17
10 9 3
16 2 1 3
14 6
21
17 3
12 6 4
12 1 8
10 9 2
16 1 2
15 6
13 6 2
14 5 1
18 2
15 1 2
18 1
16 1 1
10 9
9 10
8 5
12 1 4
2 16
3 12
8 6 3 1
2
3 1 11
16 1
15 2
15
13 2 1
11 2 3
15 1
15 1
8 6 2
1
1
1
3 2
3 1
2
6
2
1
1
2 1
3 2
1
2
1 5
3
2
1
2
1
2
31
29
29
29
29
28
28
10 26
26
26
25
2 24
24
24
19 1 23
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
21
21
21
21
20
20
20
20
1 19
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
15 17
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
16
q
94
DBQ CHI Other MEO CID DSM MLI MSN MSP RFD ALO Total
St. Thomas
Lansing
Bakersfield
Montgomery
Fargo
Fort Wayne
Kahului
Hilo
Jackson
White Plains
Roanoke
Newport News
Aspen
Calgary
Chattanooga
Lincoln
Minot
Milwaukee
Turin
Huntsville
Davao
Helena
Green Bay
Moline
Lubbock
Monterey
Mexico City
Muskegon
Fort Smith
Idaho Falls
Madrid
Jamaica
Amarillo
Guatemala
Cozumel
Baton Rouge
Missoula
Kalispell
Scranton
Grand Junction
Guadalajara
Gainesville
Freeport
Great Falls
Kona
Asheville
Bangor
Vienna
Des Moines
2 6 1 4 3 16
10 1 1 3 15
9 6 15
13 2 15
13 1 1 15
13 1 1 15
8 6 1 15
1 2 11 14
6 2 1 5 14
6 2 1 5 14
9 4 1 14
12 2 14
4 2 1 7 14
6 6 2 14
7 3 1 2 13
5 4 4 13
12 1 13
8 2 2 1 13
11 1 1 13
10 1 1 1 13
13 13
5 1 6 12
6 2 1 3 12
1 10 1 12
8 1 3 12
7 2 1 2 12
3 6 3 12
5 6 11
3 2 2 4 11
5 4 1 1 11
10 1 11
11 11
10 1 11
2 9 11
10 10
8 1 1 10
6 2 1 1 10
8 1 1 10
5 1 3 1 10
5 3 2 10
1 9 10
6 4 10
3 6 9
6 1 2 9
1 6 2 9
6 3 9
6 2 1 9
2 7 9
1 2 4 = 9
95
DBQ CHI Other MFO; CID DSM MLI MSN MSP RFD ALO Total
Wausau 4 4 8
New York Kennedy 3 5 8
Midland 5 3 8
Saginaw 5 1 1 1 8
Thief River Falls 7 1 8
Aberdeen 6 1 1 8
Bismarck 6 2 8
Fort Walton Beach 4 4 8
Lihue,Kauai 3 1 3 7
Thunder Bay 7 7
Gulfport 4 1 2 7
Newburgh 7 7
Port A Prince 1 6 7
Parkersburg 7 7
Edmonton 1 2 4 7
Yuma 2 3 2 7
Hilton Head 2 4 6
Hickory 2 1 3 6
Brainard 6 6
Rome 2 2 2 6
Steamboat Springs 6 6
Flagstaff 1 5 6
Augusta 5 1 6
Maui 4 2 6
Milan 3 2 1 6
Berlin 1 3 2 6
Bermuda 4 1 1 6
Governors Harbour 6 6
Shannon 2 4 6
Glasgow 3 3 6
Joplin 2 3 1 6
Santa Barbara 1 5 6
Youngstown 6 6
Quito 4 2 6
Casper 2 2 2 6
Dusseldorf 3 1 1 1 6
Flint 3 2 5
Florence 3 2 5
Presque Isle 3 1 1 5
Pueblo 5 5
Lake Tahoe 3 2 5
Cairns 5 5
Beaumont 3 2 5
Naples 4 1 5
Martha's Vine 5 5
Gunnison 5 5
Key West 2 3 5
Fairbanks 5 5
Grand Forks 4 1 5
96
PH!
Owl
IMI
DBQ CHI Other MRE CID DSM MLI MSN MSP RFD ALO Total
---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elm;ra 2 2 1 5
Athens 1 3 1 5
Durango 5 5
Terre Haute 5 5
Dublin 4 1 5
St. Martin 5 5
Singapore 1 2 2 5
Victoria 2 3 5
Hearst 1 3 4
Hawaii 1 3 4
Redding 2 2 4
St. Croix 1 3 4
Montrose 1 3 4
Ottawa 1 3 4
Erie 2 2 4
Farmington 1 3 4
Panama City 2 2 4
Pasco 4 4
Stuttgart 4 4
Scottsdale 4 4
Quebec 2 2 4
Dothan 3 1 4
Stockholm 4 4
Bozeman 3 1 4
Champagne 2 1 1 4
Hamburg 4 4
Japan 3 1 4
Aruba 2 2 4
Italy 1 3 4
La Paz 4 4
Hyannis 3 1 4
Macon 2 2 4
Tri Cities 2 2 4
Lancaster 2 1 1 4
Tegucigalpa 2 2 4
Lewiston 1 2 3
Redmond 3 3
Indiana 3 3
Lafayette 1 1 1 3
Leonguanajua 3 3
Worcester 2 1 3
Lawton 3 3
Abilene 3 3
Grand Island 2 1 3
Amsterdam 1 2 3
Jamestown 2 - 3
Decatur 2 1 3
Pierre 3 3
Santa Fe 3 3
97
DBQ CHI Other MSE CID DSM MLI MSN MSP RFD ALO Total
Long View 2
Terrace 3
Wichita Falls 3
Huntington 2 1
France 1
Marquette 3
Salisbury 1 2
Rhinelander 2
Alexandria 1 1 1
Atlantic City 1 1 1
Tuscalossa 3
Binghamton 3
St. Maarten 2 1
Luxembourg 3
Hastings 1
Williamsport 1
San Salvador 1 1
Salem 1
Altoona 1 1
Santa Ana 2
Butte 2
Chadron 2
San Luis Obispo 1 1
Caracas 2
Sudbury 2
Blue Bell 2
Aukland 2
Stuttgart 1 1
Taiwan 1 1
Bloomington 1
St. Johns 1 1
Bemidji 2
Treasure 2
Brussels 2
Bangkok 2
Waterloo 1 1
Bradford 2
Vero Beach 2
Visalia 2
Waco 2
Seoul 1 1
Brindis 1 1
Bridgeport 2
Kalmar 2
Fort Huachuca 2
Pullman 2
Islip 2
Owensboro 2
Gladstone 2
98
1
2
1
1
1
1
omi
nms
�w
n
DBQ CHI Other MRE CID DSM MLI MSN MSP RFD ALO Total
----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland,ME 2 2
Kamloops 2 2
La Crosse 1 1 2
Cheyenne 1 1 2
Pendleton 2 2
Greensburg 2 2
New Haven 2 2
Juneau 1 1 2
Iceland 1 1 2
Oaxaca 2 2
Harrison 2 2
Escanaba 2 2
Moncton 1 1 2
Val D'or 1 1
Vail 1 1
Utica 1 1
Manzanillo 1 1
Tyler 1 1
Tortola 1 1
Marseille 1 1
Timmins 1 1
Belize City 1 1
Baskatoon 1 1
Lyon 1 1
Barbados 1 1
Manhatten 1 1
Villahermosa 1 1
Mankato 1 1
Manila 1 1
Valdosta 1 1
Mendoza 1 1
Wilmington 1 1
Kingman 1 1
Kodiak City 1 1
Williston 1 1
Johnstown 1 1
Aguasclalien 1 1
Jakarta 1 1
Yankton 1 1
Ketchikan 1 1
Wilkes-Barre 1 1
Huron - 1
Lake Charles 1 1
Walla Walla 1 1
Latrobe 1 1
Iron Mountain 1 1
Liberal
1 1
Ireland 1 1
Lebanon 1 1
99
Percentage Distribution of Travel Agent Ticket Sales in Dubuque
July 1990 - June 1991
DSO CHI Other )SS CID DSK KLI MSS 11SP STD
Appendix 5
ALO
Las Vegas 45.76% 1.65% 2.96% 0.28% 43.21% 1.36% 2.05% 1.53% 0.11% 1.02% 0.06%
Phoenix 50.35% 3.70% 2.93% 0.14% 37.31% 1.19% 3.00% 0.35% 0.28% 0.77%
Orlando 25.30% 33.13% 2.01% 2.21% 18.07% 1.00% 1.91% 15.26% 0.70% 0.40%
Chicago 86.72% 0.24% 6.93% 0.12% 1.18% 0.47% 0.94% 0.94% 0.47% 2.00%
Los Angeles 64.20% 6.17% 4.63% 0.77% 14.20% 0.77% 5.25% 1.39% 0.15% 2.01% 0.46%
Denver 55.89% 7.03% 3.51% 0.53% 23.55i 0.88% 2.99% 0.53% 0.88% 4.22%
Washington 70.83% 10.87% 0.91% 1.63% 4.35% 1.27% 1.27% 8.33% 0.184 0.36%
Dallas 65.38% 6.07% 3.24% 13.97% 0.81% 1.01% 2.43% 2.43% 4.45% 0.20%
Minneapolis 91.96% 1.86% 2.06% 0.41% 0.82% 0.82% 1.86% 0.21%
New York - LGA 68.97% 14.01% 4.53% 0.22% 6.68% 0.22% 1.08% 3.45% 0.65% 0.22%
San Diego 67.12% 3.88% 1.37% 19.41% 2.74% 1.60% 0.23% 0.46% 3.20%
Tampa 32.95% 21.43% 5.99% 2.76% 16.59% 1.15% 3.69% 14.98% 0.23% 0.23%
Atlanta 64.87% 10.07% 4.45% 0.70% 5.62% 1.87% 2.34% 1.41% 8.43% 0.23%
San Francicso 61.80% 5.11% 7.54% 1.95% 16.55% 0.49% 3.16% 1.95% 1.46%
Boston 71.64% 7.71% 1.24% 0.50% 5.22% 1.24% 0.75% 5.22% 1.24% 5.22%
Seattle 69.61% 3.87% 1.93% 3.59% 14.64% 1.66% 1.38% 2.21% 0.55% 0.55%
Fort Myers 25.37% 22.71% 1.77% 5.90% 15.93% 1.47% 7.96% 12.98% 0.59% 5.31%
Detroit 52.44% 17.99% 0.91% 0.61% 2.44% 0.30% 0.91% 3.96% 0.91% 19.51%
Miami 45.00% 25.00% 3.67% 0.33% 12.33% 0.67% 2.33% 8.00% 1.67% 0.67% 0.33%
Houston 62.18% 17.09% 5.09% 13.09% 0.36% 0.73% 0.73% 0.73%
New Orleans 64.66% 14.66% 2.63% 0.75% 7.89% 0.38% 0.75% 2.26% 6.02%
Dubuque 48.44% 40.23% 0.39% 1.17% 9.77%
Kansas City 50.00% 12.40% 7.44% 1.65% 16.94% 0.83% 5.79% 1.24% 2.481; 1.24%
Portland 58.22% 7.04% 5.63% 2.35% 18.78% 5.63% 0.94% 1.41%
Philadelphia 84.58% 2.99% 3.98% 1.99% 1.49% 1.49% 1.00% 1.00% 0.50% 1.00%
Baltimore 73.33% 8.721 2.56% 1.54% 5.64% 2.05% 1.54% 1.03% 3.59%
Newark 70.77% 17.95% 1.54% 0.51% 3.08% 0.51% 3.08% 1.03% 1.54%
Nashville 52.36% 7.85% 1.05% 2.09% 0.52% 0.52% 1.05% 34.03% 0.52%
St. Louis 49.45% 20.33% 2.20% 0.55% 10.44% 14.29% 1.10% 1.10% 0.55%
Ontario 66.11% 8.33% 2.22% 0.56% 15.56% 3.33% 3.33% 0.56%
Pittsburgh 51.96% 12.29% 5.59% 2.23% 1.12% 0.56% 0.56% 25.70%
Honolulu 44.12% 4.71% 2.35% 31.18% 2.94% 8.24% 1.76% 4.:2% 0.59%
Reno 55.42% 2.41% 1.81% 28.92% 4.82% 6.63%
Raleigh 83.03% 6.67% 3.03% 4.85% 1.82% 0.61%
San Antonio 65.61% 8.92% 4.46% 18.47% 1.91% 0.64%
Orange County 73.65% 4.05% 1.35% 2.70% 9.46% 6.76% 1.35% 0.68%
Fort Lauderdale 26.39% 26.39% 1.39% 0.69% 24.31% 2.78% 1.39% 12.50% 4.17%
Tucson 62.59% 2.16% 1.44% 0.72% 29.50% 0.72% 0.72% 0.72% 1.44%
Hartford 78.79% 8.33% 0.76% 2.27% 0.76% 0.76% 7.58% 0.76%
San Jose 64.00% 8.00% 4.80% 17.60% 5.60%
Sacramento 73.77% 1.64% 3.28% 0.82% 9.02% 5.74% 5.74%
Salt Lake City 71.67% 4.17% 1.67% 11.67% 1.67% 0.83% 5.00% 3.33%
Palm Springs 50.00% 0.88% 0.88% 42.11% 0.88% 4.39% 0.88%
Austin 79.25% 4.72% 4.72% 9.43% 1.89%
Columbus 77.14% 4.76% 1.90% 3.81% 5.71% 0.95% 2.86% 1.90% 0.95%
Cleveland 81.73% 5.77% 0.96% 2.88% 0.96% 1.92% 5.77%
Cincinnatti 80.41% 13.40% 3.09% 1.03% ..03% 1.03%
Toronto 81.25% 9.38% 3.13% 3.13% 1.04% _.38%
Albuquerque 68.42% 1.05% 5.26% 15.791; 7.37% 1.7,5% 1.05%
Frankfurt 33.68% 54.74% 3.16% 1.05% 3.16% 4.21%
Sarasota 19.15% 22.34% 2.13% 2.13% 17.02% 6.38% 8.51% ..:6% 21.28%
Charlotte 64.13% 8.70% 3.26% 1.09% 16.30% 1.09% 2..7% _.:7% 1.09%
Jacksonville 33.72% 16.28% 3.49% 11.63% 1.16% 6.98% 15..2% 11.63%
Memphis 62.79% 4.65% 8.14% 2.33% 12.79% 3.49% 1.16% 1.16% 3.49%
West Palm Beach 26.74% 25.58% 1.16% 1.16% 25.58% 11.63% 8.14%
Greensboro 69.05% 11.90% 7.14% 9.52% 1.19% 1.19%
Louisville 87.80% 2.44% 3.66% 2.44% 2.44% 1.22%
Indianapolis 76.62% 9.09% 9.09% 1.30% 1.30% 1.30% 1.30%
London 31.51% 64.38% 2.74% 1.37%
Omaha 52.11% 9.86% 4.23% 28.17% 2.82% 1.41% .41%
Tulsa 79.71% 8.70% 8.70% 2.90%
Anchorage 53.97% 1.59% 3.17% 19.05% ::.22%
Spokane 75.81% 17.74% 1.61% •34%
Colorado Springs 20.69% 6.90% 6.90% 44.83% 1.72% 10.34% :.62%
Akron 73.68% 1.75% 3.51% 1.75% 1.75% :.-5% 15.79%
Norfolk 61.40% 8.77% 21.05% 7.02% 1.75%
100
DBQ CBI Other MBZ CID DSl[ 16I MSS MST
RTD ALO
Savannah 49.12% 33.33% 12.284 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%
Albany 65.45% 14.55% 3.644 9.09%
Rochester 77.784 9.26% 1.85% 5.56% 1.854 1.85%
Rapid City 18.00% 2.00% 4.00%
Oakland
48.004 10.00% 6.00% 34.00% 2.00%
Montreal 84.00% 14.00% 2.004
Nassau 4.35% 36.96% 32.61% 4.35% 6.52% 6.52% 8.70%
Grand Rapids 80.43% 6.52% 2.17% 2.174 2.17% 2.174 4.35%
Wichita 21.74% 21.74% 50.00% 6.52%
Syracuse 75.56% 4.44% 6.67% 2.22% 8.894
Oklahoma City 54.55% 27.27% 2.27% 13.64%
Toledo 100.00%
South Bend 92.86% 4.764 2.38%
Buffalo 46.34% 14.63% 7.32% 9.76% 2.44% 12.20% 7.32%
Cancun 25.00% 67.50% 2.50% 5.00%
Harrisburg 87.18% 5.13% 5.13%
Providence 89.47% 10.53%
Puerto Vallarta 100.00%
Fresno 33.33% 8.33% 52.78% 5.561
Dayton 65.71% 11.43% 2.86% 8.57% 2.86% 2.86% 5.71%
Charleston 58.82% 17.65% 2.94% 17.65% 2.944
Rockford 48.48% 51.52%
E1 Paso 84.38% 3.13% 9.38% 3.13%
Burlington 50.00% 12.50% 3.13% 28.13% 6.25%
Hibbing 9.68%
Vancouver 38.71% 45.16% 6.45% 9.68%
Burbank 6.45% 9.68% 12.90% 61.29% 9.684
Birmingham 74.19% 19.35% 3.23% 3.23%
Boise 48.28% 17.24% 27.59% 3.45% 3.45%
Long Beach 44.83% 20.69% 24.14% 6.90% 3.454
Columbia, SC 65.52% 3.45% 3.45% 10.34% 10.34% 6.90%
San Juan 68.97% 20.69% 3.454 6.90%
Knoxville 67.86% 10.71% 3.57% 3.57% 10.71% 3.57%
Evansville 82.14% 3.57% 7.14% 7.14%
Daytona Beacn 50.00% 7.69% 3.85%
Montego Bay 19.23% 57.69% 23.084
Cedar Rapids 3.85% 11.54% 84.62%
Billings 56.00% 32.00% 4.00% 8.00%
Harlingen 70.83% 4.17% 12.50% 4.17%
Sioux Falls 83.33% 4.17% 8.331 4.17%
Little Rock 41.67% 16.67% 4.17% 4.17% 12.50% 12.50% 8.139
New York 4.35% 4.35% 4.35%
Jackson Hole 4.35% 8.70% 4.35% 8.70% 73.91%
Paris 43.48% 39.13% 13.04% 4.35%
Lexington 72.73% 9.09% 4.55% 13.64%
Winnepeg 63.64% 27.27% 9.=91
Munich 95.45% 4.551
Richmond 77.27% 13.64% 9._94
Tallahassee 54.55% 27.27% 18.18%
Eugene 54.55% 4.55% 36.36% 4.55%
Pensacola 47.62% 42.86% 9.52%
Allentown 76.19% 4.76% 9.52% 9.52%
Myrtle Beach 71.43% 28.57%
Manchester 61.90% 28.57% 9.52%
Tokyo 70.00% 25.00% 5.00%
Laredo 90.00% 10.00%
Fayetteville 75.00% 5.00% 10.00% 10.00%
Traverse City 90.00% 5.00% 5.104
Corpus Christi 84.21% 5.26% 5.26%
McAllen 52.63% 47.37%
Zurich 47.37% 52.63%
Springfield 42.11% 26.32% 5.26% 26.32%
Sioux City 66.67% 5.56% 22.22% 5.564
Acapulco 11.11% 88.89%
Mexico 16.67% 66.67% 16.67%
Melbourne 44.44% 33.33% 16.67% 5.56%
Lynchburg 11.76%
Madison 17.65% 5.88% 64.71% 5%
Shreveport 94.12% 5.88%
Long island 88.24% 11.76%
Grand Cayman 88,24% - 64
7.27%
1.854
76.00%
2.22%
2.27%
90.32%
38.46%
8.33%
2.56%
82.61% 4.35%
5.26%
88.24%
+101
DBQ CIS Other NNE CZD DIN 1Q.Z NNN 1D3P RFD
Greeneville 81.25% 12.50% 6.25%
Medford 68.75% 12.50% 18.75%
Kalamazoo 93.75% 6.25%
Duluth 93.75% 6.25%
Mobile 50.00% 37.50% 12.50%
St. Thomas 12.50% 37.50% 6.25%
Lansing 66.67%
Bakersfield 60..00% 40.00%
Montgomery 86.67% 13.33%
Fargo 86.67%
Fort Wayne 86.67% 6.67% 6.67%
Kahului 53.33% 40.00% 6.67%
Hilo 7.14% 14.29%
Jackson 42.86% 14.29% 7.14% 35.71%
White Plains 42.86% 14.29% 7.14% 35.71%
Roanoke 64.29% 28.57% 7.14%
Newport News 85.71% 14.29%
Aspen 28.57% 14.29% 7.14% 50.00%
Calgary 42.86% 42.86% 14.29%
Chattanooga 53.85% 23.08% 7.69% 15.38%
Lincoln 38.46% 30.774 30.77%
Minot 92.31%
Milwaukee 61.54% 15.38% 15.38% 7.69%
Turin 84.62% 7.69% 7.69%
Huntsville 76.92% 7.69% 7.69% 7.69%
Davao 100.00%
Helena 41.67% 8.33% 50.00%
Green Bay 50.00% 16.67% 8.33% 25.00%
Moline 8.33% 83.33% 8.33%
Lubbock 66.67% 8.33% 25.00%
Monterey 58.33% 16.67% 8.33% 16.67%
Mexico City 25.00% 50.00% 25.00%
Muskegon 45.45%
Fort Smith 27.27% 18.18% 18.18% 36.36%
Idaho Falls 45.45% 36.36% 9.09% 9.09%
Madrid 90.91% 9.09%
Jamaica 100.00%
Amarillo 90.91% 9.09%
Guatemala 18.18% 81.82%
Cozumel 100.00%
Baton Rouge 80.00% 10.00% 10.00%
Missoula 60.00% 20.00% 10.00% 10.00%
Kalispell 80.00% 10.00% 10.00%
Scranton 50.00% 10.00% 30.00% 10.00%
Grand Junction 50.00% 30.00%
Guadalajara 10.00% 90.00%
Gainesville 60.00% 40.00%
Freeport 33.33% 66.67%
Great Falls 66.67% 11.11% 22.22%
Kona 11.11% 66.67% 22.22%
Asheville 66.67% 33.33%
Bangor 66.67% 22.22% 11.11%
Vienna 22.22% 77.78%
Des Moines 11.11% 22.22% 44.44% 22.22%
Wausau 50.00% 50.00%
New York Kennedy 37.50% 62.50%
Midland 62.50% 37.50%
Saginaw 62.50% 12.50% 12.50% 12.50%
Thief River Falls 87.50% 12.50%
Aberdeen 75.00%
Bismarck 75.00%
Fort Walton Beach 50.00% 50.00%
Lihue,Kauai 42.86% 14.29% 42.86%
Thunder Bay 100.00%
Gulfport 57.14% 14.29% 28.57%
Newburgh 100.00%
Port A Prince 14.291 85.71%
Parkersburg 100.00%
Edmonton 14.29% 28.57% 5-.14%
Yuma 28.57% 42.86% 28.57%
Hilton Head 33.33%
102
25.00% 18.75%
6.67%
20.00%
6.67% 20.00%
6.67%
6.67%
7.69%
12.50% 12.:0%
2`.:0%
78.57%
54.55%
66.67%
DSO CHI Other KRA CID DSt MLI ISSN XSP ATD M.O
Hickory 33.33% 16.674
Brainard 100.004
Rome 33.334 33.33% 33.33%
Steamboat Springs 100.00%
Flagstaff 16.674
Augusta 83.334
Maui 66.67% 33.33%
Milan 50.004 33.33%
Berlin 16.67% 50.00%
Bermuda 66.67% 16.67%
Governors Harbour 100.004
Shannon 33.33% 66.67%
Glasgow 50.00% 50.004
Joplin 33.334
Santa Barbara 16.67%
Youngstown 100.004
Quito 66.67% 33.33%
Casper 33.334
Dusseldorf 50.00% 16.67% 16.67%
Flint 60.00%
Florence 60.00%
Presque Isle 60.00% 20.00% 20.00%
Pueblo
Lake Tahoe 60.00% 40.00%
Cairns 100.004
Beaumont 60.004
Naples 80.00% 20.00%
Martha's Vine 100.00*
Gunnison 100.00%
Key West 40.00% 60.00%
Fairbanks
Grand Forks 80.00% 20.00%
Elmira 40.00% 40.00% 20.00%
Athens 20.00% 60.00%
Durango
Terre Haute 100.00%
Dublin 80.00%
St. Martin 100.00%
Singapore 20.00% 40.00% 40.00%
Victoria 40.00%
Hearst 25.00%
Hawaii
Redding 50.00%
St. Croix 25.00% 75.00%
Montrose 25.00%
Ottawa 25.00% 75.00%
Erie 50.00% 50.00%
Farmington 25.00%
Panama City 50.00% 50.00%
Pasco 100.00%
Stuttgart 100.00%
Scottsdale
Quebec 50.00% 50.00%
Dothan 75.00%
Stockholm 100.00%
Bozeman 75.00%
Champagne 50.00% 25.00%
Hamburg 100.00%
Japan 75.00% 25.00%
Aruba 50.00%
Italy 25.00% 75.00%
La Paz 100.00%
Hyannis 75.001
Macon 50.00% 50.00%
Tri Cities 50.00% 50.00%
Lancaster 50.00% 25.00% 25.00%
Tegucigalpa 50.00% 50.00%
Lewiston 33.33% 66.67%
Redmond 100.00%
Indiana
Lafayette 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%
25.00%
83.33%
16.67%
16.67%
33.33%
16.67%
50.00%
83.33%
33.33%
16.67%
40.004
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
50.00%
75.00%
75.00%
100.00%
25.00%
50.00%
100.00%
103
25.00%
16.67%
33.33%
40.00%
20.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
20.004
75.00%
25.:04 75.00%
25.:04
DBQ
Leonguanajua 100.004
Worcester 66.67% 33.33%
Lawton 100.004
Abilene 100.00%
Grand Island 66.67% 33.33%
Amsterdam 33.33% 66.67%
Jamestown 66.674
Decatur 66.674 33.33%
Pierre 100.00%
Santa Fe 100.00%
Long View 66.67%
Terrace 100.00%
Wichita Falls 100.00%
Huntington 66.67% 33.33%
France 33.334
Marquette 100.00%
Salisbury 33.334 66.674
Rhinelander 66.67%
Alexandria 33.334 33.33% 33.33%
Atlantic City 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%
Tuscalossa 100.00*
Binghamton 100.004
St. Maarten 66.67% 33.33%
Luxembourg 100.00%
Hastings 50.00%
Williamsport 50.00%
San Salvador 50.00% 50.00%
Salem 50.00%
Altoona 50.00% 50.00%
Santa Ana 100.00%
Butte 100.00%
Chadron 100.00%
San Luis Obispo 50.00% 50.00%
Caracas 100.00%
Sudbury 100.00%
Blue Bell 100.00%
Aukland 100.00%
Stuttgart 50.00% 50.00%
Taiwan 50.00% 50.00%
Bloomington 50.00%
St. Johns 50.00% 50.00%
Bemidji 100.00%
Treasure 100.00%
Brussels 100.00%
Bangkok 100.00%
Waterloo 50.00% 50.00%
Bradford 100.00%
Vero Beach 100.00%
Visalia 100.00%
Waco 100.00%
Seoul 50.00% 50.00%
Brindis 50.00% 50.00%
Bridgeport 100.00%
Kalmar _ 100.00%
Fort Huachuca 100.00%
Pullman 100.00%
Islip 100.00%
Owensboro 100.00%
Gladstone 100.00%
Portland,ME 100.00%
Kamloops 100.00%
La Crosse 50.00%
Cheyenne 50.00%
Pendleton 100.00%
Greensburg 100.00%
New Haven 100.00%
Juneau 50.00% 50.00%
Iceland 50.00%
Oaxaca 100.00%
Harrison 100.00%
Escanaba 100.00%