AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[jngreenlee]

Just for fun, what if SAT and AUS had a high-speed rail link for transfers and SAT focused on domestic flights, with AUS become the long-haul hub?

Are they just too far apart, or could a LGA-JFK type of relationship exist?

I presume the rail would have to provide the connection under an hour behind security, or under 30 minutes outside of security.

[Austin1971]

Wi

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

I don't see SA getting any long-haul flights anytime soon. ABIA had more than a million more passengers last year than SA and I expect that number to continue to grow.

I believe it was closer to two million more passengers (8MM vs. 10MM). Also, SA's longest runway (currently) is ~8,500' (~500' shorter than Austin's shortest). This may hinder fully-loaded, long-haul routes departing out of SAT.

Austin has had more PAX than SAT for many, many years. It is just recently that ABIA seems to be slowly widening the gap.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by texboy

Not Necessarily true. There are many cities that are close together like AUS/SAT that both have international flights (i.e Charlotte/Raleigh, San Fran/San Jose) and cities with two or three airports with international destinations (Houston-Hobby 2015, NY). SAT I believe could support an international flight in the future because of the fact that Austin and SA airports are over an hour apart from each other. I would bet the majority of passengers out of SAT flying internationally are not going to drive up to ABIA, but instead take the transfer in Houston or Dallas. Too much of a hassle. Also remember, the tech base as well as several other industries are growing in San Antonio. That will eventually translate into more international passengers.

People that live in SA already drive to ABIA and have been for awhile. I know a couple of people recently who traveled VIA ABIA because they wanted to take advantage of a domestic direct flight that SAT does not have. It is not that far when you consider that many people live 2 to 3 hours away from a major airport and have to drive that far to fly. I wouldn't say is always more convenient to fly to Houston or Dallas and transfer either. That in itself can be a hassle and stressful. The times I had to transfer at DFW I hated it. If I had an option not to deal with transfers, I'd take it.

Another thing that others have mentioned already is passenger demand and existing infrastructure which clearly ABIA has an edge on.

I should have worded my first post differently as it was not meant to be a jab at SAT, but considering what it takes to get any non hub direct flight let alone a transatlantic route and the market research, demographics, demand ect,... ABIA is just simply positioned better.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by texboy

Not Necessarily true. There are many cities that are close together like AUS/SAT that both have international flights (i.e Charlotte/Raleigh, San Fran/San Jose) and cities with two or three airports with international destinations (Houston-Hobby 2015, NY). SAT I believe could support an international flight in the future because of the fact that Austin and SA airports are over an hour apart from each other...

Good points. However, those "secondary" airports offer a mere fraction of the international flights as their neighbors. For example: CLT serves several international destinations while RDU serves LHR and seasonal flights to Cancún; SFO offers several long-haul international destinations while SJC serves two cities in Mexico, NRT and long-haul domestic flights to Hawaii; and IAH, as you know, serves several international destinations while Hobby may begin serving cities in the Caribbean basin, Central America and possibly Bogotá,COL.

For SAT to garner a long-haul route(s), one thing they will need to do is increase the demand for a flight. Two, they will need to lengthen and strengthen at least one of their runways to support a fully loaded, wide body aircraft departure. Currently, their longest runway equates to the minimum standard for long-haul routes.

SAT: 2 concrete runways of ~8,500 and one asphalt one of ~5,500'

For comparison...
AUS: 1 concrete runway of 12,500' and another concrete one of 9,000'
SJC: 2 concrete runways of 11,000'
RDU: 1 concrete runway of 10,000' and an asphalt one of 7,500'

If SAT were to land a long-haul route in its current state, I would safely guess that their long-haul flight capability would be "restricted" (possibly "very restricted").

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

http://www.statesman.com/news/busine...orating/nfy49/

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Article said that cargo loads both to and from ABIA are 90-95 percent full on the BA flight . Jim Smith, Airport Director, said that ABIA is currently pursuing a trans-pacific route and that the success or failure of the BA flight will directly determine if/when a flight to Asia occurs. Very positive article and the prospects look very good.

If anyone wants to read the whole article, it was posted in full here

[Hancock92]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

If anyone wants to read the whole article, it was posted in full here

Thanks for posting that. Very good read. Pretty exciting that the London route is so successful. Can't wait for a trans-pac flight.

[Austin1971]

H

[Austin1971]

[q

[sammyk]

Hopefully it's Westjet. I would imagine Air Canada would just codeshare with their Star partners.

On a side note, I saw what looked like a KC-10 tanker on the cargo ramp this morning around 8AM.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Update......

BA will be upgauging to the 777 sometime this fall.......This Monday, the 9th, the 777 might pays us a visit. Not confirmed yet...

Is it safe to assume the BA 777 which would be flying the route would be their B772ER? I would be very surprised (pleasantly) if it is their B773ER.

Also, have you heard if it will be daily or only on those days in which load factors are the greatest?

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

...Also don't be surprised if a Canadian carrier makes a return to the port in the near future. Don't know which one, Air Canada or Westjet I would presume, but they have made inquiries...

I would believe it is safe to say someone is trying to reopen the Toronto route again...considering the city was the second most popular international destinations of passengers to and from ABIA in 2011 (according to data provided by Brookings).

Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal (respectively) are the other Canadian cities in the Top 10. However, the amount of passengers traveling between these cities may not warrant a nonstop...at least in 2011. Vancouver was No. 5 on the list with less than half of the travelers Toronto had (e.g., the Toronto route had ~130% more travelers than did the Vancouver route).

Interesting...Seoul, who was No. 4 on the list had 83% more travelers than did Vancouver at No. 5 (and growing). Quite an gap developing...

[Jdawgboy]

I'm not surprised at these latest developments. News that BA was coming to Austin shot around the globe through aviation media outlets. They became the barometer and now that the results are coming out stellar, many other international carriers will want to jump in. I would imagine ABIA officials will want to double down and speed up construction if possible.

[GoldenBoot]

There is a distinct possibility that they may want to add another swing gate or two to the expansion (whether outfitting one of the seven new gates or develop completely new ones). I think four swing gates would be nice.

Any European routes will most likely be arriving and departing around the same time...so the availability to handle at least two wide body jets would be very nice. There is also a Cancún flight that currently arrives at the roughly the same time as the BA flight. Asian bound flights will most likely be scheduled to depart around the noon hour (or thereabouts).



How many passengers will the new FIS facility be able to handle per hour when complete?

[DoubleC]

Monday the ninth you say? If it does come by, I wonder if it'll still use runway 17L. The 787 and 777 aren't too incredibly different in terms of size.

Are the flights on the current 787 full in terms of passengers though? I thought someone mentioned the planes were only about 70% full. Then again, cargo has been a key player with the route.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by DoubleC

Monday the ninth you say? If it does come by, I wonder if it'll still use runway 17L. The 787 and 777 aren't too incredibly different in terms of size.

Are the flights on the current 787 full in terms of passengers though? I thought someone mentioned the planes were only about 70% full. Then again, cargo has been a key player with the route.

BA load factor for March was 84% (cargo loads were averaging upwards of 95% per flight). No word on April or May yet (at least publicly).

The B772 is quite a bit bigger than the B788. The B773 is a bit longer than an A388.

The B788 is roughly the size of a B763.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

BA load factor for March was 84% (cargo loads were averaging upwards of 95% per flight).

BA load factor in March was 79.8% by my calculations

see this post

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

How many passengers will the new FIS facility be able to handle per hour when complete?

600 per hour

see page 2 at this link

[danny1010]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

BA load factor for March was 84% (cargo loads were averaging upwards of 95% per flight). No word on April or May yet (at least publicly).

The B772 is quite a bit bigger than the B788. The B773 is a bit longer than an A388.

The B788 is roughly the size of a B763.

Agreed. Based on BA's current configurations, the 788 seats 214, while a 772 seats 275. Their 773s seat 299, but I agree that I can't imagine them flying those birds here.

I'm curious to see if this is only for higher demand dates/days of the week or are they upgauging the whole schedule. Going to 777 service will be a shout heard around the world that Austin is an international destination.

Part of me thinks that upping the frequency and keeping Dreamliner service would be the best option. That's twice the capacity but doesn't have everyone hitting customs all at one time. Plus we can keep the Dreamliner's cool factor. Just don't know if BA has the additional 787s to spare.

Either option would give more seats and help nudge airfare down (or award seat availability up), so all of it would be win-win for us.

[Speculator]

Originally Posted by danny1010

Agreed. Based on BA's current configurations, the 788 seats 214, while a 772 seats 275. Their 773s seat 299, but I agree that I can't imagine them flying those birds here.

I'm curious to see if this is only for higher demand dates/days of the week or are they upgauging the whole schedule. Going to 777 service will be a shout heard around the world that Austin is an international destination.

Part of me thinks that upping the frequency and keeping Dreamliner service would be the best option. That's twice the capacity but doesn't have everyone hitting customs all at one time. Plus we can keep the Dreamliner's cool factor. Just don't know if BA has the additional 787s to spare.

Either option would give more seats and help nudge airfare down (or award seat availability up), so all of it would be win-win for us.

If BA upgauges it will be for summer travel only and maybe for ACL or SXSW. BA has limited 78s- they've taken 4 last I checked, but LHR-AUS is exactly what the 78 was designed for.