AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[airwx]

The aviation department is going back to City Council next week to get approval to execute the lease agreement for the South Terminal with Highstar. They want to have the terminal available no later than early 2016. This memo has more details on the lease agreement: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/pio....cfm?id=235856

[ILUVSAT]

Interesting read. I hope this is not an attempt by the City to be able to postpone actual gate expansion to the Barbara Jordan Terminal.

I also wish the City would make it more simple for passengers and begin calling the Barbara Jordan Terminal: Terminal 1 and the South/Low-Cost Terminal: Terminal 2.

OR possibly better yet:

Barbara Jordan Terminal = North Terminal (renumbering the gates with a "N" prefix - like N1-N25)
South/Low-Cost Terminal = South Terminal (numbering its gates with a "S" prefix - Like S1-S4).

Also, I don't remember seeing anything regarding the possible or potential shuttling of passengers from one terminal to the other. Let's say I'm flying in from Victoria on my way to Vegas - I fly in on Texas Sky, but, I need to transfer to Allegiant in the other terminal...

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Interesting read. I hope this is not an attempt by the City to be able to postpone actual gate expansion to the Barbara Jordan Terminal.

I also wish the City would make it more simple for passengers and begin calling the Barbara Jordan Terminal: Terminal 1 and the South/Low-Cost Terminal: Terminal 2.

OR possibly better yet:

Barbara Jordan Terminal = North Terminal (renumbering the gates with a "N" prefix - like N1-N25)
South/Low-Cost Terminal = South Terminal (numbering its gates with a "S" prefix - Like S1-S4).

Also, I don't remember seeing anything regarding the possible or potential shuttling of passengers from one terminal to the other. Let's say I'm flying in from Victoria on my way to Vegas - I fly in on Texas Sky, but, I need to transfer to Allegiant in the other terminal...

Since the south terminal (really a warehouse) will be run privately, there will still only be one main terminal. This deal should not alter the timeline for the east gate expansituation although I feel that the city needs to push construction up.

[airwx]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Also, I don't remember seeing anything regarding the possible or potential shuttling of passengers from one terminal to the other. Let's say I'm flying in from Victoria on my way to Vegas - I fly in on Texas Sky, but, I need to transfer to Allegiant in the other terminal...

There will be a shuttle for rental cars between the terminals and the rental car facility.

8. Rental Car Operations. The City shall provide, at no cost to Highstar, a rental car shuttle bus between the South Terminal and each of the new Consolidated Rental Car Center (“CONRAC”) and the Airport’s Barbara Jordan Terminal. The operation of the shuttle bus will be coordinated with the airline flight schedules at the South Terminal. The City shall provide a quarterly payment to Highstar of rental car revenue per enplaned passenger at the South Terminal based on the previous quarter’s year-to-date revenue generated by the rental car facilities of the Airport. The current net revenue per enplanement is $[2.30] and is subject to annual adjustment. The City’s payments to Highstar shall be subject to an annual true-up.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by airwx

There will be a shuttle for rental cars between the terminals and the rental car facility.

Yes, I read that. However, as I stated, I do not remember anything being said about the possible transfer of passengers between facilities.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Since the south terminal (really a warehouse) will be run privately, there will still only be one main terminal. This deal should not alter the timeline for the east gate expansituation although I feel that the city needs to push construction up.

Yes, it will be run privately. However, they have several stipulations in which they are required to meet (in upgrades to the facility). Actually, if you read through everything you would have also noticed that even though this is a small building, they are treating it like another terminal. For example, Highstar will be required to install and maintain arrival and departure boards which include flight information for both the South Terminal and the BJT. Furthermore, there is/are clauses in the contract relating to possible future renovation and expansion of the existing building OR construction of a totally new South Terminal facility. Basically, it will be a no-frills extension of the BJT; A Low-Cost Airline Terminal - but, with a few more upgrades than were there when it was utilized by Viva Aerobus.

In an attempt to be more clear...if Frontier and Allegiant move to the limited service terminal, it will free up "time slots" at gates they are currently co-occupying in the BJT. So, in theory, this could allow for a slight expansion of services from other carriers who will remain in the BJT. Thus, possibly providing the city a little breathing room with regard to gate expansion at the BJT.

I would still agree that the BJT is long overdue for a gate expansion. I also do not believe that reopening the South Terminal will kill any imminent expansion plans. It might, however, allow them a little breathing room now - and the capacity to expand services out of Austin in the future once a gate expansion is complete.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Yes, it will be run privately. However, they have several stipulations in which they are required to meet (in upgrades to the facility). Actually, if you read through everything you would have also noticed that even though this is a small building, they are treating it like another terminal. For example, Highstar will be required to install and maintain arrival and departure boards which include flight information for both the South Terminal and the BJT. Furthermore, there is/are clauses in the contract relating to possible future renovation and expansion of the existing building OR construction of a totally new South Terminal facility. Basically, it will be a no-frills extension of the BJT; A Low-Cost Airline Terminal - but, with a few more upgrades than were there when it was utilized by Viva Aerobus.

In an attempt to be more clear...if Frontier and Allegiant move to the limited service terminal, it will free up "time slots" at gates they are currently co-occupying in the BJT. So, in theory, this could allow for a slight expansion of services from other carriers who will remain in the BJT. Thus, possibly providing the city a little breathing room with regard to gate expansion at the BJT.

I would still agree that the BJT is long overdue for a gate expansion. I also do not believe that reopening the South Terminal will kill any imminent expansion plans. It might, however, allow them a little breathing room now - and the capacity to expand services out of Austin in the future once a gate expansion is complete.

All valid points. I must admit I did not read through the whole document so I appreciate the clarification.

The only other concern I have is if Southwest Airlines does take the 4 gates that would be opened up, that wouldn't leave much room for other carriers (currently serving or possible new additions). I don't see this as much of an issue with international flights but I can see it with domestic. Conversely it wouldn't be an issue with the low cost carriers using the south terminal as far as I can see but it will be interesting to see how quickly new routes are added by those airlines once it opens.

Another thing that I'm a little confused about is didn't ABIA install a system in which all gates could essentially be used by any airline? I can understand the reasoning behind airlines having specific gates to keep consistent and to stay grouped together but I thought a system where any gate can used by any airline would be able to open up the possibility of more than one airline utilizing the same gate in a day, for example maybe a new carrier coming into the market, provided there is adequate schedule time between the two. Or is that more for a "just in case" scenario?

[airwx]

Based on today's council work session, it sounds like several council members may be favoring punting the south terminal deal down to the mobility committee at Thursday's meeting. The aviation department stated that delaying this will potentially harm Delta because gate 4 will be removed from service for the expansion project and there won't be other available gates for them until Frontier and Allegiant move to the south terminal. He said that the main terminal expansion is expected to start in March. Highstar has said that it will take them 120 days to make ready the south terminal. He also stated that both Southwest and Allegiant want to expand here.

[Austin1971]

[q

[GoldenBoot]

How many is "several?" Is it enough to have the votes to punt it?

[Jdawgboy]

This is ridiculous! Email or call your council member and tell them enough is enough with these committees. They can't afford to stall. I'm getting sick and tired of barely anything getting done with this joke of a council.

[airwx]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

How many is "several?" Is it enough to have the votes to punt it?

It sounded like Gallo, Zimmerman, and a couple others were interested in sending it to committee. Likely not enough, but some council members didn't comment on it.

[Digatisdi]

This is probably a stupid question, but with the integration of US Airways into AA as of 17 October, will this free up counter space for possibly more airlines?

[airwx]

The Statesman has an article about the discussions at today's work session now.

Council takes closer look at plan to revive airport’s South Terminal
Austin’s bursting-at-the-seams airport would get what amounts to an annex under a contract with a private terminal developer that the City Council will consider Thursday.

But at least some council members, after hearing complaints from some of the major airlines that use Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, called Tuesday for delaying action on the contract with Highstar Capital IV to restore and operate the airport’s dormant South Terminal. And at least one council member was concerned about a contract provision that could require that the airport pay Highstar as much as $11 million if use of the remote, corrugated metal terminal fails to meet expectations.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news....257263.735821

[DoubleC]

Looking at the article, it seems that financing is what's holding them from reaching a deal. Despite the trouble, they need to reach an agreement soon or else.

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

This is probably a stupid question, but with the integration of US Airways into AA as of 17 October, will this free up counter space for possibly more airlines?

I haven't heard of any plans to cut flights from the former US Airways hubs (despite hearing Phoenix might get "axed"), so unless the AA conglomerate wants to squeeze all passengers into the original AA ticket booths, the US Airways booths are probably here to stay, just with some new labeling.

[Digatisdi]

Originally Posted by DoubleC

Looking at the article, it seems that financing is what's holding them from reaching a deal. Despite the trouble, they need to reach an agreement soon or else.

I agree, also, any idea why the Statesman keeps using that "pier" model of the expanded terminal?

I haven't heard of any plans to cut flights from the former US Airways hubs (despite hearing Phoenix might get "axed"), so unless the AA conglomerate wants to squeeze all passengers into the original AA ticket booths, the US Airways booths are probably here to stay, just with some new labeling.

I would think that AA would want their ticket counters to be contiguous, but I guess we'll see.

[DoubleC]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

I agree, also, any idea why the Statesman keeps using that "pier" model of the expanded terminal?



I would think that AA would want their ticket counters to be contiguous, but I guess we'll see.

I noticed that too; I don't like that concept .

Actually, I think part of the merger was to put the ticket counters right next to each other, having read a news article about having the counters next to each other.

[Digatisdi]

Originally Posted by DoubleC

I noticed that too; I don't like that concept .

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that they're probably using that model because it's easier to show as an expansion. Another terminal on that rendering could be difficult to distinguish as a terminal, especially in such a preliminary phase. Could someone try to confirm either with the airport authority or the planning documents that the pier model isn't what they're going with for my (and I'm sure that of several others here) peace of mind?

Actually, I think part of the merger was to put the ticket counters right next to each other, having read a news article about having the counters next to each other.

I could've sworn the US Airways counters were all the way over between jetBlue and the shared-use counters last time I was there. I'm not entirely sure how they could make them adjacent with that.

[ATCZERO]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that they're probably using that model because it's easier to show as an expansion. Another terminal on that rendering could be difficult to distinguish as a terminal, especially in such a preliminary phase. Could someone try to confirm either with the airport authority or the planning documents that the pier model isn't what they're going with for my (and I'm sure that of several others here) peace of mind?



I could've sworn the US Airways counters were all the way over between jetBlue and the shared-use counters last time I was there. I'm not entirely sure how they could make them adjacent with that.

I wouldn't worry about that graphic they used. Whoever used it has no idea how aircraft use taxiways because the expanded portions of the terminal cut off taxiways Golf and Hotel, twice! There would be no route for general aviation aircraft landing on the west side to actually get to the FBOs because they aren't allowed to use the terminal ramp in any taxi route.

This is probably just an intern pulling the first picture they could find off of google to plug it into the article.

[airwx]

Council unanimously voted to send the lease deal to the audit and finance committee. American Airlines and Southwest both had representatives requesting more time to review the lease deals. Allegiant's representative was requesting approval today. Zimmerman had questions about the terms regarding the city reimbursing Highstar should the traffic not materialize. Gallo raised questions about having a private company having control over gate leases. Council member Houston urged the council to move quickly on this because it has already been through the airport advisory commission multiple times. The Mayor worried about council getting into the details of contracts.

The audit and finance committee will hear it on August 26th with hopes of bringing it back to council on August 27th. However the mayor said that if the issue isn't fully resolved at audit and finance he will likely move it to the September 10th or 17th council meeting because there won't be enough time to have a full discussion at the August 27th meeting due to other meetings planned for that day. Airport staff said that their schedule would be ok as long as it is approved no later than September.