Despite failing to meet April enplanement projections, passenger traffic at Branson Airport has increased 24 percent the first four months of the year, according to figures reported by the federal Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Through April, 14,744 passengers flew out of the private airport south of Hollister, compared to 11,882 passengers through the same period in 2010, according to
www.bts.gov. In April, the airport recorded 4,162 passengers, 15 percent, or 755 passengers, off its budgeted projection.
The airport’s targeted passenger count is critical to its continued operations, after Branson Airport LLC officials reached an April 12 forbearance and funding agreement with UMB Bank, the trustee overseeing the $114 million in revenue bonds issued to fund airport construction.
The agreement filed with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board stipulates that in order to avoid foreclosure, Branson Airport must meet at least 70 percent of its monthly and quarterly enplanement and revenue projections through June 30, 2012. The airport’s passenger projections range from 4,917 in April 2011 to 22,799 in June 2012, and its operating revenue projections range from $413,673 in April to a high of $732,968 in November.
Calls to Branson Airport Executive Director Jeff Bourk and Marketing Manager Deidre McCormick were not returned by press time.
Branson Alderman Rick Todd said he was pleased to hear that more people utilized the Branson Airport through the first four months of the year, the most recent numbers available through the BTS.
“It has needed to perform significantly better than it did last year, and the fact that it is so far gives me hope that it has a plan that would work long-term,” Todd said.
At Springfield-Branson National Airport, enplanements are down roughly 8 percent through June, compared to the first half of 2010, according to airport statistics. Enplanements represent the number of passengers boarding flights.
Springfield airport spokesman Kent Boyd said he is not concerned about the upswing reported in Branson, because the two airports serve largely different customers.
“The bread and butter of this airport is the business customer,” Boyd said.
He said capacity cuts implemented by the airlines flying in and out of Springfield due to fuel prices and a sluggish economy are to blame for the dip in passenger volumes in the first half of the year.
“The industry right now is in tremendous flux. And there are two reasons: Fuel prices are up about 50 percent in the last 12 months, and the recovery seems to be slowing down,” Boyd said. “What the airlines have done in response is cutting the number of seats in the air.”
According to the International Air Transport Association, which represents roughly 230 airlines in some 118 countries, jet fuel prices as of July 22 were up 51.8 percent compared to the same date last year.
Boyd said airlines could lower an airport’s capacity by reducing the frequency of flights or the sizes of its planes.
He said from the first quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of this year, Springfield-Branson airport’s capacity was down more than 12.5 percent, but enplanements were down only 6 percent.
“It seems like when we have the seats, the market fills them,” Boyd said.
Branson Airport officials have added a number of new options for its customers in recent months.
Most recently, Frontier Airlines’ added a second nonstop flight to Denver beginning Sept. 9, in addition to new nonstop service to Austin, Texas, and Phoenix, also starting in September.
According to
www.flybranson.com, AirTran Airways and Sun Country Airlines flies to more than 50 destinations.
While the airport is adding flights, concern about airport financials remain. Branson Alderman Mike Booth said in May the city may not pay its full bill to the airport district based on a lack of confidence in the airport’s ability to meet its obligations.
Under a 2006 agreement, the city pays the regional transportation development district $8.24 per tourist flying into Branson.
However, Alderman Todd said the city voted around the first of June to pay the full $327,700 bill to the airport district. In May, the city only had set aside $35,000 for the bill, which is subject to appropriations, according to the contract between the city and the transportation district.
“We had a couple of aldermen who did not support (paying the full bill), but for the ones who did – speaking for myself and the others, I think – we would like to see the airport succeed, obviously. We know that they are having their own challenges at this point, and we want to do everything we can to help,” Todd said. “The other reason is that it became clear to me that people I represent, anyway, clearly indicated that they wanted the city to support the airport.”
He added that the previous commitment by city officials through its contract with the regional transportation authority was something that he and others wanted to honor, even if the agreement is subject to annual appropriations in accordance with the law.
In Springfield, Boyd said the airport board was not concerned about meeting its payments on the $97 million in construct bonds for its two-year-old terminal because the finance plan it structured was conservative and accounted for dips in revenue.
Its most recent payment of $3.99 million was made July 1, and its next payment of $2.07 million is due Jan. 1.
Two TalesThe number of passengers boarding planes at Springfield-Branson National Airport is down through midyear, while Branson Airport reports growing passenger numbers.
Springfield-Branson National AirportJanuary-June, 2010 versus 2011
Source: Springfield-Branson National Airport
Branson AirportJanuary-April, 2010 versus 2011
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
[[In-content Ad]]
