HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4081  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 1:35 AM
khowaga's Avatar
khowaga khowaga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
So, none of the alternatives would fit a B748 or A388 (ADG VI) - at least adjacent to a gate in simultaneous operation.

I like Alternatives 3 & 4 (with #4 receiving my vote - especially when considering long-term expansion flexibility). In Alternative 4, it looks like the total number of contact gates could be ~75 if the satellite concourse expands into the RON areas.

Out of curiosity, why is 64 gates the magic number for a 2040 plan?
Realistically, we’re not going to see scheduled B748 or 388 service — there’s only a handful of airports in the US that do.

64 is divisible by 8. 8 is divisible by...yeah, I have no idea.

Also, what is GTC (as in, the parking garage will be converted to GTC)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4082  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 4:04 AM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by khowaga View Post
Also, what is GTC (as in, the parking garage will be converted to GTC)?
Ground Transportation Center???


A388...maybe not. But, I wouldn't say AUS would not see scheduled B748 service by 2040. There should be more B748's flying than A388's by that time. Remember, this is a 2040 Master Plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4083  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 4:05 AM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by khowaga View Post
Also, what is GTC (as in, the parking garage will be converted to GTC)?
I think, Ground Transportation Center. I think they would move stuff like buses/taxis/shuttles/rideshare would move into a remodeled garage and their current area on Pres Blvd would be available for personal autos.

I like ALT 4 a lot for a centralized expansion. They are also looking for ways to extend the eastern runway northward but it would require moving the 71 frontage road (or 71 itself) further north.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4084  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 11:44 AM
khowaga's Avatar
khowaga khowaga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
Ground Transportation Center???
There should be more B748's flying than A388's by that time. Remember, this is a 2040 Master Plan.
I’d love to know where you got that projection.

The sources I’ve seen indicate that the B748 passenger model has sold less than 50 frames since it was launched in 2011 and has been pretty much been considered a failure. It seems likely that production is going to be ended soon (unless someone places a Hail Mary order, but only the ME3 carriers have that kind of cash and none of them have expressed interest in it, as they prefer the A380).

The market appears to be moving in the direction of 2 engine aircraft (777/330neo/787/350), so leaving out the VLA from the plan may not be such an ill-considered move.

For 2040, blended wing aircraft may also be a possibility, but it’s hard to plan in that direction since there are no specs or requirements out there to consider.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4085  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 5:01 PM
aschwab aschwab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
In 1978 I flew on a fully loaded Pan Am 747 from Heathrow to San Francisco via Seattle. We had seats all the way at the rear in the smoking section. My traveling companion and I both smoked, but the air quality on this flight was so noxious that I maybe smoked one cigarette during the entire 10 or 11 hour flight. It was indescribably foul air. I remained a smoker for another ten years, but I never, ever sat in the smoking section on an airplane again. It boggles the mind today to think that people used to be allowed to smoke on airplanes.
All through the 90s and early 2000s, I was flying back and forth from Dubai to Austin/San Antonio. Most of the time it was on Emirates or Gulf Air to London, and then BA from there.

Holy fuck, those were miserable flights. Everyone in the Middle East seemed to smoke back then, and for whatever reason, they always sat us in a row or two in front of the smoking section.

You left that plane smelling worse than leaving a smokey bar. 10 hours of it. Straight. Multiple times a year.

I could not be happier that smoking is no longer allowed almost anywhere. Probably also the reason I never took up smoking was those flights (a lot of them was when I was still in high school/college).

I am still baffled how any of that was allowed.

I am also jealous of the direct flights from DFW/IAH to Dubai. That would have saved us probably 12 hours compared to flying AUS -> DFW -> LHR -> DXB
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4086  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 5:01 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,245
Does anyone else find it hopefully optimistic (and somewhat ironic considering the rumors) that the airport used an image of a Delta B744 in referencing runway length requirements in their powerpoint presentations?
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4087  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 5:03 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by khowaga View Post
I’d love to know where you got that projection.

The sources I’ve seen indicate that the B748 passenger model has sold less than 50 frames since it was launched in 2011 and has been pretty much been considered a failure. It seems likely that production is going to be ended soon (unless someone places a Hail Mary order, but only the ME3 carriers have that kind of cash and none of them have expressed interest in it, as they prefer the A380).

He, dude...settle down!!! Why don't you share your sources instead of attacking someone else for what may or may not be an opinion.
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4088  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 8:12 PM
khowaga's Avatar
khowaga khowaga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoot View Post
He, dude...settle down!!! Why don't you share your sources instead of attacking someone else for what may or may not be an opinion.
I apologize if I came off as snippy. I wasn’t trying to attack anyone, and my apologies to ILUVSAT if that’s how I came across.

Boeing admitted last year that there is no future in the 747 line, and that passenger production will likely be suspended soon.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ssenger-plane/

There is an entire thread on airliners.net about this, although as usual it quickly degenerates into an Airbus v Boeing fanboy war, so be warned if you attempt to parse the whole thing!

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewt...?f=3&t=1366249
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4089  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 8:18 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is online now
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by khowaga View Post
I apologize if I came off as snippy. I wasn’t trying to attack anyone, and my apologies to ILUVSAT if that’s how I came across.
Unless your previous post was edited, I didn't see anything snippy about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4090  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 8:33 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
So, none of the alternatives would fit a B748 or A388 (ADG VI) - at least adjacent to a gate in simultaneous operation.
I don't think this is the case. These diagrams don't go into that level of detail and are designed to show the maximum configuration in terms of planes that they can physically fit in that area. As another poster said, they specifically cited the 747-8f in the runway needs section.


I'm guessing that the eventual maintenance for the east runway will include lengthening it because even the new center runway won't be long enough for takeoffs for the big planes and it seems like it needs maintenance as well.

They seem to imply that diverting the EB 71 frontage road north of 71 would allow for the lengthening of the east runway. They also have a proposal to divert the entire highway north to increase the footprint of the port but I doubt that will ever happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4091  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 8:59 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,267
There are also some interesting plans for reconfiguring the airport entrance. The "short term" options are pretty interesting.



This is probably the best near term option but it's pricy bc of the bridges. You have dedicated right turn lane and swap lane directions to keep traffic moving.





Cheaper than Alt 1 since it's 1 less bridge that will be an annoying light. I don't think it's worth it.





This closes the Pres. Blvd crossing at 71 so you have a continuous flow in and out of the port. I don't think it's a big deal that you would have to go EB and take a U-Turn WB but the issue would be traffic coming from the east.





Not a fan at this much construction for a short term solution.




The Long Term Options all separate inbound and outbound traffic by moving inbound traffic to Spirt of Texas Blvd.



This is the big elevated ramp option.





Awesome idea as it would expand the airport northward but there is just no way.





This is interesting as it would still expand the airport but the 71 mainlanes would cut through it. You could see bridges built over 71 that planes use to pass over traffic. I hope they go with this plan. This also seems to allow the east runway to be lengthened.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4092  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2018, 6:35 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,731
All of this should also be posted in the Airliners.met Austin thread.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4093  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2018, 8:01 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
I don't think this is the case. These diagrams don't go into that level of detail...
They actually do. Each scenario (alternative) has about 59 "ADG III" gates + 5 "ADG V" gates for a total of 64 gates. It says directly on each individual model.
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4094  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2018, 10:39 PM
Mikey711MN's Avatar
Mikey711MN Mikey711MN is offline
I am so smart, S-M-R-T!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Moved south to Austin, TX
Posts: 646
64 Gates?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
Why is 64 gates the magic number for a 2040 plan?
64 gates in the Plan refers to the needed capacity for "Planning Level 4", i.e. approximately 27.0 Million Annual Passengers (MAP).

For sake of comparison, Level 1 is 36 gates at 16.0 MAP, i.e. essentially the existing terminal once the East Expansion is complete. Level 2 @ 17.0 MAP = 39 gates and Level 3 @ 20.0 MAP = 50 gates.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4095  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2018, 10:46 PM
Mikey711MN's Avatar
Mikey711MN Mikey711MN is offline
I am so smart, S-M-R-T!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Moved south to Austin, TX
Posts: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by khowaga View Post
Realistically, we’re not going to see scheduled B748 or 388 service — there’s only a handful of airports in the US that do.
True, but AUS is a major diversion airport, and one could reasonably assume that the runway length is necessary to accommodate those in perpetuity.

From what I understand, the length correlates to the length of the airplane - not necessarily the length of a given route from AUS (although that is certainly a factor with the added weight for fuel). Longer airplanes must rotate more slowly upon takeoff, hence the needed length of runway.

It's interesting to see how much runway A321's or 739's need according to the analysis, and AUS gets its fair share of each.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4096  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2018, 12:33 PM
khowaga's Avatar
khowaga khowaga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey711MN View Post
True, but AUS is a major diversion airport, and one could reasonably assume that the runway length is necessary to accommodate those in perpetuity.

From what I understand, the length correlates to the length of the airplane - not necessarily the length of a given route from AUS (although that is certainly a factor with the added weight for fuel). Longer airplanes must rotate more slowly upon takeoff, hence the needed length of runway.

It's interesting to see how much runway A321's or 739's need according to the analysis, and AUS gets its fair share of each.
I was referring there to the given gate requirements and the max proposed size of the passenger aircraft that could be accommodated at them, not the runway. I don’t think AUS will see regular A388 or 748 pax ops for which berths at the terminal will be needed.

We already see regular 744 freight ops, so the runway will, of course, need to accommodate those aircraft. Plus there is always the chance that I’m wrong about pax ops!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4097  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2018, 9:08 PM
keiffers keiffers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Somewhere out there
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey711MN View Post
True, but AUS is a major diversion airport, and one could reasonably assume that the runway length is necessary to accommodate those in perpetuity.

From what I understand, the length correlates to the length of the airplane - not necessarily the length of a given route from AUS (although that is certainly a factor with the added weight for fuel). Longer airplanes must rotate more slowly upon takeoff, hence the needed length of runway.

It's interesting to see how much runway A321's or 739's need according to the analysis, and AUS gets its fair share of each.
The fact that the main runway (17R - 12250 ft) was built by the air force to support fully laden B-52 flights along with their supporting KC-135s, and that they have handled a 747 carrying a space shuttle several times, along with fully loaded C-5 flights, I don't think ABIA will ever have a problem with any large aircraft diversions that may come out of HOU, DFW or SAT. I'm sure that if necessary, 17R could probably even handle an AN-225.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4098  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2018, 9:53 PM
khowaga's Avatar
khowaga khowaga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by keiffers View Post
The fact that the main runway (17R - 12250 ft) was built by the air force to support fully laden B-52 flights along with their supporting KC-135s, and that they have handled a 747 carrying a space shuttle several times, along with fully loaded C-5 flights, I don't think ABIA will ever have a problem with any large aircraft diversions that may come out of HOU, DFW or SAT. I'm sure that if necessary, 17R could probably even handle an AN-225.
It has! I think. I thought we had one here about two years ago for F-1. Also the A388 on diversion—we had an EK one here about a month ago.

I know it’s handled C5-As for presidential visits—last time Obama was in town there were 2 or 3 of them that took off over the house (we’re about 3 miles north) and Jiminey Crickets were those loud...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4099  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2018, 12:59 AM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by keiffers View Post
I don't think ABIA will ever have a problem with any large aircraft diversions that may come out of HOU, DFW or SAT.
You guys don't need to worry about "large aircraft'' diversions from SAT. Y'all get bigger planes than we do. Also, I assume you mean IAH & not HOU (cause the biggest diversion out of HOU will be a B737...100%).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4100  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2018, 2:11 AM
keiffers keiffers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Somewhere out there
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by khowaga View Post
It has! I think. I thought we had one here about two years ago for F-1. Also the A388 on diversion—we had an EK one here about a month ago.

I know it’s handled C5-As for presidential visits—last time Obama was in town there were 2 or 3 of them that took off over the house (we’re about 3 miles north) and Jiminey Crickets were those loud...
C-5s are loud and have a very distinctive sound (well they did before they got re-engined).....I remember my dad and I sitting around on a weekend and we heard a plane on finals to Bergstrom and without looking up from his paper, he said it was a C-5. I used to see them multiple times back when I had base access and they're HUGE

I know An-124's have been here on diversions multiple times out of Houston. There was only one An-225 built so if F1 was able to contract one out, then that was a feat (usually I just see them coming in on multiple 747 freighters).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
You guys don't need to worry about "large aircraft'' diversions from SAT. Y'all get bigger planes than we do. Also, I assume you mean IAH & not HOU (cause the biggest diversion out of HOU will be a B737...100%).
Well never say never, but it'd probably be from Kelly Field than SAT, but yes, my bad, I meant IAH....I always forget there are two airports there
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.