I think that I read somewhere that all of the gates at the new terminal would be setup for CUTE, but that some gates wouldn't flex as they are permanently assigned to a carrier.

LightningZ71 wrote:

I think that I read somewhere that all of the gates at the new terminal would be setup for CUTE, but that some gates wouldn't flex as they are permanently assigned to a carrier.

Could have something to do with that software update the announced a while ago so that every gate was standardized.

jbs2886 wrote:

LightningZ71 wrote:

I think that I read somewhere that all of the gates at the new terminal would be setup for CUTE, but that some gates wouldn't flex as they are permanently assigned to a carrier.

Could have something to do with that software update the announced a while ago so that every gate was standardized.

Somewhat related but bids for a new website are due this week too

From the OAG thread, UA is adding a second SFO flight in March and part of April. Makes for a nice schedule with one red-eye and one morning SFO-MSY and morning/evening MSY-SFO. Nice to see them making additions - they're down to fewer than 20 departures after the reduction in IAH banks. Maybe they'll find room to bring LAX back at some point.

Nice to see UA adding another frequency for a couple of months on the SFO route.

Also, UK CAA finally released September numbers, and they show the BA flight with a 75% load factor in September (assuming a 788 seat configuration). Given that Sept. is one of our slowest months for tourism, that is a really encouraging number. https://www.caa.co.uk/Data-and-analysis ... a-2017-09/

I knew September was going to be better than August for BA. I think you'll see October around 80%. Seriously if they can get 75% in September, they have to be happy.

SunsetLimited wrote:

Seriously if they can get 75% in September, they have to be happy.

Especially at the fares they charge!

LAX772LR wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

Seriously if they can get 75% in September, they have to be happy.

Especially at the fares they charge!

yes especially at those prices .. it aint cheap lol

DJSNOLA wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

Seriously if they can get 75% in September, they have to be happy.

Especially at the fares they charge!

yes especially at those prices .. it aint cheap lol

Still sorta surprised that they added Tuesday before Sunday, as well... very interesting to see how the demand for this service continues to unfold.

Also funny that it's only been around for 8months, seems like MSY's had this flight for years already.

LAX772LR wrote:

DJSNOLA wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Especially at the fares they charge!

yes especially at those prices .. it aint cheap lol

Still sorta surprised that they added Tuesday before Sunday, as well... very interesting to see how the demand for this service continues to unfold.

Also funny that it's only been around for 8months, seems like MSY's had this flight for years already.

Tuesday doesn't stay. It switches to Thursday in later schedules.

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2017/11/software_company_new_orleans_m.html
Big new tech office coming to the CBD. Hopefully will boost air service to places like SJC, FRA, and LHR near their other offices.

That is a huge economic win for New Orleans. I can't ever recall a 2,000-job announcement (and high paying at that) in my lifetime in the city proper. Over time it will absolutely drive more business traffic.

Game changer is the word I would use. I suspect we'll see BA going daily rather quickly, and that we'll see increased service to tech centers here in the US. Would not be shocked to see WN increase service to SJC.

LAX772LR wrote:

Especially at the fares they charge!

You can say that again, geez. I just purchased a flight to LHR for the spring of 2018. Read this thread and made a dummy booking from MSY for the same days and the fare was about $800 higher.

Obviously there's enough demand for people who would rather not deal with the hassle of self-connecting from the East Coast or stopping at ATL or JFK that BA can charge a premium for this route and still be successful. Kudos to them. Plus they so don't have to compete with VS or DY.
AUS was upgraded to a 744. If they keep it up you guys may eventually see one at MSY or the A35J.

Any idea how the DE fares rank relative to similar routings?

Metrocard wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Obviously there's enough demand for people who would rather not deal with the hassle of self-connecting from the East Coast or stopping at ATL or JFK that BA can charge a premium for this route and still be successful. Kudos to them. Plus they so don't have to compete with VS or DY.
AUS was upgraded to a 744. If they keep it up you guys may eventually see one at MSY or the A35J.

We won't know what the true demand is until if/when a competitor steps on the scene.

BA was perfectly happy with a 789 into AUS, until DU showed up... then suddenly, a 744.
Leapfrogged the low-F 77E, high-F 77E, and 77W.

Of course it could go the other way too: that they decide to drop the route if a competitor shows up.

Doubt it would happen, considering what they've been able to charge for a flight that's not even 8months old.... especially if it's just DU/DX with a twice weekly flight or something.

AUS and MSY are just apples and oranges when it comes to TALT. I bet we see BA go daily plus another european legacy carrier before we sniff a 747.

(and contrary to what my name says, I've been a proud new orleanian for four years now!)

steveAUS wrote:

AUS and MSY are just apples and oranges when it comes to TALT. I bet we see BA go daily plus another european legacy carrier before we sniff a 747.

(and contrary to what my name says, I've been a proud new orleanian for four years now!)

I always see people throw around legacy carrier with little explanation as to what and who that exactly means and is.

AF/KL are very loyal to SkyTeam hubs and large cities (as is the case with most legacy airlines and their alliances.) The smallest destination that KLM serves in the US is SLC, and the smallest non-skyteam hub is... Houston. The smallest Air France destination in the US is San Diego, which begins in 2018. Based on currently existing routes, the smallest destination in the US is Detroit, and the smallest non-skyteam hub is Houston.

Lufthansa's smallest market is Charlotte, which is very much so driven by their transatlantic competition with oneworld JV partners.

Aer Lingus's smallest US destination is Hartford, but that's very much the product of an experimental TATL flight from the eastern seaboard. Otherwise, beyond the eastern seaboard, Aer Lingus's smallest US destination is San Francisco, beginning in 2018.

SAS's smallest market in the US is Seattle, followed by Miami.

Everything else is out of the question. I'm not even going to explain why TAP Portugal isn't coming to MSY... I think that's hopefully understood in the first place. What makes you think that a legacy carrier is coming to MSY?

I don't get why people think places like STL, MSY, CMH, AUS, etc are in the works to see flights from european legacy carriers beyond British Airways. BA is certainly more experimental and operates out of the largest airline market in the world, which is what has been driving demand for these flights. Otherwise, its either going to be operated by Delta, or its not feasible.

I know that you were using it in jest, but a 747 is actually more likely in my opinion than another european legacy carrier.

jubguy3 wrote:

I always see people throw around legacy carrier with little explanation as to what and who that exactly means and is.

In terms of the USA, there's no actually question as to what that means:
the "legacy" being referred to is the possession of interstate operational authority granted prior to deregulation in 1978.

The four remaining (mainline) legacies are AA, DL, UA, and AS.
Pretty straightforward really.

jubguy3 wrote:

The smallest destination that KLM serves in the US is SLC, and the smallest non-skyteam hub is... Houston.

Neither of which is true.

That would be IAD, for either category.

jubguy3 wrote:

The smallest Air France destination in the US is San Diego, which begins in 2018.

Uh, do you know something that no one else (including SAN and AF) seems to know about??
AF has shown no interest whatsoever in SAN.

You're probably confusing it with LH, who has recently announced that gateway.....

jubguy3 wrote:

Based on currently existing routes, the smallest destination in the US is Detroit, and the smallest non-skyteam hub is Houston.

Again, incorrect.

You really need to realize that there's this airport called Dulles.

jubguy3 wrote:

Lufthansa's smallest market is Charlotte, which is very much so driven by their transatlantic competition with oneworld JV partners.

**BUZZ** Wrong again.

That would be TPA for year-round service, and SJC for seasonal.

jubguy3 wrote:

SAS's smallest market in the US is Seattle

Dude, SAS hasn't flown to Seattle in almost 9yrs.

jubguy3 wrote:

I don't get why people think places like STL, MSY, CMH, AUS, etc are in the works to see flights from european legacy carriers beyond British Airways.

I don't get why you're attempting to admonish anyone else, when you yourself don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

LAX772LR wrote:

Metrocard wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

BA was perfectly happy with a 789 into AUS, until DU showed up... then suddenly, a 744.
Leapfrogged the low-F 77E, high-F 77E, and 77W.

.

A big IAG Cargo contract requires more belly than the 789 can offer, simple enough really.

LAX772LR wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

I always see people throw around legacy carrier with little explanation as to what and who that exactly means and is.

In terms of the USA, there's no actually question as to what that means:
the "legacy" being referred to is the possession of interstate operational authority granted prior to deregulation in 1978.

The four remaining (mainline) legacies are AA, DL, UA, and AS.
Pretty straightforward really.

jubguy3 wrote:

The smallest destination that KLM serves in the US is SLC, and the smallest non-skyteam hub is... Houston.

Neither of which is true.

That would be IAD, for either category.

jubguy3 wrote:

The smallest Air France destination in the US is San Diego, which begins in 2018.

Uh, do you know something that no one else (including SAN and AF) seems to know about??
AF has shown no interest whatsoever in SAN.

You're probably confusing it with LH, who has recently announced that gateway.....

jubguy3 wrote:

Based on currently existing routes, the smallest destination in the US is Detroit, and the smallest non-skyteam hub is Houston.

Again, incorrect.

You really need to realize that there's this airport called Dulles.

Jubguy is right, IAD is in the 4th largest CSA in the entire US, so yes it is bigger in terms of size than Salt Lake City and Detroit. I don't know why you would base which destination is bigger based on how many pax the airport carries? Using that logic Atlanta is the largest destination in the US.....

random question but I assume the airlines are paying for aircraft refueling infrastructure for the new A Gates Terminal as well ? Just curious since there wasnt any confirmation of that and it would be silly not to just wondering if it was ever confirmed

LAX772LR wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

I always see people throw around legacy carrier with little explanation as to what and who that exactly means and is.

In terms of the USA, there's no actually question as to what that means:
the "legacy" being referred to is the possession of interstate operational authority granted prior to deregulation in 1978.

The four remaining (mainline) legacies are AA, DL, UA, and AS.
Pretty straightforward really.

Thanks, but I was referring to European carriers specifically. Look at the post I was responding too.

LAX772LR wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

The smallest destination that KLM serves in the US is SLC, and the smallest non-skyteam hub is... Houston.

Neither of which is true.

That would be IAD, for either category.

This is by Primary Statistical Area, not airport size. I don't remember SLC having 8 million people.

LAX772LR wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

The smallest Air France destination in the US is San Diego, which begins in 2018.

Uh, do you know something that no one else (including SAN and AF) seems to know about??
AF has shown no interest whatsoever in SAN.

You're probably confusing it with LH, who has recently announced that gateway.....

That was an error on my part, I was referring to this wikipedia article which apparently contains incorrect information. So the smallest AF destination is seasonally Minneapolis.

LAX772LR wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Based on currently existing routes, the smallest destination in the US is Detroit, and the smallest non-skyteam hub is Houston.

Again, incorrect.

You really need to realize that there's this airport called Dulles.

I'm going to say this again, market size is different than the number of PAX each year. Washington is a large, wealthy metropolitan area that happens to have a bunch of tiny airports. Just because Dulles is small doesn't mean that the traffic does not exist and is proportionally smaller.

LAX772LR wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Lufthansa's smallest market is Charlotte, which is very much so driven by their transatlantic competition with oneworld JV partners.

**BUZZ** Wrong again.

That would be TPA for year-round service, and SJC for seasonal.

My bad again, I can't read... lol. So our first "serious" contender is Lufthansa, competing against tech traffic in San Jose and beach / resort traffic in Tampa. New Orleans offers... floodplain traffic.

LAX772LR wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

SAS's smallest market in the US is Seattle

Dude, SAS hasn't flown to Seattle in almost 9yrs.

Oops, the wikipedia article is out of date. After all I can't keep track of every airport in the US. So the smallest market is Miami.

LAX772LR wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

I don't get why people think places like STL, MSY, CMH, AUS, etc are in the works to see flights from european legacy carriers beyond British Airways.

I don't get why you're attempting to admonish anyone else, when you yourself don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

I updated my info. The only serious contender is LH. Do you think that there is any likelyhood of LH starting MSY?

If DE has a few more successful seasons in MSY, and if traffic continues to grow, LH could be a possibility to replace DE. Not expecting that to happen, if it does, for at least 3-5 years though.

For now, I'm perfectly happy with the BA + DE lineup. It serves the market well.

Personal note for Jubguy3... I think your comment about "floodplain traffic" was kind of a low blow in the sense that I think you're underestimating just how far MSY has come, and it continues to grow. Then again, if you're not really following what's taking place here, you wouldn't really know. So no big deal, ultimately.

SunsetLimited wrote:

If DE has a few more successful seasons in MSY, and if traffic continues to grow, LH could be a possibility to replace DE. Not expecting that to happen, if it does, for at least 3-5 years though.

For now, I'm perfectly happy with the BA + DE lineup. It serves the market well.

Personal note for Jubguy3... I think your comment about "floodplain traffic" was kind of a low blow in the sense that I think you're underestimating just how far MSY has come, and it continues to grow. Then again, if you're not really following what's taking place here, you wouldn't really know. So no big deal, ultimately.

LH replace DE? They are separate ownership now - although that is kind of what happened in SAN where LH announced they were starting and then DE pulled out.

I think for the purposes of transatlantic flights, the US legacies and their European counterparts should be viewed as one. DL/AF/KL serve several mid-sized markets and I wouldn't be surprised to see either DL or AF try MSY with a 767 or 789. LH has also been willing to try mid-sized markets such as SJC, so who knows. And of course there is always WOW, Icelandair, and Norwegian. As was mentioned, the fares are still generally high, so there is a lot of room for stimulation.

msycajun wrote:

I think for the purposes of transatlantic flights, the US legacies and their European counterparts should be viewed as one. DL/AF/KL serve several mid-sized markets and I wouldn't be surprised to see either DL or AF try MSY with a 767 or 789. LH has also been willing to try mid-sized markets such as SJC, so who knows. And of course there is always WOW, Icelandair, and Norwegian. As was mentioned, the fares are still generally high, so there is a lot of room for stimulation.

good information to have would be to know how many people are originating from nola and still going through other cities to get to london or using heathrow through other cities as a transfer point. that would seem to indicate at least to an extent what demand isnt being satiated by either the frequency or the high prices.

I took this shot of the new terminal going up after arriving from TPA Sunday evening. Looks like glass is mostly up on what will be Concourse C. Construction is moving along nicely. The long stretch of dry weather we've had recently has probably helped.



Concerning any new international carriers in the TATL market, I think we are more likely to see something from Norwegian over anyone else in a couple of years (assuming they are still around). Maybe in several years (beyond 2020) one of the alliance carriers (DL/AF/KL) or (UA/LH) would consider service here if the traffic warrants it. I won't be holding my breath. The service levels we currently have across the pond are sufficient for now.

jubguy3 wrote:

That was an error on my part, I was referring to this wikipedia article which apparently contains incorrect information. So the smallest AF destination is seasonally Minneapolis.

Just removed SAN from that page. Someone added it 2 weeks ago with no source. Wikipedia is a good tool to use, but you need to double check the source to make sure the information is correct.

mutu wrote:

A big IAG Cargo contract requires more belly than the 789 can offer, simple enough really.

That doesn't explain why they'd go to a 744, per se.

Particularly when they have way more available 777s.... seeing as all 777s blast the 744 clear out of the water in terms of cargo capacity.

Midwestindy wrote:

I don't know why you would base which destination is bigger based on how many pax the airport carries? Using that logic Atlanta is the largest destination in the US.....

There's a rather straightforward reason: it's quite simply because that's how most aviation bilaterals view it.

Or viewed, considering that the onslaught of open skies agreements have largely rendered the concept moot.

But most bilaterals viewed each airfield as a destination unto itself, with co-terminal destinations either:

1. specifically outlined and designated as such, or
2. an airfield is grandfathered into co-terminal status by predating a newer gateway (e.g. EWR predating IDL), or
3. by petition of operating entity (e.g. BA petitioning for BWI to be reclassified as a co-terminal destination for WAS, for the purposes of Bermuda II)

Keep in mind that #3 didn't always go the airlines' way, as AA found out in 2001 when it tried to have SJC reclassified as a co-terminal destination for SFO, for Bermuda II... and unlike BA, was denied. They ended up launching SJC-CDG instead.

jubguy3 wrote:

This is by Primary Statistical Area, not airport size. I don't remember SLC having 8 million people.

Better yet, I don't remember any aviation bilateral categorizing a destination by PSA, CSA, or even MSA, versus by gateway.

Perhaps you could list some that do....

jubguy3 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Uh, do you know something that no one else (including SAN and AF) seems to know about??
AF has shown no interest whatsoever in SAN.

You're probably confusing it with LH, who has recently announced that gateway.....

That was an error on my part

Really? I didn't notice.

jubguy3 wrote:

So our first "serious" contender is Lufthansa, competing against tech traffic in San Jose and beach / resort traffic in Tampa. New Orleans offers... floodplain traffic.

And yet, it took Tampa nearly two decades to lure its second transatlantic carrier.
It took New Orleans 4 months... just sayin'.

jubguy3 wrote:

After all I can't keep track of every airport in the US.

Or really any of 'em, as has been demonstrated here

jubguy3 wrote:

Do you think that there is any likelyhood of LH starting MSY?

Eventually, sure.

LAX772LR wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I don't know why you would base which destination is bigger based on how many pax the airport carries? Using that logic Atlanta is the largest destination in the US.....

There's a rather straightforward reason: it's quite simply because that's how most aviation bilaterals view it.

Or viewed, considering that the onslaught of open skies agreements have largely rendered the concept moot.

But most bilaterals viewed each airfield as a destination unto itself, with co-terminal destinations either:

1. specifically outlined and designated as such, or
2. an airfield is grandfathered into co-terminal status by predating a newer gateway (e.g. EWR predating IDL), or
3. by petition of operating entity (e.g. BA petitioning for BWI to be reclassified as a co-terminal destination for WAS, for the purposes of Bermuda II)

Keep in mind that #3 didn't always go the airlines' way, as AA found out in 2001 when it tried to have SJC reclassified as a co-terminal destination for SFO, for Bermuda II... and unlike BA, was denied. They ended up launching SJC-CDG instead.

Nowhere on this earth is Salt Lake City a larger destination than Washington, it is pretty clear what jubguy was trying to say... He was talking about largest destinations not served by airlines. For the most part airlines don't choose airports by how many pax they serve, they chose airports based on the market they serve.

NolaMD88fan wrote:

I took this shot of the new terminal going up after arriving from TPA Sunday evening. Looks like glass is mostly up on what will be Concourse C. Construction is moving along nicely. The long stretch of dry weather we've had recently has probably helped.



Concerning any new international carriers in the TATL market, I think we are more likely to see something from Norwegian over anyone else in a couple of years (assuming they are still around). Maybe in several years (beyond 2020) one of the alliance carriers (DL/AF/KL) or (UA/LH) would consider service here if the traffic warrants it. I won't be holding my breath. The service levels we currently have across the pond are sufficient for now.

great pics!! Im a little concerned about that international terminal making it on time but this dry weather has to be helping them move as quickly as possible on the foundation

Midwestindy wrote:

it is pretty clear what jubguy was trying to say...

I dunno if I'd go THAT far....

Midwestindy wrote:

they chose airports based on the market they serve.

That does NOT however, automatically translate to a measure of the entire CSA for an airline, even if only one gateway is selected. THAT'S the part I'm trying to convey.

E.g. if you want to make the case that service to BUR is the equivalent "destination" to SNA, even if it's an airline's only gateway to the Los Angeles CSA/MSA/etc... then you're welcome to do so, but I doubt you'd find anyone to substantiate that in any practical sense.

Item 22 North Terminal Project $8,129,546 &
Change Order #7 0 Calendar Days
Hunt Gibbs Boh Metro, Joint Venture
New Orleans, Louisiana

that seems like quite a large change order for the new airport terminal that they are voting on at the meeting today! wonder what its for

DJSNOLA wrote:

Item 22 North Terminal Project $8,129,546 &
Change Order #7 0 Calendar Days
Hunt Gibbs Boh Metro, Joint Venture
New Orleans, Louisiana

that seems like quite a large change order for the new airport terminal that they are voting on at the meeting today! wonder what its for

I wonder if that is for the additional roadway expansions the airport has been planning. I think they were just waiting on FAA and LA DOTD approval.

November Construction Update Posted
http://www.flymsy.com/Images/Interior/business%20opportunities/long_term_airport_development/11%202017%20board%20update.pdf
Has a nice photo showing how far Concourse C has come. Also good news that the project remains under-budget.

Whatever change order #7 was, it was approved, though at ~6.9 million.

msycajun wrote:

DJSNOLA wrote:

Item 22 North Terminal Project $8,129,546 &
Change Order #7 0 Calendar Days
Hunt Gibbs Boh Metro, Joint Venture
New Orleans, Louisiana

that seems like quite a large change order for the new airport terminal that they are voting on at the meeting today! wonder what its for

I wonder if that is for the additional roadway expansions the airport has been planning. I think they were just waiting on FAA and LA DOTD approval.

I doubt its that since its unlikely they have a contractor decided on for that project yet as its separate from the terminal.

it says new risk exposure... paving settlement continues.. curious what thats about?

LightningZ71 wrote:

Whatever change order #7 was, it was approved, though at ~6.9 million.

Maybe interior build outs for restaurants and retail? Might be a bit much for that, though. I suspect it is something that was expected given how its been really a non-affair.

Also, any word on the new hotel?

Pavement settlement is pretty common down here on our swampy soils. Even with the compacted soil base that was put in place, these issues can often arise. There are ways to mitigate these settlement issues, so it's really nothing serious.

For more information on pavement settlement, here's a good primer. http://uretekusa.com/what-we-do/concret ... se-joints/

Also, change orders are very common for large infrastructure projects. Basically, the only way to get compensated for any cost changes is to submit a change order which then has to be approved by the governing body (i.e. Airport Board). Really nothing to be concerned about at all. The fact that the project is currently running under budget is very good news.

I'm curious if the airport will still go ahead with restaurant's from the Besh Restaurant Group in the new terminal considering the recent controversy involving Chef John Besh. I would think not. Would be interested to hear about replacement vendors. Actually, any additional info into the food/retail mix would be welcome.

Video from the North Terminal "topping out" ceremony. Appears to be taken from where the DL Sky Club will be on the upper level of the main terminal.

https://www.facebook.com/NOLAnews/videos/10155147361352060/?hc_ref=ARQ96wdn0y12rSGA7E9mtBbx95QHp20ApRApwq1SLWx0qOX93ELIa7WPsYHU6fEUoSg&fref=gs&dti=116027141078&hc_location=group

The scale of the new terminal really comes into focus from that video. It's quite a bit larger than I expected.

In SABRE it shows BA going back to 4X weekly eff 26Mar with B788.

SunsetLimited wrote:

back to 4X weekly

Msycajun's gonna sh!t on himself when he sees this

SunsetLimited wrote:

I'm curious if the airport will still go ahead with restaurant's from the Besh Restaurant Group in the new terminal considering the recent controversy involving Chef John Besh. I would think not. Would be interested to hear about replacement vendors. Actually, any additional info into the food/retail mix would be welcome.

Well hes no longer involved with the company at this point

LAX772LR wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

back to 4X weekly

Msycajun's gonna sh!t on himself when he sees this

Still showing 5 weekly on BA's website, so I'll reserve judgement for now.