asqx wrote:

mountainwest90 wrote:

Anybody heard any word on who will be the next EAS carrier at PRC

I wonder how good the performance is for a CRJ2 out of there.

Terrain and climb gradients off 21 might pose a limiting issue for single engine performance (haven’t looked at it in years so not sure). But considering likely destinations are PHX, LAX, and at very long but not unimaginable odds SLC, I don’t see there being much of an impact. SkyWest runs CR2s into similar sized airports in mountainous areas without too many restrictions. I’m sometimes amazed what the old Scooters can do sometimes. Granted they don’t do it in a spectacular manner, but they get the job done, well done-ish.

After originally selecting Boutique I know that Prescott then changed their minds and the route recently went back for bid, but nothing in the docket yet. Rumor around Phoenix is SlyWesr will be taking over but nothing definite on routes, frequency, etc.

Given the OO "ad" for PRC shows UA, I'd assume LAX and/or DEN have already been confirmed but not announced.

I'm also hearing the Page has selected someone outside of EAS for their service.

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Vctony wrote:

WN made some pretty major route cuts in their latest schedule extension.

DTW and SDF go from daily to Saturday only service (both have been daily for at least the last decade of so).

Wow this is surprising. DTW had been 2x daily for a portion of this year... However I always found their timing on it particularly inconvenient for my schedule.

I'm assuming they're probably trying to cut back on ASMs with the price of oil going up. The easiest way to drop that is by dumping longer stage routes. They're probably just picking a few that aren't performing as well. They aren't getting rid of the route entirely (even though they may as well be), because that looks bad, but they benefit from reduced ASMs while "maintaining their network". Obviously this is semi-educated speculation, but if this is the case, it's just another example of the airlines being more concerned with stock performance than actually trying to compete. This is a big reason Southwest hasn't done much in the way of transcon route expansion over the past few years, more so than their competitors.

atcsundevil wrote:

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Vctony wrote:

WN made some pretty major route cuts in their latest schedule extension.

DTW and SDF go from daily to Saturday only service (both have been daily for at least the last decade of so).

Wow this is surprising. DTW had been 2x daily for a portion of this year... However I always found their timing on it particularly inconvenient for my schedule.

I'm assuming they're probably trying to cut back on ASMs with the price of oil going up. The easiest way to drop that is by dumping longer stage routes. They're probably just picking a few that aren't performing as well. They aren't getting rid of the route entirely (even though they may as well be), because that looks bad, but they benefit from reduced ASMs while "maintaining their network". Obviously this is semi-educated speculation, but if this is the case, it's just another example of the airlines being more concerned with stock performance than actually trying to compete. This is a big reason Southwest hasn't done much in the way of transcon route expansion over the past few years, more so than their competitors.

It's a route that I fly on an annual basis (flew it as recently as last week) and it may very well impact my decision to fly on WN when making other arrangements (unless this is simply a "seasonal" adjustment).

Vctony wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Wow this is surprising. DTW had been 2x daily for a portion of this year... However I always found their timing on it particularly inconvenient for my schedule.

I'm assuming they're probably trying to cut back on ASMs with the price of oil going up. The easiest way to drop that is by dumping longer stage routes. They're probably just picking a few that aren't performing as well. They aren't getting rid of the route entirely (even though they may as well be), because that looks bad, but they benefit from reduced ASMs while "maintaining their network". Obviously this is semi-educated speculation, but if this is the case, it's just another example of the airlines being more concerned with stock performance than actually trying to compete. This is a big reason Southwest hasn't done much in the way of transcon route expansion over the past few years, more so than their competitors.

It's a route that I fly on an annual basis (flew it as recently as last week) and it may very well impact my decision to fly on WN when making other arrangements (unless this is simply a "seasonal" adjustment).

They reduce a route you fly once or twice a year and that's gonna make you switch carriers? Maybe I'm missing a piece of the puzzle though.

MO11 wrote:

777PHX wrote:

I have to imagine PHX is on the shortlist for LH expansion. With the success of BA and Condor, I would think PHX would be a worthwhile (re)add for LH. It seems LH’s problem is that they don’t have any smaller widebodies to test such a route with. The smallest widebody by pax count they fly is the A333 and even in the more premium version, which wouldn’t be suitable for PHX, it still has 217 seats.

BA has been successful here for over 20 years. LH started service five years after BA did, and lasted for 3 years. Do you think LH will rush back in?

No, I don't think they'll rush back in. I do think PHX is a point for consideration if they chose to pursue US expansion at some point.

I mean, I realize BA has the benefit of OW hubs on both ends, but if they can run 2x 744s on some days, surely another European legacy could find a foothold here with a smaller, more efficient widebody(cough....787...cough).

alasizon wrote:

Given the OO "ad" for PRC shows UA, I'd assume LAX and/or DEN have already been confirmed but not announced.

Just curious but what "ad" are you referring to? I won't complain if it does end up in the UA system though, the fewer 200 routes crewed from PHX the better.

asqx wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Given the OO "ad" for PRC shows UA, I'd assume LAX and/or DEN have already been confirmed but not announced.

Just curious but what "ad" are you referring to? I won't complain if it does end up in the UA system though, the fewer 200 routes crewed from PHX the better.

https://careers-skywest.icims.com/jobs/5391/cross-utilized-agent--prc/job

PRC-LAX should do well on its own. PRC-DEN (with available connections) would need some solid marketing. With subsidy, allowing fares to be competitive with PHX fares, it also could do well.

alasizon wrote:

I'm also hearing the Page has selected someone outside of EAS for their service.

Yes, Page has contracted with Contour Airlines to operate ERJ-135s to either PHX or LAS. DOT will reimburse the city under AEAS.

MO11 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

I'm also hearing the Page has selected someone outside of EAS for their service.

Yes, Page has contracted with Contour Airlines to operate ERJ-135s to either PHX or LAS. DOT will reimburse the city under AEAS.

Contour (LF) has developed an excellent reputation since taking over the Crescent City AEAS a few months ago. Their ERJ with 35 inches of pitch are very comfortable. I'm guessing it will be one flight a day to LAS. All the current LF's EAS routes go to airports with large WN operations.

It's 12 roundtrips per week to wherever. In the past, Page has been adamant about service to PHX, with an early morning flight.

Contour, which operates a similar contract for Victoria, TX using Jetstreams, has apparently become unreliable there, and the airport authority there has requested to reenter the EAS program.

MO11 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

I'm also hearing the Page has selected someone outside of EAS for their service.

Yes, Page has contracted with Contour Airlines to operate ERJ-135s to either PHX or LAS. DOT will reimburse the city under AEAS.

Wow. I never thought I'd see Page get regional jet service

MO11 wrote:

asqx wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Given the OO "ad" for PRC shows UA, I'd assume LAX and/or DEN have already been confirmed but not announced.

Just curious but what "ad" are you referring to? I won't complain if it does end up in the UA system though, the fewer 200 routes crewed from PHX the better.

https://careers-skywest.icims.com/jobs/5391/cross-utilized-agent--prc/job

PRC-LAX should do well on its own. PRC-DEN (with available connections) would need some solid marketing. With subsidy, allowing fares to be competitive with PHX fares, it also could do well.

I admit it's been a long day at work, but I see nothing in that job posting referencing United. Well, other than the partner listing at the bottom but it shows all four partners so no clue there as nothing in the body of the job posting says anything about which carrier the flights will be marketed under. It's possible they could do multiple markets under multiple partner brands, the prorate flying is its own little world, but it all depends on if it ends up as EAS and if so where the contract says the flying goes to/from. All I know is word from marketing is that they are trying to add prorate flying in the AA systems out of Phoenix to help increase crew utilization and PRC was one of the markets they were looking at adding.

MO11 wrote:

It's 12 roundtrips per week to wherever. In the past, Page has been adamant about service to PHX, with an early morning flight.

Contour, which operates a similar contract for Victoria, TX using Jetstreams, has apparently become unreliable there, and the airport authority there has requested to reenter the EAS program.

The Victoria service is actually contracted with a company called Public Charters Inc. d/b/a Texas Sky and there have been issues there but unrelated to Contour. Contour notified Texas Sky at the end of last year that they were not interested in renewing the contract as the Jetstream fleet is being retired. The Contour-branded TUP, MCN, and CEC service has been gangbusters and operates with a 99% completion factor. In fact, since they began service in CEC almost three months ago, they had a 100% completion and 100% on time performance until a weather diversion back to OAK a week or two ago.

In regards to the possible PRC service, here's an article in Prescott's paper about it from a couple days ago. Looks like it is UA with service to LAX and DEN. Article states service could start in August/September.

https://www.dcourier.com/news/2018/jul/ ... al-airpor/

atcsundevil wrote:

777PHX wrote:

I have to imagine PHX is on the shortlist for LH expansion. With the success of BA and Condor, I would think PHX would be a worthwhile (re)add for LH. It seems LH’s problem is that they don’t have any smaller widebodies to test such a route with. The smallest widebody by pax count they fly is the A333 and even in the more premium version, which wouldn’t be suitable for PHX, it still has 217 seats.

That's been their problem all along — they don't have the right sized aircraft that can also fly the route efficiently. If they had the 788 or 789, they'd already be serving PHX. Until they have the right airplane, I don't expect them to make a return.

Bingo. Of course, LH is back in a sense given their investment back into DE some time ago. Funny how they sold DE off eons ago, and now have bought back in. But true-LH is highly doubtful IMHO.

I know this was discussed back in May, but looking at both google and hawaiianairlines.com it now shows HNL-PHX-HNL is now loaded as an A330!

https://www.google.com/flights/#flt=/m/ ... .USD.76261

BA744PHX wrote:

I know this was discussed back in May, but looking at both google and hawaiianairlines.com it now shows HNL-PHX-HNL is now loaded as an A330!

So it looks like outbound HA35 on January 1 will be a 767, but inbound HA36 on the same day will be an A330.

MO11 wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

I know this was discussed back in May, but looking at both google and hawaiianairlines.com it now shows HNL-PHX-HNL is now loaded as an A330!

So it looks like outbound HA35 on January 1 will be a 767, but inbound HA36 on the same day will be an A330.

Well this is better then the A321, but I was hoping they would add OGG if they did change to the A321 for HNL


On another note, I was looking at regional mountain west airports and noticed a few airports with flights on either DL or UA. Would there be potential for AA to add these from PHX?

CRP-SLC/DEN, DL/UA
IDA-SLC/DEN, DL/UA
SUN-SLC,LAX/DEN,ORD,SFO DL/UA
CDC-SLC, DL
EKO-SLC, DL
CNY-DEN, UA
VEL-DEN,UA

or any other possible destinations?

BA744PHX wrote:

On another note, I was looking at regional mountain west airports and noticed a few airports with flights on either DL or UA. Would there be potential for AA to add these from PHX?

CRP-SLC/DEN, DL/UA

CRP is the airport code for Corpus Christi, which is located in South Texas. CRP also only has nonstop service to DFW, IAH, and HOU, and CRP also currently doesn't have any DL service.

Did you mean CPR (Casper-Natrona County Regional Airport), which does have nonstop service to DEN on UA and SLC on DL?

jplatts wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

On another note, I was looking at regional mountain west airports and noticed a few airports with flights on either DL or UA. Would there be potential for AA to add these from PHX?

CRP-SLC/DEN, DL/UA

CRP is the airport code for Corpus Christi, which is located in South Texas. CRP also only has nonstop service to DFW, IAH, and HOU, and CRP also currently doesn't have any DL service.

Did you mean CPR (Casper-Natrona County Regional Airport), which does have nonstop service to DEN on UA and SLC on DL?

ops yes CPR not CRP

BA744PHX wrote:

On another note, I was looking at regional mountain west airports and noticed a few airports with flights on either DL or UA. Would there be potential for AA to add these from PHX?

CRP-SLC/DEN, DL/UA
IDA-SLC/DEN, DL/UA
SUN-SLC,LAX/DEN,ORD,SFO DL/UA
CDC-SLC, DL
EKO-SLC, DL
CNY-DEN, UA
VEL-DEN,UA

or any other possible destinations?

CDC, CNY and VEL are EAS cities, doubt that would happen. EKO is a OO prorate city, also doubtful. AA served IDA years ago, and HP flew into SUN for a season. It would be sweet if AA tried SUN.

MO11 wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

I know this was discussed back in May, but looking at both google and hawaiianairlines.com it now shows HNL-PHX-HNL is now loaded as an A330!

So it looks like outbound HA35 on January 1 will be a 767, but inbound HA36 on the same day will be an A330.

YAY! I am so glad to learn this. Confirmed in GDS...A330 begins HNL-PHX on 01JAN and return on 02JAN.

BA744PHX wrote:

MO11 wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

I know this was discussed back in May, but looking at both google and hawaiianairlines.com it now shows HNL-PHX-HNL is now loaded as an A330!

So it looks like outbound HA35 on January 1 will be a 767, but inbound HA36 on the same day will be an A330.

Well this is better then the A321, but I was hoping they would add OGG if they did change to the A321 for HNL


On another note, I was looking at regional mountain west airports and noticed a few airports with flights on either DL or UA. Would there be potential for AA to add these from PHX?

CRP-SLC/DEN, DL/UA
IDA-SLC/DEN, DL/UA
SUN-SLC,LAX/DEN,ORD,SFO DL/UA
CDC-SLC, DL
EKO-SLC, DL
CNY-DEN, UA
VEL-DEN,UA

or any other possible destinations?

Or BIL, BZN, and FCA. I think AWE served FCA at one point. I'm still surprised COS hasn't been added.

PHX May-2018 numbers are out. I know the year is young but gives a sense of direction where the numbers are drifting.

2018 YTD total pax: 19,189,616
International YTD pax: 720,115
International pax as a % of total pax: 3.75% - I did not know there was so low international activity in PHX.

AAGR YTD growth for PHX: +2.2%

PHX is ahead of MIA this year at this time.
MIA YTD total pax: 19,054,175

PHX is ahead of MIA by 135,441 pax - I know this does not mean much with 7 more months left.

Top 5 carriers YTD at PHX by market share based on total pax:

AA: 45.78%
WN: 33.34%
DL: 6.75%
UA: 5.48%
AS:2.19%

If you divide 720,115 by 180 you get 4000.6 pax a day for international. That to me is quite a bit. I wonder what the numbers by destination are. If I fly PHX-LAX-SYD am I counted as an international passenger?

As far as the top 5 carriers there is AA and WN and then the rest.

travaz wrote:

If you divide 720,115 by 180 you get 4000.6 pax a day for international. That to me is quite a bit. I wonder what the numbers by destination are. If I fly PHX-LAX-SYD am I counted as an international passenger?

As far as the top 5 carriers there is AA and WN and then the rest.

If the numbers came from PHX themselves, no you would be domestic as they measure international passengers as the number of pax boarded on each INTL flight.

4000 is certainly plausible:

LHR - BA
FRA - DE
YEG - WS (2-3x daily in winter, 1x off-peak) & AA (2x in winter)
YVR - WS (2x in winter), AC (2x 767 in Winter, 2x CR9/319 off-peak) & AA (1x daily)
YUL - AC (2-3x weekly)
YYZ - WS (1x daily in winter) & AC (2x daily in Winter)
GDL - Y4 (1x daily) & AA (1x daily)
SJD - AA (2-3x daily)
MZT - AA (1-2x daily)
CUL - Y4 (3x weekly)
YXE/YQR/YLW - WS (assorted frequencies during winter)
MEX - AA (2x daily)
CUN - AA (1x daily)
PVR - AA (1-3x daily)

Thanks for the information. I guess i am somewhat guilty of thinking International is Europe and or Asia.

PHX is the largest WN focus city without nonstop international service where WN can legally add nonstop international service. While WN can currently remain competitive in the PHX market without nonstop international service because of WN having nonstop service out of PHX to domestic destinations that AA doesn't serve nonstop from PHX, WN could add nonstop international service out of PHX to strengthen its competitive position in the PHX market. WN adding nonstop international service out of PHX would also allow WN to retain more customers in the PHX market that might otherwise switch to AA. WN also can improve connectivity to international destinations from Arizona, California, Nevada, Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, and Utah if WN added nonstop international flights out of PHX.

The international arrivals facility is in the same terminal as the WN gates at PHX, so connections from international flights to domestic flights at PHX would be possible on WN if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX. Concourse B is also already connected to Concourses C and D at PHX behind security, so connections would easily be able to be made from a domestic flight to an international flight on WN through PHX if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX.

Will WN ever add nonstop international flights out of PHX?

jplatts wrote:

The international arrivals facility is in the same terminal as the WN gates at PHX, so connections from international flights to domestic flights at PHX would be possible on WN if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX. Concourse B is also already connected to Concourses C and D at PHX behind security, so connections would easily be able to be made from a domestic flight to an international flight on WN through PHX if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX.

The fact that B is connected to C & D airside is irrelevant for the most part as B would only be used for the arrival as there is nowhere in B for WN to setup the infrastructure required for their boarding process.. International arriving passengers have to re-clear security and there is currently zero room for additional flights to Mexico during a time that WN would actually want flights at (they could have early AM arrivals, but thats about it and it would still be limited). Although WN may want to add INTL flights, its not going to happen until S1 is built and part of S4 is vacated to create room for more CUTE gates that AC & WS can use for their pre-cleared markets.

alasizon wrote:

jplatts wrote:

The international arrivals facility is in the same terminal as the WN gates at PHX, so connections from international flights to domestic flights at PHX would be possible on WN if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX. Concourse B is also already connected to Concourses C and D at PHX behind security, so connections would easily be able to be made from a domestic flight to an international flight on WN through PHX if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX.

The fact that B is connected to C & D airside is irrelevant for the most part as B would only be used for the arrival as there is nowhere in B for WN to setup the infrastructure required for their boarding process.. International arriving passengers have to re-clear security and there is currently zero room for additional flights to Mexico during a time that WN would actually want flights at (they could have early AM arrivals, but thats about it and it would still be limited). Although WN may want to add INTL flights, its not going to happen until S1 is built and part of S4 is vacated to create room for more CUTE gates that AC & WS can use for their pre-cleared markets.

Is there a particular reason the airport is set up the way it is so that arriving international passengers have to reclear security? It seems that this could be a big inconvenience for connecting passengers and I wonder if there's any way the layout could be rearranged so that arriving international passengers would not have to reclear security.

alasizon wrote:

jplatts wrote:

The international arrivals facility is in the same terminal as the WN gates at PHX, so connections from international flights to domestic flights at PHX would be possible on WN if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX. Concourse B is also already connected to Concourses C and D at PHX behind security, so connections would easily be able to be made from a domestic flight to an international flight on WN through PHX if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX.

The fact that B is connected to C & D airside is irrelevant for the most part as B would only be used for the arrival as there is nowhere in B for WN to setup the infrastructure required for their boarding process.. International arriving passengers have to re-clear security and there is currently zero room for additional flights to Mexico during a time that WN would actually want flights at (they could have early AM arrivals, but thats about it and it would still be limited). Although WN may want to add INTL flights, its not going to happen until S1 is built and part of S4 is vacated to create room for more CUTE gates that AC & WS can use for their pre-cleared markets.

That sums it up well. There is no way to expand FIS-capable gates at T4 without encroaching on American’s lease space, and until AC moves off of N4, the only times available for international arrivals are suboptimal.

When AC does move over to T3, that may provide an small opportunity for WN, but a real coup for them would be an FIS in S1 where they would be in control (either preferentially or exclusively) of the entire facility, and probably most importantly to them, the branding of the holdrooms.

Lennundus wrote:

alasizon wrote:

jplatts wrote:

The international arrivals facility is in the same terminal as the WN gates at PHX, so connections from international flights to domestic flights at PHX would be possible on WN if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX. Concourse B is also already connected to Concourses C and D at PHX behind security, so connections would easily be able to be made from a domestic flight to an international flight on WN through PHX if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX.

The fact that B is connected to C & D airside is irrelevant for the most part as B would only be used for the arrival as there is nowhere in B for WN to setup the infrastructure required for their boarding process.. International arriving passengers have to re-clear security and there is currently zero room for additional flights to Mexico during a time that WN would actually want flights at (they could have early AM arrivals, but thats about it and it would still be limited). Although WN may want to add INTL flights, its not going to happen until S1 is built and part of S4 is vacated to create room for more CUTE gates that AC & WS can use for their pre-cleared markets.

Is there a particular reason the airport is set up the way it is so that arriving international passengers have to reclear security? It seems that this could be a big inconvenience for connecting passengers and I wonder if there's any way the layout could be rearranged so that arriving international passengers would not have to reclear security.

That’s not determined by the airport but rather by TSA screening regulations. Any international arriving passenger and their baggage, both checked and carry-on, that has not been screened by TSA-approved equipment and procedures must be rescreened if they intend to connect onto another flight.

Lennundus wrote:

alasizon wrote:

jplatts wrote:

The international arrivals facility is in the same terminal as the WN gates at PHX, so connections from international flights to domestic flights at PHX would be possible on WN if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX. Concourse B is also already connected to Concourses C and D at PHX behind security, so connections would easily be able to be made from a domestic flight to an international flight on WN through PHX if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX.

The fact that B is connected to C & D airside is irrelevant for the most part as B would only be used for the arrival as there is nowhere in B for WN to setup the infrastructure required for their boarding process.. International arriving passengers have to re-clear security and there is currently zero room for additional flights to Mexico during a time that WN would actually want flights at (they could have early AM arrivals, but thats about it and it would still be limited). Although WN may want to add INTL flights, its not going to happen until S1 is built and part of S4 is vacated to create room for more CUTE gates that AC & WS can use for their pre-cleared markets.

Is there a particular reason the airport is set up the way it is so that arriving international passengers have to reclear security? It seems that this could be a big inconvenience for connecting passengers and I wonder if there's any way the layout could be rearranged so that arriving international passengers would not have to reclear security.

It feasibly could be done as there is a bank of elevators and escalators post-security down in the IC (the ones used for B15A/B/C) that would allow re-entry into the concourse, but it would require some reorganization. As far as I know, the current construction has no plans to do this.

Lennundus wrote:

Is there a particular reason the airport is set up the way it is so that arriving international passengers have to reclear security? It seems that this could be a big inconvenience for connecting passengers and I wonder if there's any way the layout could be rearranged so that arriving international passengers would not have to reclear security.

All passengers arriving from an international flight must reclear security prior to boarding a connecting flight. When arriving from an international flight, passengers are required to clear immigration, collect their luggage, then clear customs and agriculture before rechecking luggage to continue onwards. Because passengers have access to their checked baggage, it means they could potentially access items prohibited in the cabin as carry-on.

I'm not even sure they offer TSA PreCheck for connection screening — of all the airports I've recleared security following an international inbound, I have only ever cleared standard security lanes, and I've never seen PreCheck as an option. Either way, it's pretty inconvenient, because the lines are usually pretty horrendous at most airports, particularly those that handle multiple international arrivals in short succession. Fortunately PHX doesn't really have this problem.

Why are they going to get rid of T2 when PHX doesn’t have many available gates for new airlines? Is it too old or something?

bergenm wrote:

Why are they going to get rid of T2 when PHX doesn’t have many available gates for new airlines? Is it too old or something?

Between the renovated T3 (will be called Concourses E/F) and the completion of the S1 pier in T4 (Concourse D expansion), there will be excess capacity. There won't be a reason to keep T2 open.

But yes, a big reason is because T2 is too old — pushing 60 years old, actually. It's cramped, overcrowded, inefficient, and extremely outdated. It's poor from a passenger experience perspective, it has limited retail and ancillary revenue options, and it's in no way equipped to handle air travel in the 21st century. That said, it's a fantastic terminal to fly in and out of for frequent flyers (assuming it's not the morning rush), but it would be a major drag on the overall efficiency and look of the airport when construction is complete for most passengers. Its demolition will allow for a straightening of Sky Harbor Boulevard, as well as the construction of a fourth north/south taxiway.

When the airport needs additional capacity, that space (along with East Cargo) can be used for a new concourse or an expansion of E/F.

atcsundevil wrote:

When the airport needs additional capacity, that space (along with East Cargo) can be used for a new concourse or an expansion of E/F.

Or the new "West Terminal" that I struggle to see the carrier line-up for. A 25-30 gate West terminal isn't going to be able to just handle WN expansion and AA isn't likely going to shrink up and go away (at some point, WN and AA are going to run out of room in T4 and someone is going to have to move). I guess they could keep expanding Concourse F and WN could move over to T3 and the OALs could go over to T4S with AA claiming some of the then vacated gates.

alasizon wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

When the airport needs additional capacity, that space (along with East Cargo) can be used for a new concourse or an expansion of E/F.

Or the new "West Terminal"

whats the west terminal

atcsundevil wrote:

That said, it's a fantastic terminal to fly in and out of for frequent flyers (assuming it's not the morning rush), [...]

It's a really fantastic terminal if you live here. Assuming Alaska doesn't have an issue with no gate available late at night (it's happened!), I can be walking in my garage 30 minutes after wheels down. My house is 15 minutes north of the airport up the 51. Now that Clear is here (YAY!), with plans to expand to T2 (YAY!!!), those morning flights shouldn't be too horrendous at security. Clear will easily save me 15 minutes over there in the morning.

boeing777200lr wrote:

whats the west terminal

It'll be west of the east terminal.

I think that the "west terminal" or "super terminal" plan was shelved around the early 2000s. We ended up with the current Terminal 3 design. This .pdf has the latest info on the 20-year plan. Even the most aggressive projection requires few additional gates.

https://www.skyharbor.com/docs/default-source/pdfs/camp/phx-camp-public-meeting-boards-11x17.pdf?sfvrsn=4

bergenm wrote:

Why are they going to get rid of T2 when PHX doesn’t have many available gates for new airlines?

What new airlines?

MO11 wrote:

I think that the "west terminal" or "super terminal" plan was shelved around the early 2000s. We ended up with the current Terminal 3 design. This .pdf has the latest info on the 20-year plan. Even the most aggressive projection requires few additional gates.

https://www.skyharbor.com/docs/default-source/pdfs/camp/phx-camp-public-meeting-boards-11x17.pdf?sfvrsn=4

bergenm wrote:

Why are they going to get rid of T2 when PHX doesn’t have many available gates for new airlines?

What new airlines?

The current master plan includes a potential new West Terminal if needed, although it is vastly scaled down from the original idea. As for T2, it would probably be more costly to renovate or expand it than it would be to build an entirely new terminal. Currently the T3 renovation and expansion, plus the new pier at T4 should suffice for now.

MO11 wrote:

bergenm wrote:

Why are they going to get rid of T2 when PHX doesn’t have many available gates for new airlines?

What new airlines?

G4 is currently the only commercial domestic passenger airline operating mainline aircraft that isn't already at PHX, but G4 already serves the Greater Phoenix market through AZA.

There is room for additional competition on PHX to Florida nonstop routes since AA and WN are currently the only carriers to have nonstop service to Florida from PHX. B6, NK, F9, and/or SY could add nonstop service to Florida destinations from PHX in order to provide additional competition on PHX to Florida routes.

jplatts wrote:

MO11 wrote:

bergenm wrote:

Why are they going to get rid of T2 when PHX doesn’t have many available gates for new airlines?

What new airlines?

G4 is currently the only commercial domestic passenger airline operating mainline aircraft that isn't already at PHX, but G4 already serves the Greater Phoenix market through AZA.

There is room for additional competition on PHX to Florida nonstop routes since AA and WN are currently the only carriers to have nonstop service to Florida from PHX. B6, NK, F9, and/or SY could add nonstop service to Florida destinations from PHX in order to provide additional competition on PHX to Florida routes.

Probably little competition for a reason. In any of these scenarios, the airlines wouldn't need exclusive use of a gate. The challenge would have been when G4 threatened to close up shop at IWA and move to PHX (and PHX said "no problem").

jplatts wrote:

There is room for additional competition on PHX to Florida nonstop routes since AA and WN are currently the only carriers to have nonstop service to Florida from PHX. B6, NK, F9, and/or SY could add nonstop service to Florida destinations from PHX in order to provide additional competition on PHX to Florida routes.

Florida isn't that popular of a destination from PHX. For one thing, it's a transcon between two low-yielding markets, so that doesn't help. Florida's big attractions are Disney and beaches, but both of those already exist in California. People in PHX just don't travel to Florida like they do on the east coast or Midwest.

atcsundevil wrote:

jplatts wrote:

There is room for additional competition on PHX to Florida nonstop routes since AA and WN are currently the only carriers to have nonstop service to Florida from PHX. B6, NK, F9, and/or SY could add nonstop service to Florida destinations from PHX in order to provide additional competition on PHX to Florida routes.

Florida isn't that popular of a destination from PHX. For one thing, it's a transcon between two low-yielding markets, so that doesn't help. Florida's big attractions are Disney and beaches, but both of those already exist in California. People in PHX just don't travel to Florida like they do on the east coast or Midwest.

I agree currently AA has 2 Non Stops a day one morning and one late afternoon. Price is 347 RT in Main Cabin. This is for 8/6 return on 8/11. I know it's anecdotal but those seem to be some lousy yields.

MO11 wrote:

I think that the "west terminal" or "super terminal" plan was shelved around the early 2000s. We ended up with the current Terminal 3 design. This .pdf has the latest info on the 20-year plan. Even the most aggressive projection requires few additional gates.

https://www.skyharbor.com/docs/default-source/pdfs/camp/phx-camp-public-meeting-boards-11x17.pdf?sfvrsn=4

The problem with the plans for additional gates in T4N is there simply isn't room so where do you put those gates (it calls for 2 gates by 2022, another 1 per year after that). Also, Ricondo identifies the AA Regional gates as underutilized for some odd reason despite an average utilization of 8.25 flights/gate/day and all of the Mainline gates are underneath that so I'm not sure if they simply measured by size capability? Mainline AA has ~160 flights a day with 35 gates. The study here is also flawed because they still have A28 & B15C included which are gone already due to regating. Also, did you see the plans they have for S1? WN isn't going to have Group IV and Group V gates in their concourse and at some point the City of Phoenix is going to need additional International gates (in my opinion the easiest way to do this is to allow AA Regional to move into the East side of S4 in exchange for B15AB/B17/B19/B21 where the sterile customs walkway could be built to the outside of the current terminal).

1337Delta764 wrote:

The current master plan includes a potential new West Terminal if needed, although it is vastly scaled down from the original idea. As for T2, it would probably be more costly to renovate or expand it than it would be to build an entirely new terminal. Currently the T3 renovation and expansion, plus the new pier at T4 should suffice for now.

Once the new ALP gets done as part of the CAMP project, the Master Plan will hopefully be updated (I don't know that I even have the most up to date version).

atcsundevil wrote:

jplatts wrote:

There is room for additional competition on PHX to Florida nonstop routes since AA and WN are currently the only carriers to have nonstop service to Florida from PHX. B6, NK, F9, and/or SY could add nonstop service to Florida destinations from PHX in order to provide additional competition on PHX to Florida routes.

Florida isn't that popular of a destination from PHX. For one thing, it's a transcon between two low-yielding markets, so that doesn't help. Florida's big attractions are Disney and beaches, but both of those already exist in California. People in PHX just don't travel to Florida like they do on the east coast or Midwest.

Or, unless they got tired of cruising just to Mexico.

There are some strong rumors going around from credible sources that there is going to be a good change to BA PHX-LHR and it involves AA as well. Sounds like it’s either a metal swap between BA and AA, or, AA is adding a PHX-LHR of their own.

777PHX wrote:

There are some strong rumors going around from credible sources that there is going to be a good change to BA PHX-LHR and it involves AA as well. Sounds like it’s either a metal swap between BA and AA, or, AA is adding a PHX-LHR of their own.

The only "good" in that would be AA adding their own nonstop. Spotting at PHX is tough already with such little diversity - we need BA and we could really use an AA widebody.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

777PHX wrote:

There are some strong rumors going around from credible sources that there is going to be a good change to BA PHX-LHR and it involves AA as well. Sounds like it’s either a metal swap between BA and AA, or, AA is adding a PHX-LHR of their own.

The only "good" in that would be AA adding their own nonstop. Spotting at PHX is tough already with such little diversity - we need BA and we could really use an AA widebody.

Yeah, I wouldn't be crazy about losing BA, but AA is easier to redeem mileage on and doesn't do the crazy YQ taxes.

Given that BA is running with two 744s some days now during the summer, I'm sort of skeptical BA is going to cede the route to AA on a smaller aircraft.