Scott Bideau: Changes needed
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Steamboat Springs — I am one of those “location-neutral” employees who lives in Steamboat Springs and works remotely for a company outside of our area. Having flown nearly 50,000 miles in and out of Yampa Valley Regional Airport since Referendum 2B was announced, I am a strong advocate for improved air service and increased capacity out of our Hayden airport. However, I don’t think this referendum by itself will produce the improvements this community needs.
Let me first address the capacity issue, which the referendum attempts to solve. Anyone who has flown midweek out of YVRA knows that you often have an empty seat next to you. Take that same flight toward the beginning or end of the week, and it usually is full. The combination of the two scenarios averages out to the 70 percent airplane capacity that Referendum 2B supporters often cite. Until the airlines agree to a variable schedule (rather than the same one every day of the week), we are stuck with paying for empty seats to meet or increase peak-day capacity.
The second issue is service. For the past several years, passengers have found themselves in the middle of a construction zone at YVRA. This has included having to step outside (in the freezing cold) and then back inside to claim your bags, confusing paths to and from the gate, the lack of a restaurant, limited ground transportation options, etc. This inconvenience is multiplied when a flight is canceled. I frequently have given tourists rides back to town because either the rental car or taxi counter already had closed before the last flight of the day was canceled, which basically puts them in a stranded position at the airport. The feedback from those visitors is always consistent: frustration with YVRA but appreciation for the kindness of our community. If we’re going to subsidize the carriers bringing passengers into our airport, we should be ready for them. The current situation at YVRA is unacceptable and causes most of my visitors to fly into Denver instead.
Regarding the airline’s service, I strongly believe our community needs to find a way to bring back two airlines year-round. During the summer, United is both a single point of failure and non-competitive. Unfortunately, the community has little, if any, input into the selection of airlines since negotiations happen between the airlines and Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp. This is a fundamental flaw in Referendum 2B — diverting taxpayer money to a private organization for distribution.
I am a full supporter of Referendum 2B (at least for the five-year trial) with the following two stipulations or modifications:
- The creation of a committee represented by the funding members of the air service program (one-third from the resort, one-third from the lodging community and one-third from taxpayers) to negotiate with the airlines for service. Their first task should be to explore airlines that are interested in providing variable air service to avoid the peaks and valleys we currently experience throughout the week. The second should be dividing summer service between two competitive airlines.
- Improved transparency and reporting on YVRA construction, service levels and its future roadmap. Specifically, I’d like to see a larger, more diverse airport commission consisting of more frequent users of that air service.
I believe both these policy changes are possible to enact (or at least plan to enact) before the vote on Referendum 2B. I encourage everyone in our community to share their opinion on these matters with their City Council members and the airport commissioners. Ask the difficult questions that either make you for or against the vote instead of relying on simple marketing materials.
Scott Bideau
Steamboat Springs
Comments
alandrudolph 1 year, 7 months ago
As a fellow Location Neutral Executive based here in Steamboat and a frequent user of Yampa Valley Regional Airport, I wholeheartedly agree with Scott's viewpoints BUT in order to accomplish the changes proposed by Scott in terms of governance and transparency, We, the citizens of Steamboat have no choice but to vote 'NO' to Referendum 2B.
Scott Wedel 1 year, 7 months ago
"I am a full supporter of Referendum 2B (at least for the five-year trial) with the following two stipulations or modifications:"
Well, those changes are not part of the ballot measure. The way to get those changes is to reject this ballot measure and let them come back with an improved measure for the April election.
As a business executive, do you agree to to a 5 year contract with the expectations that it will be fundamentally changed AFTER you sign it? Or do you get the contract right BEFORE you sign it?
Dan Hill 1 year, 7 months ago
As a location neutral worker, to me improved air service does not necessarily mean the same thing as it does for Ski Corp. I'm less interested in the daily services to major hubs - they are a nightmare on business trips when you miss your connection and they don't help with the problem in the off season when there are very limited flights out of YVRA.
I understand however that the direct flights are what attracts skiers.
I know the people at Ski Corp who run the air program and they are good people (I was previously a member of the Airport Commission), but I think the bar needs to be set pretty high in terms of accountability if we're going to ask everyone to pay for this every time they spend money in Steamboat.
So I would like to see more data on the following:
What is the forecast for total seats and passengers without this additional revenue i.e. with whatever we can afford with just the current revenue sources including the lodging tax?
How do we know that we won't just be subsidizing empty seats i.e. what evidence is there that additional seats will mean additional passengers?
Which flights provide the best value in terms of additional visitors per $ spent on revenue guarantees - if we have to cut back, it would be nice to know which services to cut first
How is the program run to ensure accountability on the part of the airlines? How do we know they are chasing good load factors and yields and not just relying on the revenue guarantee? Do we have any control over how the seats are sold?
What is the basis for the claim that each additional passenger will spend $1100 or whatever the figure was? Are we just averaging the spend or do we have some analysis on what the additional passengers who only come because additional seats are available will spend? I'm worried that we're subsidizing the price sensitive customers to come here (those with more money to spend are coming anyway) and that they may spend much less than the average visitor.
vanguy 1 year, 7 months ago
It seems to me that the success of tourism benefits a lot more businesses and jobs than just the Ski Corp and the Lodging Companies. Yet, more than 95% of air service funding has come solely from these two groups up to this point.
Most people I know who live in Steamboat (and actually work for a living) seem to understand the direct connection between their paychecks and the dollars spent by tourists.
This culture is why Steamboat has such a great reputation for hospitality, when compared to other mountain destinations. This culture is why visitors come back for repeat visits.
As a community, let us NEVER lose sight of the fact that the paying traveler has a choice whether or not to visit Steamboat. It also never hurts for locals to remind Ski Corp. of this fact every once in awhile.
Air service is our lifeline as a resort community.
If it is a pain in the A$$ to get here, there are certainly more convenient destinations for people to take a ski vacation.
Non-rental second homeowners and timeshare resorts like Wyndham don't contribute any LMD tax revenue because there isn't a lodging transaction involved. Yet, these two sub-groups alone consume hundreds of air seats every week.
And how many VRBO rentals aren't paying their lodging taxes?? The city could make a small fortune investigating this issue...but I digress.
I believe the 2B Tax is a great way for non-rental tourists to contribute to air our service, especially those that use the service and don't currently help pay for it.
Me, personally, I'm voting for 2B.
I admittedly waste at least $20 every week on stupid stuff I really don't need.
I'd gladly give this community $20 a year to help secure air service, if it means that me and my friends will continue to have jobs, maybe even experience some career growth someday.
I'd gladly give this community $20 if it means our businesses can afford to stay open year-round.
Most importantly, I'd gladly give this community $20 so that, as my parents get older, and travel becomes more difficult for them, there is still a convenient and affordable way for them to fly to Hayden and visit their grandchildren from time to time.
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.
Or login with:
OpenID