The board agenda for tomorrow mentions special guests and also a modification to the air service incentive program. Any ideas what those are about?

Edit: Link:
http://www.flymsy.com/Files/Publications/SeptemberBoardAgenda.pdf

DJSNOLA...Pretty much equivalent to Southwest. Better leg room, but no other frills.

msycajun wrote:

The board agenda for tomorrow mentions special guests and also a modification to the air service incentive program. Any ideas what those are about?

Edit: Link:
http://www.flymsy.com/Files/Publications/SeptemberBoardAgenda.pdf

It may be related to the Virgin America flight starting today. I guess we'll find out this afternoon.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VRD1 ... /KSFO/KMSY

NolaMD88fan wrote:

msycajun wrote:

The board agenda for tomorrow mentions special guests and also a modification to the air service incentive program. Any ideas what those are about?

Edit: Link:
http://www.flymsy.com/Files/Publications/SeptemberBoardAgenda.pdf

It may be related to the Virgin America flight starting today. I guess we'll find out this afternoon.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VRD1 ... /KSFO/KMSY

My guess was VA too.

msyflyer wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

msycajun wrote:

The board agenda for tomorrow mentions special guests and also a modification to the air service incentive program. Any ideas what those are about?

Edit: Link:
http://www.flymsy.com/Files/Publications/SeptemberBoardAgenda.pdf

It may be related to the Virgin America flight starting today. I guess we'll find out this afternoon.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VRD1 ... /KSFO/KMSY

My guess was VA too.

I had forgotten about that, makes sense. That being said, I wonder if they really plan on sending officials out for every new route, given they've announced so many. And I wonder if the air service incentive item is related at all. Perhaps they intend to announce a new route, maybe PDX, SAN or SJC to preempt WN.

msycajun wrote:

msyflyer wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

It may be related to the Virgin America flight starting today. I guess we'll find out this afternoon.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VRD1 ... /KSFO/KMSY

My guess was VA too.

I had forgotten about that, makes sense. That being said, I wonder if they really plan on sending officials out for every new route, given they've announced so many. And I wonder if the air service incentive item is related at all. Perhaps they intend to announce a new route, maybe PDX, SAN or SJC to preempt WN.

that would definitely make more sense... is it a VA person or Alaskan that would be there

msyflyer wrote:

My guess was VA too.

DJSNOLA wrote:

is it a VA person

As much as I'd love to see Virgin Australia serve NOLA, that's never going to happen in a trillion years.... you're getting VX, not VA.

Why would modifying the incentive program have anything to do with Virgin America?

LAX772LR wrote:

msyflyer wrote:

My guess was VA too.

DJSNOLA wrote:

is it a VA person

As much as I'd love to see Virgin Australia serve NOLA, that's never going to happen in a trillion years.... you're getting VX, not VA.

hahah oops

Nola wrote:

Why would modifying the incentive program have anything to do with Virgin America?

it may not at all just conjecture that modifying the incentive program may be done at the same time new service is announced that would use that modified incentive program

LAX772LR wrote:

msyflyer wrote:

My guess was VA too.

DJSNOLA wrote:

is it a VA person

As much as I'd love to see Virgin Australia serve NOLA, that's never going to happen in a trillion years.... you're getting VX, not VA.

Damn! I didn't even catch that! (It was early morning)

June data for domestic routes and March data for international routes has been calculated. Overall, the airport had a domestic load factor of 84.1% in June and 81.6% year to date. The overall international load factor in March was 83.8%, and the year to date load factor was 78.2%.

Domestically, the route with the highest load factor in June was the MSY-DEN route flown by F9 with a load factor of 97.9%. The lowest load factor was flown on the GLO MSY-HSV route with a load factor of 19.4%. Year to date, the highest load factor was WN's MSY-LAX route with a load factor of 94.1%. The lowest year to date load factor was GLO's MSY-HSV route at 26.9%.

Internationally, BA started service in late March to LHR. The route had a load factor of 65.9% on those first few days of flying. AC had a 89.5% load factor, and CM had a 76.9% load factor. Even DL had a good month to CUN with a load factor of 78.0% thanks to Spring Break.

(Domestic)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19PfjR6hYCFDPcv6qhpAqs8JpN3_RRF85c2xiYRv3g98/edit?usp=sharing

(International)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yepoGdibyiVsViWrjIcouvFnmdUNzhYuBiOo9bBPV8Y/edit?usp=sharing

Here some pics of the VX arrival from SFO today courtesy of the airport FB page.







Also, GLO is officially out of business. No surprise to anyone here given the terrible loads they had. Tough to make money when the plane is only a third full.

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2017/09/glo_airline_bankrupt_new_orlea.html

NolaMD88fan wrote:

Here some pics of the VX arrival from SFO today courtesy of the airport FB page.

Also, GLO is officially out of business. No surprise to anyone here given the terrible loads they had. Tough to make money when the plane is only a third full.

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2017/09/glo_airline_bankrupt_new_orlea.html

GLO gave it a good shot but that business model is just really hard to do especially if you arent code sharing or subsidized by the government. I would like to see the state try something to incentivize a flight though between shreveport and nola and maybe monroe and nola.

Airports Council North America finally released 2016 stats. In terms of North America (Canada, Alaska, and mainland US), MSY remained the 41st busiest airport in terms of passengers. In the world, MSY was the 175th busiest airport which is a drop from 166th last year due to the insane growth of Asian airports.

http://www.aci-na.org/content/airport-traffic-reports

NolaMD88fan wrote:

Airports Council North America finally released 2016 stats. In terms of North America (Canada, Alaska, and mainland US), MSY remained the 41st busiest airport in terms of passengers. In the world, MSY was the 175th busiest airport which is a drop from 166th last year due to the insane growth of Asian airports.

http://www.aci-na.org/content/airport-traffic-reports

getting into the top 40 in the continent should be possible especially with the new terminal

I'm looking at a few F9 flights and they're connecting people through MSY, a good example is the SAT-MCO flight that runs on days where the nonstop isn't available.

DJSNOLA wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

Airports Council North America finally released 2016 stats. In terms of North America (Canada, Alaska, and mainland US), MSY remained the 41st busiest airport in terms of passengers. In the world, MSY was the 175th busiest airport which is a drop from 166th last year due to the insane growth of Asian airports.

http://www.aci-na.org/content/airport-traffic-reports

getting into the top 40 in the continent should be possible especially with the new terminal

I'm not sure I agree. Nos. 37-39 are HOU, AUS and OAK, each of which has a higher growth rate than MSY (in addition to metro areas that are a lot stronger). In addition, Nos. 42 (RDU), 43 (MCI), 44 (SJC) all have higher growth rates as well. Most of these growth rates are double MSYs. If anything, the new terminal will keep MSY competitive by offering reasonable costs to airlines to keep fares lower than average in the US, while offering a much better experience. But until MSY metro area starts strong economic growth, the growth of the airport will be hindered.

September Construction Update Posted:
http://www.flymsy.com/Images/Interior/business%20opportunities/long_term_airport_development/09%202017%20board%20updatev2.pdf

You can start to see the scale of (International) concourse A. It is quite long!

jbs2886 wrote:

I'm not sure I agree. Nos. 37-39 are HOU, AUS and OAK, each of which has a higher growth rate than MSY (in addition to metro areas that are a lot stronger). In addition, Nos. 42 (RDU), 43 (MCI), 44 (SJC) all have higher growth rates as well.

Sure, but that also shows the flaw in looking at growth rates for a single point in time.

With the exception of OAK, all of the above have been both higher and lower in annual throughput than MSY post 2001. Some have fluctuated multiple times: which isn't unexpected, as airports often experience double-digit growth one year, then face stagnation (or even regression), then grow again.

There's more to it than whose economy is doing what, or who has what growth rate at any given time.

Going back to 2006 which is as far back as the ACI data is published shows that OAK, MCI, and SJC have seen negative to basically no growth over the past decade. HOU and AUS have both seen very impressive growth over the last 10 years. RDU has seen modest growth. None of these airports comes close to the growth MSY has seen in the last decade.

Additonally, through June of this year, MSY has seen pax traffic grow by 5.6%. For the same period of time, HOU grew by 5.9%, AUS grew by 9.3%, OAK grew by 9.2%, MCI grew by 5.2%; RDU grew by 5.6%; and SJC grew by 14.2%. Thus, there should no change in rank for MSY, OAK, AUS or HOU. I do see SJC moving up ahead of MCI and RDU to be 42nd busiest N. American airport in 2017.

Of course, it will be tough to move into the top 40 as long as OAK and AUS continue to grow at decent rates. They will always be just outpacing us as has been the case the last few years.

Airport.........2006 Pax..........2016 Pax............% change
HOU...........8,549,289.........12,909,075.............+51.0%
AUS...........8,261,310..........12,436,849.............+50.5%
OAK.........14,692,875..........12,070,967.............-17.8%
MSY............6,218,419........11,365,487..............+82.8%
RDU............9,422,112.......11,049,143...............+17.3%
MCI...........11,237,480........11,041,767.................-1.7%
SJC...........10,708,065.......10,796,725................+0.8%

msycajun wrote:

September Construction Update Posted:
http://www.flymsy.com/Images/Interior/business%20opportunities/long_term_airport_development/09%202017%20board%20updatev2.pdf

You can start to see the scale of (International) concourse A. It is quite long!

Wow, that is one long concourse, but needed if there are going to be multiple widebody aircraft arriving around the same time. This has happened before, and will likely happen again due to either one off cruise charters like last Christmas or weather diversions at IAH.

NolaMD88fan wrote:

Going back to 2006 which is as far back as the ACI data is published shows that OAK, MCI, and SJC have seen negative to basically no growth over the past decade. HOU and AUS have both seen very impressive growth over the last 10 years. RDU has seen modest growth. None of these airports comes close to the growth MSY has seen in the last decade.

Additonally, through June of this year, MSY has seen pax traffic grow by 5.6%. For the same period of time, HOU grew by 5.9%, AUS grew by 9.3%, OAK grew by 9.2%, MCI grew by 5.2%; RDU grew by 5.6%; and SJC grew by 14.2%. Thus, there should no change in rank for MSY, OAK, AUS or HOU. I do see SJC moving up ahead of MCI and RDU to be 42nd busiest N. American airport in 2017.

Of course, it will be tough to move into the top 40 as long as OAK and AUS continue to grow at decent rates. They will always be just outpacing us as has been the case the last few years.

Airport.........2006 Pax..........2016 Pax............% change
HOU...........8,549,289.........12,909,075.............+51.0%
AUS...........8,261,310..........12,436,849.............+50.5%
OAK.........14,692,875..........12,070,967.............-17.8%
MSY............6,218,419........11,365,487..............+82.8%
RDU............9,422,112.......11,049,143...............+17.3%
MCI...........11,237,480........11,041,767.................-1.7%
SJC...........10,708,065.......10,796,725................+0.8%

You can’t use 2006 as a base year for Nola traffic...of course we have seen dramatic growth since then as that was the bottom after Katrina.

Either way, with the exception of MCI, which I don’t know about, the other metros areas are simply stronger economically which generally translates into growth at the airport.

Ok...let's use since the Great Recession officially ended then...2011. Also, most of the Katrina diaspora that wanted to return had returned by that point. Still the second highest growth behind AUS since the great recession ended.

Airport............2011 Pax..............2016 Pax................% change
HOU..............9,843,302............12,909,075..................+31.2%
AUS..............9,080,875.............12,436,849.................+37.0%
OAK..............9,266,570.............12,070,967.................+30.3%
MSY...............8,546,890..............11,365,487................+33.0%
RDU..............9,161,259..............11,049,143................+20.6%
MCI..............10,400,854.............11,041,767..................+6.2%
SJC...............8,357,384..............10,796,725................+29.2%

NolaMD88fan wrote:

Ok...let's use since the Great Recession officially ended then...2011. Also, most of the Katrina diaspora that wanted to return had returned by that point. Still the second highest growth behind AUS since the great recession ended.

Airport............2011 Pax..............2016 Pax................% change
HOU..............9,843,302............12,909,075..................+31.2%
AUS..............9,080,875.............12,436,849.................+37.0%
OAK..............9,266,570.............12,070,967.................+30.3%
MSY...............8,546,890..............11,365,487................+33.0%
RDU..............9,161,259..............11,049,143................+20.6%
MCI..............10,400,854.............11,041,767..................+6.2%
SJC...............8,357,384..............10,796,725................+29.2%

Here is a better indicator of recent growth (2015-2017)

The 6th highest O&D growth rate, not too shabby. MSY is definitely holding it's own compared to peer airports. Further bolstering my thoughts that the airport will easily retain it's rank as 41st busiest in N. America this year. It looks like the airport could move ahead of STL in terms of O&D pax if those trends continue. Of course, STL has far more total pax since it's a defacto connecting hub for WN now.

I wonder what effect the new terminal will have given how much better it will be for connections. WN and NK seem to be poised to grow a lot once it opens.

msycajun wrote:

I wonder what effect the new terminal will have given how much better it will be for connections. WN and NK seem to be poised to grow a lot once it opens.

thats the thing our airport is the worst for connections save for maybe southwest

NolaMD88fan wrote:

The 6th highest O&D growth rate, not too shabby. MSY is definitely holding it's own compared to peer airports. Further bolstering my thoughts that the airport will easily retain it's rank as 41st busiest in N. America this year. It looks like the airport could move ahead of STL in terms of O&D pax if those trends continue. Of course, STL has far more total pax since it's a defacto connecting hub for WN now.

isnt our new director from st louis airport?

He worked there back in the early 2000's, and then he worked at SAT for a few years. Both pretty big WN stations.

The new terminal will definitely make connecting very easy, and that will serve to benefit both NK and WN.

jbs2886 wrote:

the other metros areas are simply stronger economically which generally translates into growth at the airport.

Again, no, it actually doesn't. Especially for int'l service, where it's barely correlated at all.

It's not as clear-cut as you might surmise. There's too many other inherent factors.

LAX772LR wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

the other metros areas are simply stronger economically which generally translates into growth at the airport.

Again, no, it actually doesn't. Especially for int'l service, where it's barely correlated at all.

It's not as clear-cut as you might surmise. There's too many other inherent factors.

if one were to go by sheer size of a metro san antonio is way off its size and las vegas is way overperforming.. there are many other factors at play

msycajun wrote:

You can start to see the scale of (International) concourse A.

It doesn't appear to have changed at all since the last update. Nothing really new to see.

LAX772LR wrote:

msycajun wrote:

You can start to see the scale of (International) concourse A.

It doesn't appear to have changed at all since the last update. Nothing really new to see.

Agreed. Was there back in August and thought they'd have made some more progress in a 6 weeks. How late is this terminal going to be; what's the 'new' official opening timeline?

Also, what airlines are going to serve the new terminal, and who's staying behind at the old one? Southwest, Spirit, etc I'm guessing?

DJSNOLA wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

The 6th highest O&D growth rate, not too shabby. MSY is definitely holding it's own compared to peer airports. Further bolstering my thoughts that the airport will easily retain it's rank as 41st busiest in N. America this year. It looks like the airport could move ahead of STL in terms of O&D pax if those trends continue. Of course, STL has far more total pax since it's a defacto connecting hub for WN now.

isnt our new director from st louis airport?

Yes

DJSNOLA wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

the other metros areas are simply stronger economically which generally translates into growth at the airport.

Again, no, it actually doesn't. Especially for int'l service, where it's barely correlated at all.

It's not as clear-cut as you might surmise. There's too many other inherent factors.

if one were to go by sheer size of a metro san antonio is way off its size and las vegas is way overperforming.. there are many other factors at play

Lol, I'm aware there are a number of factors and its not clear cut nor a one for one comparable. My point is that while MSY has done well and will continue to do well, its not growing so dramatically as to overtake other airports.

ORDfan wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

msycajun wrote:

You can start to see the scale of (International) concourse A.

It doesn't appear to have changed at all since the last update. Nothing really new to see.

Agreed. Was there back in August and thought they'd have made some more progress in a 6 weeks. How late is this terminal going to be; what's the 'new' official opening timeline?

Also, what airlines are going to serve the new terminal, and who's staying behind at the old one? Southwest, Spirit, etc I'm guessing?

Official timeline is Feb. 2019 for completion. The construction schedule is on track. Aerials show quite a bit was done over those 6 weeks. A large portion of the new ramp has been completed, significantly more roof decking on the main terminal and one of the concourses, steel framing going up on the other concourse, most of the pile driving looks complete for the international concourse, more of the parking deck on the northside is complete. Considering how much rain fell in August (15.77 inches at the airport), that's a good bit of progress.

All of the airlines are headed over to the new terminal. The old terminal will mostly be demolished except for concourse D which will retrofitted into airport offices. The newer rotunda at the end of D will be used for occasional one-off charter flights.

NolaMD88fan wrote:

All of the airlines are headed over to the new terminal. The old terminal will mostly be demolished except for concourse D which will retrofitted into airport offices. The newer rotunda at the end of D will be used for occasional one-off charter flights.

Indeed, such is the current plan.

I still would not be surprised if, at the rate the airport's been growing over the last few years, some airline(s) end up in the rotunda permanently, before the new terminal can complete a Concourse D.

Granted, that'll likely be quite some time from now, but I wouldn't bet against it.

For those saying that the A concourse is showing quick progress and is quite long, you're probably seeing the roadway that is running next to it. The A concourse is about a year behind the other two and is just finishing the Pile Driving stage. It's not that long ans only has about 5-6 gates (depending on which set of blueprints you happen to be looking at).

LightningZ71 wrote:

For those saying that the A concourse is showing quick progress and is quite long, you're probably seeing the roadway that is running next to it. The A concourse is about a year behind the other two and is just finishing the Pile Driving stage. It's not that long ans only has about 5-6 gates (depending on which set of blueprints you happen to be looking at).

the ones i saw show it going all the way to the end so looks very long to me

Something else to consider about MSY's growth is that a MSY was in a growth spurt prior to Katrina. MSY showed growth the previous two years with 2004 being a record year. 2005 was on pace to be another record year and cross 10 million pax. Msy didn't cross that threshold until 2015. Katrina hindered what looked like the airports natural growth and it's probable that MSY would larger today without the effects of Katrina.

DJSNOLA...where can I find the plans you are posting at? Can't seem to find on the airport webpage.

LAX772LR wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

All of the airlines are headed over to the new terminal. The old terminal will mostly be demolished except for concourse D which will retrofitted into airport offices. The newer rotunda at the end of D will be used for occasional one-off charter flights.

Indeed, such is the current plan.

I still would not be surprised if, at the rate the airport's been growing over the last few years, some airline(s) end up in the rotunda permanently, before the new terminal can complete a Concourse D.

Granted, that'll likely be quite some time from now, but I wouldn't bet against it.

Yes. The South Terminal would be a good fit for WN if they kept most of the gates active instead of converting some gate areas to offices. The only problem would be that there is no sterile corridor on Concourse D.

In looking at the AF fleet, it doesn't look like they have a plane that would be efficient serving MSY, although perhaps when they receive A350's they can shift some 777's around.

https://travelcodex.com/hub-routes-flee ... l+Codex%29

[twoid][/twoid]

Nola wrote:

In looking at the AF fleet, it doesn't look like they have a plane that would be efficient serving MSY, although perhaps when they receive A350's they can shift some 777's around.

https://travelcodex.com/hub-routes-flee ... l+Codex%29

A332 would be the appropriate size if they started the route - it’s the size of a 763 basically.

Guess wrote:

MSY showed growth the previous two years with 2004 being a record year.

No, the airport handled more pax in 2000 than it did in 2004, with over 9.9million.
2001 was well on its way to breaking 10million, but for the obvious.

That said, it was in a fairly strong growth pattern. WN, for example, took until this year to equal the high of its pre-K schedule.

Nola wrote:

In looking at the AF fleet, it doesn't look like they have a plane that would be efficient serving MSY, although perhaps when they receive A350's they can shift some 777's around.

AF has both A332s and 789s.

NolaMD88fan wrote:

DJSNOLA...where can I find the plans you are posting at? Can't seem to find on the airport webpage.

Those plans were in the citys capital expenditure presentation and also in the second environmental impact

DJSNOLA wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

DJSNOLA...where can I find the plans you are posting at? Can't seem to find on the airport webpage.

Those plans were in the citys capital expenditure presentation and also in the second environmental impact

Ah...ok thanks.

[url][/url]

NolaMD88fan wrote:

DJSNOLA wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

DJSNOLA...where can I find the plans you are posting at? Can't seem to find on the airport webpage.

Those plans were in the citys capital expenditure presentation and also in the second environmental impact

Ah...ok thanks.

Ill post another photo that shows how long terminal a will be ... hope they consider putting in a moving walkway