AUSTIN | ABIA Updates - Page 347

Austin1971 · #**6921** Posted **Dec 6, 2019, 4:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by avgeekdl

will we finally surpass love field this year?

y

urbancore · #**6922** Posted **Dec 6, 2019, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Yes. Probably by a few 100k.

next up Nashville.

Austin1971 · #**6923** Posted **Dec 6, 2019, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancore

next up nashville.

g

ILUVSAT · #**6924** Posted **Dec 6, 2019, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancore

next up Nashville.

AUS was not too far behind BNA in 2018 (~170,000 PAX). BNA will grow the gap to about 800,000+ in 2019. However, 2020 will be interesting. With the potential of more domestic flights and the new trans-oceanic flights coming online in 2020, AUS might begin to close the gap a bit.

freerover · #**6925** Posted **Dec 6, 2019, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvgeekDL

but this is where Delta would have a good opportunity to come in and seize control of the market if they wanted to.

I think delta understands the economics better than you, me or anyone else on this board.

masonh2479 · #**6926** Posted **Dec 6, 2019, 6:40 PM**

It’s good to see our airport still continuing to grow at a rapid rate. 2019 was a great year for the port, I sure hope 2020 is even better and we get our long awaited Asia flight. After that I can’t think of anything I want from the port anymore. Well, a different airline with more connections to Paris would be nice, but you can’t win them all.

GoldenBoot · #**6927** Posted **Dec 6, 2019, 7:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvgeekDL

True. My broader point was though having too fragmented of a market might inhibit some future growth. It is nice to have an “anchor” carrier if you will.

Agreed. We'll find out soon enough. One cannot afford to expand (initially) by 20 gates (+59%) without one or more airlines making very large investments in AUS.

Austin1971 · #**6928** Posted **Dec 6, 2019, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenboot

agreed. We'll find out soon enough. One cannot afford to expand (initially) by 20 gates (+59%) without one or more airlines making very large investments in aus.

s

Austin1971 · #**6929** Posted **Dec 6, 2019, 10:20 PM**

D

GoldenBoot · #**6930** Posted **Dec 7, 2019, 7:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvgeekDL

Southwest will be getting more gates at Nashville next year and might be upgrading BNA to an official base as well. Plus, Spirit will have been there for a whole year and will add a few new routes.

Interesting. I heard SWA was trying to get more gates at Denver to add about 100 flights a day. Hadn't seen any reports about Nashville, however. Do you have a source?
Also, what are the new Spirit routes?

Just curious.

Austin1971 · #**6931** Posted **Dec 7, 2019, 4:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by avgeekdl

there hasn't been an official announcement, but this is what i've heard through the grapevine (and has been backed up by certain a.net users on the nashville thread).

Southwest will be taking the entire new d concourse being built at bna when it opens next year. However, they will have to temporarily give up some gates on their existing c concourse while new international gates/customs facility are built. They'll have 16-18 gates at bna after this happens, depending on how existing gates are allocated for construction. Within the next few years, bna will become an official base for southwest, as there are crew lounges under construction underneath the new d. Longer term, the a concourse will be reconstructed and afterwards, they are eyeing taking over all of the c concourse and building 3 more gates on d, which could give them 25-28 gates.

I'm not 100% sure if all of that will happen, but it sounds pretty plausible. Bna is in a good position to be southwest's se "hub", given that, like austin, it is a booming market and in a good geographical position. I believe this buildup is the reason why nashville airport is growing faster than austin, because they have an "anchor" "hub-like" carrier that is adding flights and frequencies.

Hopefully, delta will seek more gates when the satellite is built and follow a similar playbook here........

s

Austin1971 · #**6932** Posted **Dec 7, 2019, 7:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by avgeekdl

maybe. Imo, aus and bna will be the two most interesting airports in the us to watch over the next decade.

Aus could learn a few things from bna though, as in there master plan update, they are already planning for things beyond the scope of the current plan, like where to place a second terminal. Aus should be doing the same with building the eastern wing of the satellite and building (part) of a second satellite. Not to say they’ll necessarily be built, but they should at least pencil it in, so to speak, for planning purposes. So far, i see nothing in regards to that.

w

keiffers · #**6933** Posted **Dec 7, 2019, 11:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvgeekDL

Maybe. IMO, AUS and BNA will be the two most interesting airports in the US to watch over the next decade.

AUS could learn a few things from BNA though, as in there master plan update, they are already planning for things beyond the scope of the current plan, like where to place a second terminal. AUS should be doing the same with building the eastern wing of the satellite and building (part) of a second satellite. Not to say they’ll necessarily be built, but they should at least pencil it in, so to speak, for planning purposes. So far, I see nothing in regards to that.

Honestly, they probably already have something place beyond what the current master plan calls for. They've got to atleast have a "blueprint", if not ore, internally before they really start planning out what they want beyond the current scope. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that they probably have a good idea of what things will be like beyond 2040. It would be smart for any administrator to have that kind of thing already in the pipeline. They'll just wanna keep anything beyond the master plan under wraps until sometime after the FAA fully signs off on the current master plan. Just because we don't know about it, doesn't mean its not there.

Austin1971 · #**6934** Posted **Dec 8, 2019, 3:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by avgeekdl

they do, they have a long range built out that sees an eastern extension of the proposed satellite being built as well as two additional satellites and a south terminal/entrance.

Now i don’t believe we will see aus built out to that level in our lifetime, but i do think beyond the 32 gates they are building on the satellite, they’ll need to build the eastern extension of the proposed satellite and possibly part of the second satellite. Problem is, they have no provision in the current plan for an eastern extension to the satellite and they have that space designated for ron space. That’s a mistake imo. They should at least have it penciled in with a passenger activity trigger number attached to it (i.e, it gets built if passenger activity exceeds our forecast during the course of the master plan).

Furthermore, they ought to clear the land just to the south so a second could be built, and that will require moving the atc tower. Because it will take a long time to relocate that infrastructure, they should start planning now.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=309401 (see the second to last slide here for a concept of the full aus build out)

s

freerover · #**6935** Posted **Dec 8, 2019, 6:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvgeekDL

They do, they have a long range built out that sees an eastern extension of the proposed satellite being built as well as two additional satellites and a south terminal/entrance.

Now I don’t believe we will see AUS built out to that level in our lifetime, but I do think beyond the 32 gates they are building on the satellite, they’ll need to build the eastern extension of the proposed satellite and possibly part of the second satellite. Problem is, they have no provision in the current plan for an eastern extension to the satellite and they have that space designated for RON space. That’s a mistake IMO. They should at least have it penciled in with a passenger activity trigger number attached to it (i.e, it gets built if passenger activity exceeds our forecast during the course of the master plan).

Furthermore, they ought to clear the land just to the south so a second could be built, and that will require moving the ATC tower. Because it will take a long time to relocate that infrastructure, they should start planning now.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=309401 (see the second to last slide here for a concept of the full AUS build out)

Where have you seen an eastern extension of the proposed center concourse? Also, the airport staff know what they are doing. Have some faith. This plan only gets you to 2040 which means we'll see a revision in 10 years to take us to 2050-2060.

GoldenBoot · #**6936** Posted **Dec 9, 2019, 2:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvgeekDL

In the full build out above, it shows that an additional 12 gates could be built on the eastern end of the satellite. I was simply surprised that they didn’t include that in this plan with a passenger trigger number stating it will be built if pax traffic exceeds a certain amount.

Beyond the initial 20 gates, the 12 gate expansion will extend west not east. I believe there was an issue with the brand new deicing tank being in the way of any eastern expansion of the new satellite.

Additionally, placing a PAX trigger is all fine and dandy. However, any plan needs to have a clause in it for an airline who chooses to ramp up operations prior to hitting said PAX trigger (i.e., expand before hitting a number).

freerover · #**6937** Posted **Dec 9, 2019, 2:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Beyond the initial 20 gates, the 12 gate expansion will extend west not east. I believe there was an issue with the brand new deicing tank being in the way of any eastern expansion of the new satellite.

Additionally, placing a PAX trigger is all fine and dandy. However, any plan needs to have a clause in it for an airline who chooses to ramp up operations prior to hitting said PAX trigger (i.e., expand before hitting a number).

He is referring to the 2060 plan seen in one of the pre master plan PDF presentations. It's not an official plan but where the airport thinks it's headed. I would embed it but I don't want to give the impression that it's official or a part of the 2040 master plan.