AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[DoubleC]

Originally Posted by ATCZERO

We would love a 17C runway but there are no firm plans for that. We would be able to depart or arrive 17C even though it's close to 17R. There are different rules involved but it's possible. 17L actually has sections that need replacing and is supposedly going to be closed for a year(!) in 2019 to make all the necessary repairs. With 1 usable runway and 9 new gates online at the same time...not fun.

Cargo isn't a big deal because they fly at night. If they built a terminal building in the northwest corner (bad idea), we wouldn't be taking anyone to the East runway. It just wouldn't make sense.

I'm not a fan of extending piers from the center of the terminal either. There's TONS of land south of the tower for a major terminal project.

Ooh that's going to suck for spotters and GA traffic

[brando]

Originally Posted by ATCZERO

We would love a 17C runway but there are no firm plans for that. We would be able to depart or arrive 17C even though it's close to 17R. There are different rules involved but it's possible. 17L actually has sections that need replacing and is supposedly going to be closed for a year(!) in 2019 to make all the necessary repairs. With 1 usable runway and 9 new gates online at the same time...not fun.

Cargo isn't a big deal because they fly at night. If they built a terminal building in the northwest corner (bad idea), we wouldn't be taking anyone to the East runway. It just wouldn't make sense.

I'm not a fan of extending piers from the center of the terminal either. There's TONS of land south of the tower for a major terminal project.

Do you mean the land JUST south of the tower or the land at the far southeast of the property? I know the most recent master plan preferred a new terminal just south of the tower (http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...Chp7_Part1.pdf). That would still have to be adjusted in order to incorporate the current budget south terminal but that is what the new master plan is for. Is that what you would prefer or are you thinking using the grass land further south/east? I wonder if the construction of two massive garages and the new airport staff offices makes concentrating expansion on the main terminal a more optimal solution.

Maybe the question of piers vs a new terminal would depend on an airline like Delta wanting to greatly expand their operations and have their own dedicated space? I don't know.

I totally trust that you know better but I'm still curious why you think building a new terminal at the northwest part of the grounds would be a bad idea. Seems like you could save money by utilizing the existing airport roads and more easily be able to get people outside security from one terminal to another. I would hope a train of some kind would be built to connect the terminals for people who are already past security. An elevated tram at IAH in Houston of a similar distance cost about 100 million. I'm guessing building a train connection to a terminal on the other side of the terminal would need to go below ground and cost more.

That's really crazy that they could only have 1 runway for an entire year. I saw something recently about new technology allowing for more efficient and tighter takeoffs and landings coming to AUS but maybe I'm making that up.


Also, do you know which (if any) buildings are going to be demolished as a part of any of the current work?

[San Diego-Honolulu]

If Delta expanded their service at Austin, I think it would be a great opportunity. As mentioned previously Delta doesn't have a strong Texas and southwest operation since their closure of their DFW hub. They don't need a full hub operation or even as much service as their focus city in Raleigh-Durham. Adding a few business and leisure cites that allows for minimal connections in the Texas/SW region and overall caters to O&D passengers would be nice. If Delta ever expanded AUS service I could see Delta add cities such as Las Vegas, Kansas City, Chicago, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, Denver, and Tampa. Southwest will always be the biggest airline at AUS but I definitely think their is room for an airline to expand its footprint and make AUS a focus city and I think Delta is the best suited for that. JetBlue had an opportunity several years ago to do that but didn't take advantage at the time. I also thought Alaska Airlines could have too before their merger with Virgin America but it looks like Alaska is going to make Dallas Love a small focus city.

If Delta were to grow AUS then they would definitely need some corporate contracts in the region for business purposes and also would need to grow a local frequent flyer base. I'm not sure how much opportunity is out their for AUS with United and American in the same area.

[brando]

Originally Posted by San Diego-Honolulu

If Delta expanded their service at Austin, I think it would be a great opportunity. As mentioned previously Delta doesn't have a strong Texas and southwest operation since their closure of their DFW hub. They don't need a full hub operation or even as much service as their focus city in Raleigh-Durham. Adding a few business and leisure cites that allows for minimal connections in the Texas/SW region and overall caters to O&D passengers would be nice. If Delta ever expanded AUS service I could see Delta add cities such as Las Vegas, Kansas City, Chicago, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, Denver, and Tampa. Southwest will always be the biggest airline at AUS but I definitely think their is room for an airline to expand its footprint and make AUS a focus city and I think Delta is the best suited for that. JetBlue had an opportunity several years ago to do that but didn't take advantage at the time. I also thought Alaska Airlines could have too before their merger with Virgin America but it looks like Alaska is going to make Dallas Love a small focus city.

If Delta were to grow AUS then they would definitely need some corporate contracts in the region for business purposes and also would need to grow a local frequent flyer base. I'm not sure how much opportunity is out their for AUS with United and American in the same area.

Mostly agree but I do think they could use Austin as a hub (transfer point) specifically for central and south american flights. I don't think you would see them flying to smaller towns to get people to Austin for a transfer like traditional hub and spokes.

[DoubleC]

Went to Steamboat two years ago, I can tell you a one-way flight to the resort would've been really convenient and cheap, considering shuttle costs aren't.

So here's a new (seasonal) nonstop.

http://www.steamboattoday.com/news/n...r-1718-winter/

[ILUVSAT]

JUNE 2017 NUMBERS ARE OUT!

-Busiest month in ABIA history
-12.5% increase Y-O-Y
-9% increase year-to-date
-Condor passengers up 358% for the month (+734% for the year). Did they add a new day or start earlier this year?
-BA load factor ~87% for the month (even though it was down 8% from June 2016)

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

JULY 2017 NUMBERS ARE OUT!

-Busiest month in ABIA history
-12.5% increase Y-O-Y
-9% increase year-to-date
-Condor passengers up 358% for the month (+734% for the year). Did they add a new day or start earlier this year?
-BA load factor ~87% for the month (even though it was down 8% from June 2016)

They should probably start working double-time on that expansion project....holy cow, that's a big jump.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

JULY 2017 NUMBERS ARE OUT!

These numbers are actually for June. July usually has slightly more passengers than June, so July should set another record.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

These numbers are actually for June. July usually has slightly more passengers than June, so July should set another record.

Oops. You're right. Typo.

[ATCZERO]

Originally Posted by brando

Do you mean the land JUST south of the tower or the land at the far southeast of the property? I know the most recent master plan preferred a new terminal just south of the tower (http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...Chp7_Part1.pdf). That would still have to be adjusted in order to incorporate the current budget south terminal but that is what the new master plan is for. Is that what you would prefer or are you thinking using the grass land further south/east? I wonder if the construction of two massive garages and the new airport staff offices makes concentrating expansion on the main terminal a more optimal solution.

Maybe the question of piers vs a new terminal would depend on an airline like Delta wanting to greatly expand their operations and have their own dedicated space? I don't know.

I totally trust that you know better but I'm still curious why you think building a new terminal at the northwest part of the grounds would be a bad idea. Seems like you could save money by utilizing the existing airport roads and more easily be able to get people outside security from one terminal to another. I would hope a train of some kind would be built to connect the terminals for people who are already past security. An elevated tram at IAH in Houston of a similar distance cost about 100 million. I'm guessing building a train connection to a terminal on the other side of the terminal would need to go below ground and cost more.

That's really crazy that they could only have 1 runway for an entire year. I saw something recently about new technology allowing for more efficient and tighter takeoffs and landings coming to AUS but maybe I'm making that up.


Also, do you know which (if any) buildings are going to be demolished as a part of any of the current work?

I prefer the very first diagram where the south terminal is just south of the tower. The issues I have with another terminal building on the northwest side include:
- Requires parallel taxiway to Charlie to help move aircraft around
- Aircraft landing 17L have to taxi a VERY long way to get there
- There would be more eastbound departures off 17R/35L which introduces more risk into the system. 90% or more of the carriers depart 17R/35L if westbound and 17L/35R if eastbound to prevent crossing departure traffic. Safer and efficient this way.
- If there are delays, there's really not a lot of room at the Northwest end to hold people while they wait out their delay.
- Operationally, it would be easier to create a second ground control position to work south terminal/east airport taxiways and the other work north terminal/west airport taxiways

I'm not aware of any new technology allowing for closer spacing for arrivals. Maybe wake turbulence categorization but our minimum spacing also depends on runway occupancy time and weather conditions.

I don't know which buildings will be demolished but the advisory committee notes indicate that many of them will be demolished over time. Also, the consolidated maintenance facility is nearing design completion and will be built just north of the Army National Guard ramp.

June was a huge month and was our 3rd busiest in traffic count. July was busier.

[brando]

Originally Posted by ATCZERO

I prefer the very first diagram where the south terminal is just south of the tower. The issues I have with another terminal building on the northwest side include:
- Requires parallel taxiway to Charlie to help move aircraft around
- Aircraft landing 17L have to taxi a VERY long way to get there
- There would be more eastbound departures off 17R/35L which introduces more risk into the system. 90% or more of the carriers depart 17R/35L if westbound and 17L/35R if eastbound to prevent crossing departure traffic. Safer and efficient this way.
- If there are delays, there's really not a lot of room at the Northwest end to hold people while they wait out their delay.
- Operationally, it would be easier to create a second ground control position to work south terminal/east airport taxiways and the other work north terminal/west airport taxiways

I'm not aware of any new technology allowing for closer spacing for arrivals. Maybe wake turbulence categorization but our minimum spacing also depends on runway occupancy time and weather conditions.

I don't know which buildings will be demolished but the advisory committee notes indicate that many of them will be demolished over time. Also, the consolidated maintenance facility is nearing design completion and will be built just north of the Army National Guard ramp.

June was a huge month and was our 3rd busiest in traffic count. July was busier.

Thank you for all the info!

[Austin1971]

M

[GoldenBoot]

Thanks Austin1971!!!


Does anyone else think that planning for 20-30 MAP by 2040 might be lowballing it a bit? An average of 3% growth per year would put the airport at 25 MAP in 2040. Even their own report stated that the airport has experienced an average growth rate of 4.4% per year since 1993 (almost 7% per year since 2009). Something seems to be amiss.

4.4% = ~35 MAP in 2040
7% = ~63 MAP in 2040

[ATXboom]

Welcome to austin. Grossly underestimating growth patterns is the norm. So bazaar.

[Novacek]

Didn't someone post a long time back that the feds wouldn't let us use a projected growth rate above 3%? I don't think I'm making that up.


Realistically, above 3 would be smart (if that's possible). 7% is probably stretching it, since that's only post-recession boom. In the next 20-30 years, there will be at least a couple more recessions.


On those slides, slide 16 that stated ABIA serves 21 counties seems odd. What about Blanco and Burnet and...

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Welcome to austin. Grossly underestimating growth patterns is the norm. So bazaar.

It's true. So tragically, annoyingly true.

At least it's interesting to see how and to whom we can compare ourselves, both now and in the future. Good to have us in context.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Welcome to austin. Grossly underestimating growth patterns is the norm. So bazaar.

Overall I agree but I would think it's difficult to really know how fast air traffic growth will end up being 10 years down the road let alone 20+ years. There will be times when growth slows or possibly stops. Maybe the percentage is more of a realistic average to go by. They probably assume that we will not keep up this pace of growth forever which is a valid consideration. I don't know much about how airports are planned out but I would think that they will have at least 3 possible growth scenarios as part of the master plan so they can choose which route to go depending on the situation.

On a side note I'm sure everyone saw the county service map which says ABIA serves 21 counties. I find it very strange that Milam or the county next to it are not included. Considering how close they are and that they are nearly surrounded by counties served. I guess they go by the percentage of people from each county that use ABIA but to see the counties around San Antonio included but not Milam is strange.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

On a side note I'm sure everyone saw the county service map which says ABIA serves 21 counties. I find it very strange that Milam or the county next to it are not included. Considering how close they are and that they are nearly surrounded by counties served. I guess they go by the percentage of people from each county that use ABIA but to see the counties around San Antonio included but not Milam is strange.

they seem to only be including counties in MSAs, not other (even closer) counties. Which is odd.

Like I said, Burnet is even odder than Milam.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Novacek

they seem to only be including counties in MSAs, not other (even closer) counties. Which is odd.

Like I said, Burnet is even odder than Milam.

I didn't even notice Burnet not being included but your right.

[Spaceman]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I didn't even notice Burnet not being included but your right.

The folks at city hall have always tried to make Austin and the metro appear small.. My friend in Atlanta jokes that ATL will count counties that are in other time zones to increase its population number.