Mike W. wants to know:

"How much does the airport spend on asking people to fly out of SGF? Quite candidly, do you think that someone telling me that they fly out of Springfield will cause me/anyone to fly out here? Could that money be better spent?"

The advertising campaign does more than ask people to use the airport. Before the campaign began we took a hard look at market research. Of the many things it told us, these items jumped out:

• There is a general lack of awareness of what the airport offers.
• Many people have a snap shot in their head that is ten or 15 years out of date—they think the airport has two airlines and flies to four or five destinations (it has five airlines and 12 destinations).
• Many people are convinced that fares are always  higher from Springfield. They don't know how to find cheap fares. They don't know that the market has a low cost airline.

The campaign is aimed at those who are unaware, with the hope that they will use the airport. It's part of an on-going effort to attract more airline service. How? Larger passenger numbers make it easier to attract more airline service. Overtime, larger passenger numbers and more airline service translates into lower fares.

We'll spend about $100,000 on advertising during the fiscal year.

Gbeck comments, "So, I've seen 3 different commercials on why I should use the Springfield-Branson National Airport and, based on these informative commercials, I have come to the following conclusion: If you have the money of Doug Pitt, Brooke O'Reilly or Tim Rosenbury, it is very convenient to fly out of Springfield. However, if you’re like the majority of people in the Springfield area, you don't have the pocket change these people have to pay the extra it costs for this convenience. The O'Reilly commercial is extremely offensive. If I had a family of 5, as she does, it would cost me $1,000 more ($200 per person) for the convenience of Springfield. Driving to Tulsa, St. Louis, or Kansas City, paying for parking and even staying the night is far less than $1,000. So, if your ads are aimed at families that have a net worth of a few million dollars, then I would say your ads are successful. If the aim is to offend the rest of us, you have succeeded at that as well. Who's next? John Q flying on a commuter jet?"

Interestingly enough, our market research shows two groups of people more inclined to fly from other airports: infrequent flyers (regardless of income), and those in higher income brackets.

The beginning of our advertising campaign is generating strongly worded email from apparent business flyers. Two of them say they'll drive the 16+ hours roundtrip to Dallas to avoid flying from Springfield. I can understand driving to St. Louis, Kansas City or Tulsa to save airfare. But 16 hours to/from Dallas?

I've also heard about the cheap fares from Harrison, Arkansas. Just like Joplin, Harrison has Essential Air Service (EAS). EAS is a federally funded program which provides small cities with a "minimal level of scheduled service." Bottom line: Harrison's air service is subsidized by the federal government.

The overall theme of the mail is that we're wasting money by advertising and that we ought to be spending the money attracting airlines. Here's my standard response:

"Market research has told us that many people living in the service area are not aware of the airport and what it offers. So the campaign is aimed at those who are unaware, with the hope that they will consider the airport. And while it may not be obvious, this effort is part of our on-going effort to attract different airlines. Why? Because ultimately, the only thing airlines care about is how many seats they can sell in a given market. The more people that use the airport, the more willing an airline is to enter the market. What many folks fail to understand about airport and airline economics is that Springfield is a small market, with a small supply of seats--that's why fares are higher here than they are at bigger airports. It's the old economic law of supply and demand. And the only way we increase service is by increasing usage. That's why we're advertising."

Gary writes in via email:

"I know you have surveys out and a new PR campaign starting. My suggestion would be to solve the baggage problem ASAP. It sometime takes as long as an hour to get bags from the baggage carousel. My brother-in-law waited an hour and 40 minutes last week. His flight from Denver was about as long as hit wait. He swears he'll never fly from here again. It's a common problem."

My response:

"Problem is, we have no control over the baggage. It's an airline issue. We constantly complain to the airlines about their poor customer service and they just look at us with a "so what" expression. Since our relationship with the airlines is that of landlord, we have little influence over how they conduct business. They're short staffed, by corporate edict, and as long as people keep flying, they have no incentive to change. And for some unfounded reason, customers often think this is a problem limited to Springfield. It is not."