This data has been prepared in compliance with Section 155 of Pub L. 106-181, to be used in the development of Airport Competition Plans. One component of the Competition Plan is an evaluation of the submitting airport’s fares compared to those at other large and medium airports. The following fare and traffic data was developed to provide a basis for the requisite analysis. The source of all data is the DOT’s Origin and Destination Survey.

Table 1: Competitor Detail by Airport

Table 1 consists of a list of the carriers present in each summarized airport market, along with each carrier’s local passenger traffic, average fare, average nonstop trip length, and market at that airport.

Table 2: Airport Market Summary

Table 2 provides passenger numbers, average nonstop trip length, average yield, and number of city-pair routes summarized by airport. Each airport’s city-pair markets were divided according to nonstop distance and the presence of low-fare competition. The data for each airport is the presented divided into short-haul and long-haul groupings, into market grouping with low-fare competition vs. without low-fare competition, and in total.

Table 3: City-Pair Detail

Table 3 provides non-directional market passenger numbers, revenue, nonstop and track mileage, and information on the number and type of competitors in each individual city-pair used in the summary analysis. City-pair origin and destinations are ordered alphabetically by city name. Distance Block and Density categories are also included for ease of sorting and manipulation.

Table 4: City-Pair Detail by Competitor with 10% Market Share

Table 4 provides the same information as Table 3, but broken down by competitor. Only carriers with a 10 percent or greater market share are listed. Therefore, city-pair totals in this list may not match market data in Table 3.

Data Use

We expect most airports submitting a Competition Plan to rely primarily on the summary data in Tables 1 and 2. While these tables do provide valuable information to be used in fare comparisons, highly summarized data does have some inherent shortcomings. Users of the summarized data should take the following into consideration-

The presence of a low-fare competitor in a city-pair market is often a primary determinant of fare levels. The summarized data was broken out into low-fare and non-low-fare markets so that averages for the entire airport are not misleading should the average be brought down by a very few large markets that benefit from low-fare service. When comparing itself with other markets, an airport might note differences in the percentage of traffic traveling in low-fare markets.

For airports interested in conducting more rigorous analyses, Table 3 supplies a complete list of all city-pair markets involving one of the qualifying large or medium airports. The data for each airport can be sorted according to distance (distance blocks provided for easy sorting) and/or density, a useful method of identifying ‘trouble spots.’ Table 2 also specifies the number of competitors in each city-pair and whether or not one of the competitors is a low-fare carrier. This information, combined with the list of competitors in each market found in Table 3, can help further refine an airport’s efforts to identify the characteristics of markets with uncompetitive pricing.

Definitions and Assumptions