AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[LoneStarMike]

Here's an interesting little tidbit I saw posted on another forum.

Indigo and Oaktree Close Strategic Investment in Spirit Airlines

July 13, 2006--Spirit Airlines announced today the completion of a strategic investment led by Indigo Partners LLC and funds managed by Oaktree Capital Management, LLC. The investment will provide significant resources for the Company to consolidate its position as the leading low cost carrier to the Caribbean and pursue its long-term growth strategy. Effective today, William A. Franke, Managing Partner of Indigo Partners, becomes Chairman of the Board of Spirit.

"We are excited about Indigo's endorsement of Spirit's low cost model and growth strategy, and Oaktree's continuing support of our efforts," said Ben Baldanza, President and Chief Executive Officer. "Indigo and Oaktree provide Spirit with significant industry experience and financial strength. This new investment shows their commitment to Spirit's success, reinforces its South Florida, Caribbean and Detroit strategy, and provides the resources for Spirit to continue to reduce costs and to accelerate our growth."

Fast-forward to June of last year.

Oaktree Buys Highstar for Infrastructure Investments
June 9, 2014

Oaktree Capital Group LLC, the world’s largest distressed-debt investor, agreed to acquire the Highstar Capital team to increase infrastructure investments.

[SNIP]

Highstar, which was formerly affiliated with insurer American International Group Inc., has investments in power plants, transportation and logistics companies, ports and airport operators.

So basically, Highstar Capital is owned by Oaktree Capital, who were major investors - along with Indigo - in Spirit.

I wonder if there's a chance Spirit will come to Austin?

Several years ago Spirit operated two daily roundtrips from San Antonio to Fort Lauderdale, but eventually pulled out of the SAT market. The have extensive operations at both DFW and IAH.

Here's Spirit's route map

Here's a link to the giant version

A couple of AUS-FLL flights could connect to an awful lot of places in the Caribbean, Central and South America, including Montego Bay, Kingston, Port Au Prince, Santiago, Santa Domingo, Punta Cana, Aguadilla, San Juan, St. Thomas, St. Maarten, Aruba, Cartagena, Bogata, Panama City, Guatemala City, San Salvadore, San Jose Costa Rica, and Lima, Peru.

[LoneStarMike]

Info from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board that I hadn't seen before.

These are documents associated with the bonds issued to pay for the East Terminal Infill Project, the Terminal and Apron Expansion and Improvement Project, and the Parking Garage Project Design. (That would be the second parking garage - the one with some office space that ABIA Administration would be moving to.)

http://emma.msrb.org/ER818602-ER637310-ER1038939.pdf

When you get to that link, over on the left hand side, click on "Description of the 2014 projects." Where it talks about the Terminal and Apron Expansion and Improvement Project, it mentions in the next to the last sentence:

A temporary concourse will provide replacement gate capacity during the construction period of the project. All elements are scheduled to be completed by summer 2018.

I wonder where that will be built? I don't think they're talking about the low-cost terminal, either. I think this temporary concourse would be in addition to that. It makes me wonder if that's not the 5-gate extension on the end of the West Concourse that Austin 1971 was talking about and perhaps it's only temporary and not permanent. That could be used for the domestic flights, as well as international departures, and if necessary, I guess they could hardstand the international arrivals somewhere near the east end of the terminal and bus people to customs.

[AUS]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

Info from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board that I hadn't seen before.
I wonder where that will be built? I don't think they're talking about the low-cost terminal, either. I think this temporary concourse would be in addition to that. It makes me wonder if that's not the 5-gate extension on the end of the West Concourse that Austin 1971 was talking about and perhaps it's only temporary and not permanent. That could be used for the domestic flights, as well as international departures, and if necessary, I guess they could hardstand the international arrivals somewhere near the east end of the terminal and bus people to customs.

Why would they build a temporary concourse before building a permanent one. Wouldn't that just take so much longer?

During the East terminal we will most likely loose gate 2,3 and I do not know about 1,4 or any others but one of the main issues is where the international flights will park. There are so many hardstands on the terminal tarmac that could be used. The airport just needs to invest some money on GSE to be able to handle such operations while the east end of ther terminal is being expanded in my opion.

Also is there any news on KE or any other airline?

[ATCZERO]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

Info from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board that I hadn't seen before.

These are documents associated with the bonds issued to pay for the East Terminal Infill Project, the Terminal and Apron Expansion and Improvement Project, and the Parking Garage Project Design. (That would be the second parking garage - the one with some office space that ABIA Administration would be moving to.)

http://emma.msrb.org/ER818602-ER637310-ER1038939.pdf

When you get to that link, over on the left hand side, click on "Description of the 2014 projects." Where it talks about the Terminal and Apron Expansion and Improvement Project, it mentions in the next to the last sentence:



I wonder where that will be built? I don't think they're talking about the low-cost terminal, either. I think this temporary concourse would be in addition to that. It makes me wonder if that's not the 5-gate extension on the end of the West Concourse that Austin 1971 was talking about and perhaps it's only temporary and not permanent. That could be used for the domestic flights, as well as international departures, and if necessary, I guess they could hardstand the international arrivals somewhere near the east end of the terminal and bus people to customs.

I remember seeing an old powerpoint presentation online somewhere from a design company that showed the temporary concourse. Basically, it would be a temporary terminal attachment connected to the jetway from gate 4 and extend to the east. This would allow for construction to the terminal building to carry on behind the temporary structure.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by ATCZERO

I remember seeing an old powerpoint presentation online somewhere from a design company that showed the temporary concourse. Basically, it would be a temporary terminal attachment connected to the jetway from gate 4 and extend to the east. This would allow for construction to the terminal building to carry on behind the temporary structure.

Thanks. That reminds me of that temporary customs facility Siemens Industries proposed to build at ABIA back in June 2012, which the city council said "no" to.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by AUS

Also is there any news on KE or any other airline?

Okay, ladies and gentlemen...let's please stop with the KE talk. If there was any public news or updates, we'd see it in this forum.

Let's be patient...over time, more international carriers will begin serving ABIA.

Thank you.

[AUS]

Does anyone know if the new check point ended up opening today or not?

[drummer]

I flew in last week to Austin for business and am leaving next week. Didn't see it open when I flew in. I'll let you guys know if I see any changes when I leave. Of course, others might beat me to it.

[DoubleC]

The statesman has an article on the new terminal. Nothing we didn't already know.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/loc...erminal-f/nmd5z/#1d3c52a9.3594764.735766

There's an image which includes the BBJ terminal in its master plan form.... Meaning they might go forward after all with jabbing two concourses into the current terminal. I don't like that.

[GoldenBoot]

Yeah, that was going to be my question. Has the airport poo-pooed the "preferred" master plan (construction of a new south terminal complex) and instead going with the Barbara Jordan Terminal "concourse/pier" idea?

The city could enter into a lease with a term of up to 40 years?!? This doesn't seem to bode well for the construction of a new south terminal!

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

The city could enter into a lease with a term of up to 40 years?!? This doesn't seem to bode well for the construction of a new south terminal!

Any new south terminal would be serving an entirely different segment than the "budget" terminal.

Edit: to add more on the original fear, I'm guessing it's just an intern getting lazy with the clip art. It makes no sense to show that (not existing) terminal configuration but the current parking lot, etc. configurations.

[Austin1971]

[q

[DoubleC]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Yeah, that was going to be my question. Has the airport poo-pooed the "preferred" master plan (construction of a new south terminal complex) and instead going with the Barbara Jordan Terminal "concourse/pier" idea?

The city could enter into a lease with a term of up to 40 years?!? This doesn't seem to bode well for the construction of a new south terminal!

Unfortunately that's what I keep seeing. It'd be a shame if they do that; it would destroy the identity of the terminal, plus think of the lost gates during construction. Why not start fresh with a new terminal to the South? Plus, the piers would be built in more phases. Meaning they'd build 2 piers, and then they would have to close down the pier ends yet again for more expansion like they would with the current terminal's East end.

If they do go forth with the double-pier expansion, there would be no new South terminal, since this concept design does not include it. Plus, I'm not sure if there would be space for it (actually, if they can fit 2 mid-field concourses, I'm sure they can accommodate a South terminal). I don't even know if there would be enough room for further expansion with the piers jabbing far into the middle of the airport. The midfield concourses wouldn't be able to exist.

They're not doing themselves a favor.

You can find the concept designs here:

https://www.austintexas.gov/page/airport-master-plan

Edit: I decided to paste parts of the concept designs together to see if any further expansion was possible, and there is definitely plenty of room left. The control tower would have to be demolished and relocated in the following cases.

In this "fantasy" design, a South terminal is built, along with one midfield concourse. I expanded the South terminal concourse to the same span as the BBJ terminal, since it is likely they will do this eventually to increase capacity. I count 122 gates.


This is the ultimate KAUS master plan (what they would build according to their previous evaluations). Although the number of gates may vary due to larger gates for widebodies, I count 138 gates.


A stunning design, and the BBJ terminal would only undergo one expansion, as opposed to a multitude of times. This is eye-candy to me.

Another thought, with over 100 gates, the airport would probably be a class B airport at the time, and the general aviation lot may be removed for further expansion, relocating GA to a hypothetical new airport.

2nd Edit: I didn't take into account aircraft parking. I'm not sure where parking would be located in either design.

[Digatisdi]

Someone should lodge a question with the ABIA Facebook page so we can get this cleared up. I would but I'm in the middle of running around getting everything set before I go on vacation

[electricron]

138 gates. Suppose during an 12 hour dat from 8 am to 8 pm each gate can handle 1 turnaround an hour, that's would mean 138 planes per hour, each of the two runways would have to handle 69 planes per hour, or a plane less than every minute. Considering SW Airlines can turn a plane around in 30 minutes, that could mean a plane less than every 30 seconds per runway. I suggest ABIA would need at least another runway or two to handle the planes associated with 138 gates.

What are the experiences at other US airports with 138 gates?

Here are the largest airports by number of active gates. I only included those with 100+ gates.
Atlanta (ATL) - 215 gates has 5 runways, planning number 6.
Chicago (ORD) - 185 gates has 8 runways
New York (JFK) - 185 gates has 4 runways
Dallas (DFW) - 147 gates has 7 runways
Detroit (DTW) - 147 gates has 6 runways
Denver (DEN) - 137 gates has 6 runways
Houston (IAH) - 129 gates has 5 runways
Minneapolis (MSP) - 129 gates has 4 runways
Los Angeles (LAX) -128 gates has 4 runways
Miami (MIA) - 128 gates has 4 runways
Philadelphia (PHL) - 125 gates has 4 runways
Newark (EWR) - 116 gates has 3 runways
San Francisco (SFO) - 116 gates has 4 runways
Las Vegas (LAS) - 112 gates has 4 runways
Phoenix (PHX) - 112 gates has 3 runways
Washington (IAD) - 109 gates has 4 runways, planning number 5
Orlando (MCO) - 102 gates has 4 runways
Boston (BOS) - 101 gates has 6 runways

In 2013, ABIA ranked 34th in total passenger boardings in the USA. I only listed 18 airports with 100+ gates. Aren't we being slightly optimistic of ABIA ever reaching 138 gates?

[GoldenBoot]

No. As I have stated before, it is well within the realm of possibility that ABIA could see 125+ gates in the future. However, we are talking several decades out. So far out, that there should not really be any need to discuss it now.

The question should be, is ABIA going with adding two new concourses to the current terminal or build a new terminal to the south for the next phase(s) of expansion? An expansion which may be necessary to be completed (or well under way) within the next 10-20 years.

[Austin1971]

I

[Austin1971]

[q

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Yeah, that was going to be my question. Has the airport poo-pooed the "preferred" master plan (construction of a new south terminal complex) and instead going with the Barbara Jordan Terminal "concourse/pier" idea?

The only way that plan would work is if we were a major connecting hub and 50% or more of total passengers were staying in the sterile (gates) part of the airport. I was reading some of the info in the bond package for the CONRAC garage. It said that 93% of those deplaning in Austin had Austin as their final destination and the other 7% were making a connection.
We're not a connecting hub. We're an O%D airport.

As such, I doubt very seriously that that ABIA is going with the original 1994 two finger pier concept. If you look at the plans for that concept, they're only adding gates, but where are the additional landside facilities to support all those new gates? Even with a West Terminal infill project, that wouldn't be adding enough new ticket counter/baggage carousels to support 20+ new gates.

The city could enter into a lease with a term of up to 40 years?!? This doesn't seem to bode well for the construction of a new south terminal!

The city isn't spending any money on the budget terminal.. All they're doing is leasing the land and Highstar Capital is responsible for all the improvements. The city gets money from leasing the land, as well as a portion of the concessions sales and all of the landing fees and PFC's.

The budget terminal is nowhere near where they would be planning the new Unit Terminal to the south. Phase 1 would be 11 new gates. Phase 2 adds another 10 gates. Even if they went ahead and built one of the two midfield concourses, the budget terminal wouldn't be in the way of that. If and when they built a second midfield concourse, then yes - the budget terminal would be in the way. But I don't think we're going to be building a second midfield terminal anytime in the next 40 years, so I'm not really understanding your concern about this.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

The only way that plan would work is if we were a major connecting hub and 50% or more of total passengers were staying in the sterile (gates) part of the airport. I was reading some of the info in the bond package for the CONRAC garage. It said that 93% of those deplaning in Austin had Austin as their final destination and the other 7% were making a connection.
We're not a connecting hub. We're an O%D airport.

Thanks Captain Obvious. I had no idea that we were a O&D airport and not a connecting hub. Thanks for letting me know.

I also had no idea that there is a written rule that adding 11-20 more gates (new terminal) to ABIA would require the airport to become a hub with 50% or more of the passengers connecting to other flights.

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

As such, I doubt very seriously that that ABIA is going with the original 1994 two finger pier concept. If you look at the plans for that concept, they're only adding gates, but where are the additional landside facilities to support all those new gates? Even with a West Terminal infill project, that wouldn't be adding enough new ticket counter/baggage carousels to support 20+ new gates.

Yes, I would tend to agree with your assessment.

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

The city isn't spending any money on the budget terminal.. All they're doing is leasing the land and Highstar Capital is responsible for all the improvements. The city gets money from leasing the land, as well as a portion of the concessions sales and all of the landing fees and PFC's.

Again, thank you CO. I don't believe that anywhere in my comment did I infer that the city was to pay for anything toward the opening and operating of the "budget terminal."

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

The budget terminal is nowhere near where they would be planning the new Unit Terminal to the south. Phase 1 would be 11 new gates. Phase 2 adds another 10 gates. Even if they went ahead and built one of the two midfield concourses, the budget terminal wouldn't be in the way of that. If and when they built a second midfield concourse, then yes - the budget terminal would be in the way.

Yes, you are correct. The "budget terminal" is not in an area where a possible, new terminal would be constructed. However, one thing you failed to consider is the fact that should construction commence on a new southern terminal, access to the "budget terminal" would more than likely be severed.

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

I'm not really understanding your concern about this.

You don't have to understand my "concern." As I stated...it was a question. But, thank you anyway.