AUSTIN | ABIA Updates - Page 235

Austin1971 · #**4681** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 2:24 PM**

G

ILUVSAT · #**4682** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freerover

I'll keep updating this as the meeting goes on.

-October 9th will have final plan to Airport Commission

Phase 1 Expansion 2027)
-21.7 Million Passengers, AO 287K, 48 Gates
-Future Terminal over the existing short term garage directly north of BJ Terminal
-Future island concourse but only about 20 gates. It'll be mostly symmetrical with a future western extension in the future. Catwalk from BJ terminal to new concourse will be about 80 feet high

Wait. There will be 34 gates in the main terminal when the new expansion opens. If you add a 20-gate satellite concourse, that's 54 gates. Will the "catwalk" force the elimination of 6 gates in the old/current terminal building?

ILUVSAT · #**4683** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 3:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrum23

Looks like AUS won’t be getting a DL TATL flight for next year. There was a big annoucement today where they added TPA-AMS and some new frequencies, but nothing for AUS.

Oh well......

Huh? Oh well? That doesn't mean AUS will not be getting something.

ILUVSAT · #**4684** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

It still seems like they are undercutting growth, unless they expect a significant slowdown because at the current rate we are going, we will reach 21 million well before 2027.

I thought I read/heard somewhere that the FAA limits the percentage growth one could assume in creating long-term plans for U.S. airports.

_Matt · #**4685** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 4:37 PM**

At least 4, maybe 5-6 gates would be eliminated for the bridge.

khowaga · #**4686** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 4:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Huh? Oh well? That doesn't mean AUS will not be getting something.

It is entirely possible that a TATL might not be in the first wave of additional service that DL announces, especially if there isn’t a firm completion date on the expansion yet.

After all, Uzbekistan Air hasn’t announced their hub service to Montevideo, Port au Prince, and Tashkent 7x daily on the A380, so maybe they’re waiting to see ...

ILUVSAT · #**4687** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrum23

They were billing the annoucement as their Summer 2019 blockbuster, so it sure doesn’t look like it will happen.

I don't think an AUS-AMS route would be considered a "blockbuster." Furthermore, the route may only be served 2-3 times a week and may not even be year round.

So, it's still not eliminated from possibility.

ILUVSAT · #**4688** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Matt

At least 4, maybe 5-6 gates would be eliminated for the bridge.

It looks like there are 7 gates removed. If you look at it, there are 27 gates in the BJT and 34 in the satellite concourse. Also, you could add a few more gates to the satellite if you expand into the RON areas to the east and west.

Austin1971 · #**4689** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 9:43 PM**

[QUOTE=Adrum23;8290029]If DL does AMS or CDG, it most certainly will be year round and daily or near daily. BA runs a 747 and a 77W on their route, AUS can handle an additional daily year round TATL flight.

Y

freerover · #**4690** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Great info Freeover. Thanks

No Problem. Also, plans go to City Council on Nov 1 and then to the FAA for review and approval on Nov 15th.

For the record, the new concourse won't go that Far East. It'll pretty much dead end at the same spot as BJ did before the east expansion. The 2027 plan has the west end at almost the same as the east and the 2037 plan extends the concourse further west than BJ.

I have photos of the new diagrams but airport staff asked me not to post them online.

Austin1971 · #**4691** Posted **Aug 22, 2018, 11:31 PM**

[QUOTE=freerover;8290092]No Problem. Also, plans go to City Council on Nov 1 and then to the FAA for review and approval on Nov 15th.

F

freerover · #**4692** Posted **Aug 23, 2018, 1:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrum23

1. Is there even enough room to go further than the current terminal to the west.

Yes, but there would be no gates on the west edge. The building would go all the way to the new taxiway for the new runway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrum23

2. Could they build an eastern extension to match the east end of the current terminal if necessary?

I don't think so because of needed detention ponds but I'm not sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrum23

3. How many gates on the existing terminal will have to be removed when the bridge is built?

5 gates will be lost. This is a LONG bridge so it's going to require structural supports that will jut out from the existing terminal footprint. I imagine they don't want planes within a wing's distance of those supports.

freerover · #**4693** Posted **Aug 23, 2018, 2:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrum23

Not going to lie, this sounds awful. A satellite that has to be connected above ground via a bridge that will impede aircraft movement and is limited in expansion due to retention pond issues. This will not be a very flexible plan for sure.

They seriously cannot do a tunnel why?

The bridge is going to be REALLY tall so planes can pass under it so it doesn't hinder traffic. That is why they are going with this design. It would just hinder planes from parking next to it.

They don't want to tunnel because there is water everywhere over there. It's possible to do but it would be very very difficult and slow. I'm sure it would add a lot of time to the construction period.

I forgot to mention that they still want to do the west infill. I assume that is something they can do relevantly soon since they've known they were going to do it for 20 years. Hopefully it's already designed.

ATCZERO · #**4694** Posted **Aug 23, 2018, 2:44 AM**

When they were digging the recently finished water retention and treatment pond they dug down 50 feet and hit the water table. Tunneling would be very difficult.

Austin1971 · #**4695** Posted **Aug 23, 2018, 3:06 AM**

[QUOTE=Adrum23;8290341]Not going to lie, this sounds awful. A satellite that has to be connected above ground via a bridge that will impede aircraft movement and is limited in expansion due to retention pond issues. This will not be a very flexible plan for sure.

T

the Genral · #**4696** Posted **Aug 23, 2018, 3:09 AM**

And yet a tunnel was dug under the English Channel...

GoldenBoot · #**4697** Posted **Aug 23, 2018, 3:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrum23

I see. And I’m assuming they won’t be able to build new concourses further south if needed?

You assume incorrect. Future satellites can be constructed to the south. And, the reason they are going with the catwalk to connect the BJT to the new concourse has already been mentioned - its cheaper and quicker to construct. A tunnel is definitely constructible, but it would take too much time and a heck of a lot of money to complete. They want this next phase of the expansion to be built and operational in short order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrum23

I guess this design kills any chance of a connecting hub operation.

No. It does not. What will is the lack of an airline wanting to develop a hub at AUS.

khowaga · #**4698** Posted **Aug 23, 2018, 11:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

And yet a tunnel was dug under the English Channel...

A century after it was first proposed!

Sigaven · #**4699** Posted **Aug 23, 2018, 2:24 PM**

I hope the bridge is a really cool cable-stayed design or something - imagine seeing or going under a really cool stunning bridge while pulling up to your gate!

freerover · #**4700** Posted **Aug 24, 2018, 1:50 AM**

Yea sorry, I would post the diagrams but the staffer who asked I not was really nice.