AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[brando]

Originally Posted by drummer

ABIA new South Terminal causing confusion for some passengers
http://kxan.com/2017/05/08/abia-new-...me-passengers/

Called it but I know I'm not the only one. I think a major problem is the signage on 71. The small "south terminal" sign is hard to miss. They need a real airport looking sign that says the airlines.

It doesn't help that you have to exit riverside in order to get to 183 south when coming on 71 from Austin. That'll change when 183 reconstruction gets to 71 but that won't be until 2019, 2020.

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

You're right. It is not.

ABIA had 12.44MM pass through its gates in CY16 (+4.5% over CY15). Regarding this year, the airport has realized a +6.5% increase in passengers between January and March (over the same period in 2015). ABIA saw 11% growth from CY14 to CY15. At 4% annual growth, ABIA will surpass the 15 million passenger mark in CY21.

I think the convention center expansion has a lot of to with the level of growth. It's not signing new interested parties and losing some existing ones like Dell. Conventions are what drives a lot of your weekly traffic and you could see a regression in that sector if Austin loses more to San Antonio. Their convention center is already bigger than ours and it's only getting bigger.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by brando

Called it but I know I'm not the only one. I think a major problem is the signage on 71. The small "south terminal" sign is hard to miss. They need a real airport looking sign that says the airlines.

It doesn't help that you have to exit riverside in order to get to 183 south when coming on 71 from Austin. That'll change when 183 reconstruction gets to 71 but that won't be until 2019, 2020.



I think the convention center expansion has a lot of to with the level of growth. It's not signing new interested parties and losing some existing ones like Dell. Conventions are what drives a lot of your weekly traffic and you could see a regression in that sector if Austin loses more to San Antonio. Their convention center is already bigger than ours and it's only getting bigger.

I'll have to partially dissagree. While there's no doubt convention business is a factor in the amount of air traffic, it's is by no means the main driver. Austin is clearly becoming a popular tourist destination in it's own right. Then there's the business travel aspect as well as our demographics which tends to fly more frequently in general than populations in some other cities. There's the fact that people from surrounding areas fly out of ABIA too. I'm likely missing other factors but those are the ones that I can think of at the moment.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I'll have to partially dissagree. While there's no doubt convention business is a factor in the amount of air traffic, it's is by no means the main driver. Austin is clearly becoming a popular tourist destination in it's own right. Then there's the business travel aspect as well as our demographics which tends to fly more frequently in general than populations in some other cities. Finally There's the fact that people from surrounding areas fly out of ABIA.

I did not say it was the main driver. Take a look at the expected attendance numbers for the current conventions: https://www.austinconventioncenter.c...endar/2017/05/

A huge majority of those attendees are out of town and make up a good portion of week day business travel. Not the most. This is a bigger deal in Austin because the city only has 1 Fortune 1000 company and Whole Foods is going to get bought and layoffs will come. Dell will likely become a fortune 500 company again which will help but it's giant companies that you find in most other cities that are a bedrock of business travel.

This article was a bit of a concern but I can't remember what it says. It was free when it came out: http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...gns-cloud.html

[ILUVSAT]

Austin's convention center has not grown in years, yet ABIA still see growth. Austin is loosing conventions to other cities (more like Vegas, Chicago, Orlando and Nashville than to SA)...yet, there is still growth.

SA's convention center is bigger than Austin's - but, not by much. Additionally, it is not going to expand further (anytime soon) since it has just completed a multi hundred million dollar expansion.

Conventions do bring passengers through ABIA. But, it's not the driving force. The bulk of daily passengers using the port are business travelers from the myriad of tech, biotech, medical, services, financial, etc. companies which call Austin home (more specifically...one's which have, or do business with those who have, offices in Austin).

The fact that SA has always had a larger convention center than Austin - attracted larger conventions (until recently) - had NCAA Final Fours - etc., etc., etc. yet our airport has never been substantially bigger than Austin's. And now, trails Austin by almost 4 million passengers per year. And the gap is still growing.

[brando]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Austin's convention center has not grown in years, yet ABIA still see growth. Austin is loosing conventions to other cities (more like Vegas, Chicago, Orlando and Nashville than to SA)...yet, there is still growth.

Again, this is not the majority factor therefor I'm not suggesting that a convention decline would stop growth. Just slow it or keep it from growing more.

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

SA's convention center is bigger than Austin's - but, not by much. Additionally, it is not going to expand further (anytime soon) since it has just completed a multi hundred million dollar expansion.

That was the expansion I was thinking of. I didn't realize it finished last year. It is currently MUCH bigger than Austin. The exhibit floor has TWICE the amount of space and the overall available space across all rooms/halls is twice the amount of the Austin convention center. More than twice as big is obviously significant.

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Conventions do bring passengers through ABIA. But, it's not the driving force. The bulk of daily passengers using the port are business travelers from the myriad of tech, biotech, medical, services, financial, etc. companies which call Austin home (more specifically...one's which have, or do business with those who have, offices in Austin).

Again, you guys are overstating the extent of what I wrote. It's not the driving force but it's a large part. There is no single driving force. It's a lot of smaller things that come together. For example, almost 7,000 attendees are expected at conventions THIS WEEK. That is consistent through the year.

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

The fact that SA has always had a larger convention center than Austin - attracted larger conventions (until recently) - had NCAA Final Fours - etc., etc., etc. yet our airport has never been substantially bigger than Austin's. And now, trails Austin by almost 4 million passengers per year. And the gap is still growing.

What do you mean until recently? They still attract large conventions and will likely gain a bigger advantage over austin for future suitors. You will even have conventions that have been in austin for sometime leave because they naturally expand but the convention center does not. Dell had 8,000 attendees last year in Austin but is expecting 13,000 this year in Vegas. They have bigger rooms for the keynote as well as more overall space. That was a convention that you wanted in Austin to help attract the interest of tech companies for future investment. Conventions are a major part of how companies find cities they want to do business in.

I'm not sure what the NCAA final fours have to do with it. They get those because they have the Alamo Dome and a lot of hotels.

[GoldenBoot]

This thread is about ABIA...please get back to the subject. Should you feel like measuring dicks on a Convention Center thread, please feel free to do so.

Thank you.

[wwmiv]

I think it's mildly relevant, actually.

Since you provided some snark:

And exactly who promoted you to moderator?

(or me, too, given this comment)

[drummer]

I just can't bring myself to like the "South Terminal" because it's, as we said before, a shack. I know it's for budget airlines, etc., etc....I know it's a different feel with the outdoor thing...but I'm not partial to it. I'd really need to see it in person to get a good feel, though. I would rather just have a second terminal that fits the rest of the airport and isn't a bandaid approach to ever-growing passenger numbers. If done well, signs, etc., would also be a given part.

[DoubleC]

Originally Posted by drummer

I just can't bring myself to like the "South Terminal" because it's, as we said before, a shack. I know it's for budget airlines, etc., etc....I know it's a different feel with the outdoor thing...but I'm not partial to it. I'd really need to see it in person to get a good feel, though. I would rather just have a second terminal that fits the rest of the airport and isn't a bandaid approach to ever-growing passenger numbers. If done well, signs, etc., would also be a given part.

I know San Diego used to have a commuter terminal serve the regional carriers, although I don't know how comparable or how equivalent it was to Austin's South Terminal. "Auxiliary" terminals aren't uncommon when there's lack of space but not enough to warrant s huge expansion.

Actually I only know of SAN's terminal, but I think Kansai and Manila's should have a LCC terminal (if not at least in the works), but those are legit terminal buildings.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by drummer

I just can't bring myself to like the "South Terminal" because it's, as we said before, a shack. I know it's for budget airlines, etc., etc....I know it's a different feel with the outdoor thing...but I'm not partial to it. I'd really need to see it in person to get a good feel, though. I would rather just have a second terminal that fits the rest of the airport and isn't a bandaid approach to ever-growing passenger numbers. If done well, signs, etc., would also be a given part.

I would need to see it in person too before I cast any harsh judgement on it. But as it sits, it makes sense for now and technically it means ABIA has two terminals and on paper that sounds pretty cool. As a side note, in the last week, on two separate occasions, I met two individuals who have been using BA from ABIA to make connections to Eastern European countries and the Middle East. They say it cost more but is worth the convenience. That makes me curious about the percentage of passengers who use this flight to London as a final destination or connection...and visa versa...

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by drummer

I just can't bring myself to like the "South Terminal" because it's, as we said before, a shack. I know it's for budget airlines, etc., etc....I know it's a different feel with the outdoor thing...but I'm not partial to it. I'd really need to see it in person to get a good feel, though. I would rather just have a second terminal that fits the rest of the airport and isn't a bandaid approach to ever-growing passenger numbers. If done well, signs, etc., would also be a given part.

Seems to me that it's not meant to last more than a couple decades at most. I feel like it's more meant to ease pressure on the main terminal to handle the budget carriers until we get enough demand to build a true second terminal per the airport mater plan - something much more permanent and of course architecturally appealing.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Seems to me that it's not meant to last more than a couple decades at most. I feel like it's more meant to ease pressure on the main terminal to handle the budget carriers until we get enough demand to build a true second terminal per the airport mater plan - something much more permanent and of course architecturally appealing.

The company that runs the South Terminal has a 40 year deal with the city. Based on the recent garage construction including the newest one that has all the admin offices, I believe Austin1971 that the focus will likely shift to expanding north and south of the existing terminal than the previously preferred option of building a new south terminal which would likely require the current budget "terminal" to be demolished. That was the plan that demolished the old short term garage and expanded the main building all the way to the new garages. It also adds the piers to the south side of the main terminal. It still feels like you're getting too little elbow room but that might not feel the same once the east end of the terminal opens.


I don't think it makes sense go get really excited about a new route but upset that the budget terminal exists. This allows Allegiant and any future tenant to expand their service to more cities at a discounted rate because they are paying less rent to a shitty building. Paying more to renovate the South Terminal defeats the purpose of the building itself. They currently fly to 10 cities from Austin including Vegas.

I'm sure it will get some renovations as the years go by. It just depends on the market as this is a private company that owns and operates the terminal. Allegiant is already a shitty airline and people know that going in. I don't think they will be surprised it has a shitty terminal. You get what you pay for which was nothing. I feel like the terminal will say as much about Allegiant as it does the Austin Airport.

I do think they need much better signage on 71. It should have a larger south terminal sign and say the name of the airline(s) operating there along with the main terminal saying "All Other Airlines". Again, it'll get easier when a direct connection from 71 East to 183 South returns. Exiting Riverside adds confusion. It might have been easier for people if the terminals were renamed to A and B. People are used to that. Saying "South" Terminal makes it sound like you have to hunt for it. Maybe that's just me.


BTW: I saw on wikipedia that Sun Country Airlines will move into the south terminal when it begins service to Austin later in 2017. I'm not sure if that was already mentioned.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by brando

The company that runs the South Terminal has a 40 year deal with the city.

That doesn't necessarily mean the deal is going to last 40 years, though.

If you'll remember, GECAS signed a deal with the city back in 2007 for the South Terminal when VivaAerobus was flying here.

Link

There has been until now little competition within U.S. airports for fees and amenities.

Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in Texas is now attempting to pull this off. Its only passenger terminal, the Barbara Jordan Terminal, is fully occupied and leased. So, to add significant service, it will need to build more space. But this new space is intended to serve the super-discount airlines like Skybus and Mexico’s vivaAeroBus that Austin wants to attract. Back in June, it began negotiations with GE Commercial Airline Services (GECAS) to build and operate a no-frills terminal at Bergstrom. GECAS would operate the terminal for thirty years, and it would be expressly designed for super-cheap airlines, with neither luggage facilities nor assigned gates. Gate fees at the GECAS terminal would presumably be much less than those at the Jordan terminal.

GECAS' deal with the city ended when VivaAerobus left town.

[brando]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

That doesn't necessarily mean the deal is going to last 40 years, though.

If you'll remember, GECAS signed a deal with the city back in 2007 for the South Terminal when VivaAerobus was flying here.

Link

GECAS' deal with the city ended when VivaAerobus left town.

That's true but the circumstances there are a lot different. Allegiant and VivaAerobus are a lot different. VivaAerobus was subject to economy fluctuations in both the US and Mexico and pulled out of most of their North American expansion. Flying to select Mexican cities is also different than flying to many north american cities that don't have much in direct flight competition with other airlines. Plus, there is at least 1 other airline scheduled to begin operations in the south terminal decreasing the reliance on Allegiant.

TLDR: That previous deal failed because the airline failed in their north American interests. I think it's much less likely that could happen with Allegiant but you never know. It's hard to imagine other circumstances for the lease to be exited than the host airlines closing shop.


The Airport tweeted a reminder about using the south terminal with Allegiant. They really need to re-do the signage on 71 to match what you see at every other airport. The little "south terminal" sign is hard to see and it probably confuses people that they have to exit riverside to get there. The direct connection from 71 east to 183 south won't come back until around 2019.

You could have a big south terminal sign with allegiant and future airlines listed under it and the Barbara Jordan terminal with "all other airlines" or something like that. I don't see why they don't rename them to A and B terminal like every other airport. That seems like it would make it very clear and also inform people who are traveling that way about the new terminal even if they aren't using it.

I remember hearing that most Allegiant fliers only use the service once a year. Has anyone else heard that? It's popular with vacationers and not necessarily regular business fliers. If that is the case then you don't gain that much from people who learn their lesson the first time they fly the airline. Most of the people everyday are going to be visiting the south terminal for the 1st time.

[GoldenBoot]

Simplicity is good...I think we need to just call them the North Terminal and the South Terminal. We can honor Barbara Jordan in another way at the airport.

Plus, gate numbering could be changed to N1-N33 (North Terminal) and S1-S3 (South Terminal). If at least, this is what I would like to see purely for selfish reasons.

SH-71/US-183 signage is a must. I like Brando's idea of a big South Terminal sign (with airlines listed beneath) AND a big North Terminal sign (with the airlines listed beneath). This would be similar to how it is done with several large airports throughout the world. Inform the customer prior to them getting on campus. It's too confusing for customers right now at ABIA.

[brando]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Simplicity is good...I think we need to just call them the North Terminal and the South Terminal. We can honor Barbara Jordan in another way at the airport.

Plus, gate numbering could be changed to N1-N33 (North Terminal) and S1-S3 (South Terminal). If at least, this is what I would like to see purely for selfish reasons.

SH-71/US-183 signage is a must. I like Brando's idea of a big South Terminal sign (with airlines listed beneath) AND a big North Terminal sign (with the airlines listed beneath). This would be similar to how it is done with several large airports throughout the world. Inform the customer prior to them getting on campus. It's too confusing for customers right now at ABIA.

Are there any airports that do that? It seems like the standard is A,B,C etc. or 1,2,3 etc. I don't know if that would make things more clear or just confuse people more. It sound sad but I don't think most people could tell you which way was north while they are at the airport. Although, maybe I'm underestimating the average person.

[Speculator]

Originally Posted by brando

Are there any airports that do that? It seems like the standard is A,B,C etc. or 1,2,3 etc. I don't know if that would make things more clear or just confuse people more. It sound sad but I don't think most people could tell you which way was north while they are at the airport. Although, maybe I'm underestimating the average person.

ATL domestic terminal has North and South designations. Concourses are A-F.

I'm sure there are others...

[OU812]

DFW has a 'shack' like terminal extension for American Eagle planes. It's been a few years but from what I remember it sure felt like a throwback -- Had to walk out on the tarmac and walk up the stairs. Not that I'm complaining or anything ;-)

[Mopacs]

Any chance ABIA could build an internal road, around the outer perimeter of the Airport? I suppose the runways would preclude that, unless a tunnel(s) is built. In any event, that would make it much easier and less confusing for travelers to access the south terminal via the main entrance (with directional signs and all) and not rely on the roundabout way.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Mopacs

Any chance ABIA could build an internal road, around the outer perimeter of the Airport? I suppose the runways would preclude that, unless a tunnel(s) is built. In any event, that would make it much easier and less confusing for travelers to access the south terminal via the main entrance (with directional signs and all) and not rely on the roundabout way.

They would only build road connections if a new large South Terminal was built. They wouldn't be above ground either. The specs for that option in the master plan include tunnels for cars to travel under the taxiways and emerge in front of a new terminal. It's not possible to build road connections above ground. You would not be able to get the current road configuration to west of the west runway and going around the east runway would be super roundabout. We call this the "south terminal" but it's really the "central terminal" with respect to the airport grounds. It's right in the middle of the two runways.

Building those tunnels would cost millions of dollars so it would likely defeat the purpose of having a budget terminal to begin with if there is not a larger terminal. Building a new south terminal was the preferred next round of expansion however I agree with others that it seems more likely they will expand the main terminal building north over a demolished short term garage and add piers with gates to the south.