Passenger Trains > United Airlines pulls out of Topeka, leaving no flights

United pullout will leave Kansas capital with no flights
by Ben Mutzabaugh
July 25, 2014

> United Airlines will end service to Topeka in September, dropping
> service to Kansas' capital city just nine months after it began
> flying there. The carrier's two daily round-trip flights to Chicago
> O'Hare will end Sept. 2.
>
> The move is a blow for the Topeka Regional Airport, which will be
> left without regularly scheduled passenger service once United
> departs.

Story:

United pullout will leave Kansas capital with no flights



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/14 08:39 by GenePoon.

Not the first time that the airport has been without scheduled service. Topeka is a little too close to KC's airport to have a serious market area.

Take the bus and quit 'cher complainin.

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not the first time that the airport has been
> without scheduled service. Topeka is a little too
> close to KC's airport to have a serious market
> area.

NewRiverGeorge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Take the bus and quit 'cher complainin.
>
>
Is that what you would do?

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NewRiverGeorge Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Take the bus and quit 'cher complainin.
> >
> >
> Is that what you would do?

================================================

The first sentence of the first comment provides an alternative (unless
the censors get to it).

Just don't read beyond it.

This makes me sad. As the only one to comment so far who actually lives in Topeka, I am sorry to hear that they are pulling out. I was looking forward to be able to fly out of a much more convenient airport than KCI.

imrl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This makes me sad. As the only one to comment so
> far who actually lives in Topeka, I am sorry to
> hear that they are pulling out. I was looking
> forward to be able to fly out of a much more
> convenient airport than KCI.

I have lived in Topeka before for a short period. Does that count?

This is exactly what the protesters of airline deregulation of 1978 predicted. Although the example city was always Peoria, Illinois, the old Civil Aeronautics Board always supported "essential air service" and paid subsidies to airlines for providing this service. The deregulation act, sponsored in part by the late Ted Kennedy and signed into law by Jimmy Carter has had a terrible affect on the airline industry as evidenced by not-so-nice experience flying has become. It has no "essential air service" requirements in the law. It is also the reason why many travelers in major cities are flying in tiny "commuter" airplanes with little comfort or service.

In short, you, traveler, are being paid for what you wrought.

United did themselves in, when they cancel an average of one flight a week, people go elsewhere. KC tho a drag to drive to and pay for parking won't leave you rotting with no options if things take a turn.

What if you didn't want to go to O'Hare in the first place?

If your trip took you in the opposite direction, why start
out going the wrong way?

I'd bet there was very little market there to begin with. The
fact that's it's on about 50 miles (less than an hour drive via
I-70 and I-435) to KCI, where you can get direct flights to
far more destinations doesn't have anything to do with it?

A lot of little cities within reasonable driving distance of a
major airport have this same issue. They want the prestige of
having their own airport, but they just can't compete with the
benefits offered by a larger place.

Topeka has interstates, Amtrak, and buses. Their pride might be
hurt, but they will survive.

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd bet there was very little market there to
> begin with. The fact that's it's on about 50 miles (less than an
> hour drive via I-70 and I-435) to KCI, ....

In many metropolitan areas, you might drive that far to the airport from a place on the other side of downtown.

Meanwhile the airport in Manhattan is thriving - offering 5 daily flights to O'Hare and DFW and expanding it's facility. Being 1 hour of driving time further from Kansas City, it's a more appropriate location for a regional airport serving North-Central Kansas anyway.

I'm sympathetic to the inconvenience this causes for Topeka residents, but it's not all doom and gloom for the region.

I don't have a problem with airline deregulation (or, for that matter, with railroad deregulation). I remember how much I paid for airline tickets in the 1970s, and so many airplanes were allocated to so many ridiculous point-to-point or linear routes that it was difficult to get from one city to another. Yes I liked filet mignon and champagne and 35-inch seat pitch in economy class, but it's trade that I am happy to have made... and I fly all the time.

ATSF3768 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meanwhile the airport in Manhattan is thriving -
> offering 5 daily flights to O'Hare and DFW and
> expanding it's facility. Being 1 hour of driving
> time further from Kansas City, it's a more
> appropriate location for a regional airport
> serving North-Central Kansas anyway.
>
> I'm sympathetic to the inconvenience this causes
> for Topeka residents, but it's not all doom and
> gloom for the region.

Since Topeka is the state capital, I'd bet the most
inconvenienced would be politicians and lobbyists.
I'd also bet that most of them use KC anyway.

It doesn't make sense to have an airport in every
podunk town, but you find a lot of that in the midwest.

Can you say, "SOUTHWEST CHIEF".......

a737flyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is exactly what the protesters of airline
> deregulation of 1978 predicted. Although the
> example city was always Peoria, Illinois, the old
> Civil Aeronautics Board always supported
> "essential air service" and paid subsidies to
> airlines for providing this service. The
> deregulation act, sponsored in part by the late
> Ted Kennedy and signed into law by Jimmy Carter
> has had a terrible affect on the airline industry
> as evidenced by not-so-nice experience flying has
> become. It has no "essential air service"
> requirements in the law. It is also the reason
> why many travelers in major cities are flying in
> tiny "commuter" airplanes with little comfort or
> service.
>
> In short, you, traveler, are being paid for what
> you wrought.

But the expansion of airline travel since deregulation has exploded, leading to a big expansion of airplane manufacturing. Very few would argue that deregulation has not been very positive for the economy.

CAB regulation was a big scheme of cross-subsidization which did not promote efficiency in the economy. Someone had to pay for those big airplanes serving small airports, and it usually was the passenger on better routes that had to overpay.

I sure as heck would not want to go back to the days of airline <economic> regulation.

Speaking only for myself, I would probably drive to MCI and fly out on Southwest. The only two airlines I can say 'I enjoy' flying are Alaska Airlines and Southwest. Domestically, old-United (network prior to CAL merger) is just a shell of it's former
self. Skywest seems to do most of their smaller-to-midsize city flying out West.

Posted from iPhone

"But the expansion of airline travel since deregulation has exploded, leading to a big expansion of airplane manufacturing. Very few would argue that deregulation has not been very positive for the economy.

CAB regulation was a big scheme of cross-subsidization which did not promote efficiency in the economy. Someone had to pay for those big airplanes serving small airports, and it usually was the passenger on better routes that had to overpay.

I sure as heck would not want to go back to the days of airline <economic> regulation."


Is expansion effectiveness? I doubt the people of Topeka and a lot of other small cities would agree.
Also, since pilot salaries and work schedules have gotten both small and erratic, I doubt there are many potential pilots who would invest $25,000 or so in pilot training to take a job that starts at $19000 a year.

And as far as passengers go, are you really better off flying between Seattle and San Francisco in a 28 passenger jet that was designed and built for legs under an hour or a full-sized modern jet aircraft.

So except for stockholders and owners, I wonder who is really better off...?

There is always the set out Santa Fe 10-6 sleeping car from Topeka to Chicago every night. Oh wait, that's gone and so is the Santa Fe. Oh for the good ole days of 1971.

Wall Street Journal today notes that the all US airlines are currently doing quite well; for example, American was bankrupt 8 months ago and is now making money.