AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by San Diego-Honolulu

Something I just thought about, ABIA should look into how San Diego has attracted international service into their airport, particularly their nonstop flights to Tokyo on Japan Airlines and to Mexico on Volaris.

We have an incentive plan targeting domestic and international destinations. The only international destinations that qualify right now are London (BA) Toronto (AC) Mexico City (unserved) and Tokyo (unserved)

NRT & LHR pay no landing fees for the first two years, and I believe up to $400,000 for marketing purposes.

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/images/Airport/business/Notice_Rule_Adoption.pdf

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

The only international destinations that qualify right now are London (BA) Toronto (AC) Mexico City (unserved) and Tokyo (unserved)

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/images/Airport/business/Notice_Rule_Adoption.pdf

Tokyo was identified as a target when this document was executed in 2013. However, I am positive the city would have amended the document should another asian route (i.e., Seoul), a route to an African country (namely the Qatar or UAE), or another popular European destination (i.e., Frankfurt, Paris or Amsterdam) materialize, the city would look at incentivizing those routes as well.

Additional international targets, according to the document, are: "Other Mexico" and "Caribbean."

Speaking of amendments, has this "target list" been amended since it was executed on October 2013?

[Digatisdi]

This is really nit-picky but neither Qatar nor the UAE are African countries. Personally I think the city should look to expanding the incentives plan. I'd like to see either DOH or DXB eligible for incentives, because it's becoming a major transit hub to South Asia and the subcontinent is a significant destination for passengers from ABIA.

Personally I'd also like to see KEF, EZE, ICN, JNB, CDG (or FRA) served in addition to the ports that are eligible for incentives. I know some of them are total long-shots but this is just my own selfish ideal based on my travel patterns.

[San Diego-Honolulu]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

This is really nit-picky but neither Qatar nor the UAE are African countries. Personally I think the city should look to expanding the incentives plan. I'd like to see either DOH or DXB eligible for incentives, because it's becoming a major transit hub to South Asia and the subcontinent is a significant destination for passengers from ABIA.

Personally I'd also like to see KEF, EZE, ICN, JNB, CDG (or FRA) served in addition to the ports that are eligible for incentives. I know some of them are total long-shots but this is just my own selfish ideal based on my travel patterns.

I would love to see ABIA get a bunch of international flights as well, but realistically I can only see them getting Mexico City and Tokyo, and to be honest, I can MAYBE see Emirates flying to Dubai in about 5-10 years. I think Dubai is a long shot, but I think the thought of Emirates at ABIA is more possible than we may all think.

I think Emirates would probably add Denver (I think Denver will be the next Emirates destination), Miami, and Detroit first, but I would think Austin would be in the next line of cities that Emirates might serve along with Atlanta and Philadelphia.

[airwx]

Looks like a 30 year lease deal to operate the south terminal is going before city council on June 11. https://austin.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=46441

[Austin1971]

C

[LoneStarMike]

From the Alaska press release

The Portland-Austin flight will be operated for Alaska by SkyWest Airlines, using new 76-seat Embraer 175 jets. The E175 jet features 12 seats in first class and 64 in coach, and with cabin dimensions on par with a 737. Onboard amenities include Wi-Fi Internet access, streaming inflight entertainment and 110 volt power in every first class seat. Food and beverage will include hot meals and picnic packs for purchase, in addition to Northwest microbrews and wine.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by airwx

Looks like a 30 year lease deal to operate the south terminal is going before city council on June 11. https://austin.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=46441

If you read the additional information it notes that both Allegiant and Frontier want to expand their operations this winter. I can't imagine the city council being against this. Frontier currently uses Gate 3. Moving them to the South Terminal would free up Gate 3 for a certain rumored new international carrier.

Just sayin'.

[Digatisdi]

April 2015 Passenger, Cargo traffic at Austin-Bergstrom

April 2015 was 957,916, up 11% compared to April 2014

[LoneStarMike]

Here's the link

http://austintexas.gov/news/april-2015-passenger-cargo-traffic-austin-bergstrom

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

April 2015 Passenger, Cargo traffic at Austin-Bergstrom

Overall ABIA is up 8% for the year (Y-O-Y).

WOW! April is traditionally the third slowest month at ABIA and April 2015 registered almost 1 million passengers and 11% growth. Awesome!

February, traditionally ABIA's slowest month, totaled over 738,000 - up 8% Y-O-Y. This may be another banner year.

September seems to be the second slowest month in ABIA's annual calendar. Can't wait to see what this September holds in terms of passenger growth.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

WOW! April is traditionally the third slowest month at ABIA

Correction - April is the 4th slowest month behind Jan., Feb., & Sep.

Still good news, though, about the April mumbers this year.

[Austin1971]

He

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Heard today that the port is planning on constructing the west infill to mirror the east infill and adding 5+ more gates to the west end of the terminal as soon as they complete the east end gate expansion due to the rapid growth. I guess the port sees the need for the gates and cannot expand any further east so west they must go.

This is the first I have heard about adding more gates to the west end. I always thought the long term plans were to construct a third runway east of 17R/35L. Who knows but I think it's safe to say that the powers to be here at the port are now having to play catch-up to the explosive growth. Crazy!

I suppose they could still do the runway unless the intend to go straight out west as opposed to turning the terminal south or something. Though it's probably easier to just continue in the same direction. Are there any plans or more detailed descriptions out there anywhere or is it too early for that?

[ATCZERO]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Heard today that the port is planning on constructing the west infill to mirror the east infill and adding 5+ more gates to the west end of the terminal as soon as they complete the east end gate expansion due to the rapid growth. I guess the port sees the need for the gates and cannot expand any further east so west they must go.

This is the first I have heard about adding more gates to the west end. I always thought the long term plans were to construct a third runway east of 17R/35L. Who knows but I think it's safe to say that the powers to be here at the port are now having to play catch-up to the explosive growth. Crazy!

I doubt they will expand more gates on the west side. Gates 16, 18, 20 and 22 are pretty cramped already and create a bad ramp bottleneck. Expanding due west would make it worse. Plus, there's really no room to expand to the west because taxiway charlie is really close. If they were to turn the terminal south it might work...but boy would that — for ground control.

The airport's master plan does include the construction of 17C/35C but there's no timeline for the construction. It's pretty vague and just says they will keep evaluating as we grow. 17R/35L is due for some intense renovations in the next 3-5 years and if the port is smart, they will build that third runway before they start tearing up 17R/35L. Otherwise, here come the massive delays.

[Austin1971]

[qu

[Austin1971]

[q

[ATCZERO]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

They need to make the ramp controlled.

If they do expand west I guess they might move the closest cargo buildng to expand the ramp to the north. They could move taxiway C west as well. I agree with you though that expanding west would — and sometimes I scratch my head with how they do things at the port.

I wouldn't mind having a ramp control.

I don't think they will move taxiway charlie west because the master plan shows them building a parallel taxiway in between charlie and 17C/35C.

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/defaul...s/master-plan/Master_Plan_Chp7_Part1.pdf

Page 4 is what I believe they've tentatively adopted as the final layout.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by ATCZERO

I wouldn't mind having a ramp control.

I don't think they will move taxiway charlie west because the master plan shows them building a parallel taxiway in between charlie and 17C/35C.

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/defaul...s/master-plan/Master_Plan_Chp7_Part1.pdf

Page 4 is what I believe they've tentatively adopted as the final layout.

This is ultimately my weak point with knowledge about the inner workings of airport policy but ultimately who decides that a specific plan or layout is the way to go? Is it based more off of the cost of executing the future phases or is it more about growth dictating when and how expansion occurs? I'm assuming the City Council makes the big decisions but are they the ones that have the final say in how the buildout will be?

[GoldenBoot]

I'm all for more expansion at ABIA. But, dear God, please tell me the powers that be at ABIA are not going to piecemeal our airport together because it's the "cheaper" option?!?

I thought they they supposed to follow the master plan. If not, why did they spend the time and money in creating one?

Piecemealing small, disorganized, unthoughtful, 5-gate expansions together is no way to intelligently expand a great airport. It's not sustainable. One will always be behind the curve.

They need to stop being pansies and not be afraid of thinking big and for the long-term. Execute the plan already in place as defined by the master plan.

Sorry for my rant. I'm very much in favor of a west side infill project to match the new east side. However, adding 5 or so gates to the west side seems crazy. The airport must find a way to execute the master plan already in place.