The NO AV board is well aware of several things:
Passenger and flight operation growth has significantly outpaced their most optimistic projections for most of the last decade.
The NT is not large enough to comfortably handle even modest growth projections going forward. They already wish that they had 4-6 more gates to use.
There is a 'plan" for an additional expansion, but it is a minimum of five years from even beginning to get funded. It is not something that gets any more consideration than that.
There will never be any FIS in ST concourse D.
None of the carriers want to operate out of D after the NT opens.
There is nothing on the radar for scheduled wide body international ops beyond what they have, outside of two inquiries made in the last year. Neither of those would be anytime soon in starting, barring something unexpected happening.

SunsetLimited wrote:

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard from several sources recently (past week) that the terminal opening is going to get pushed back to May at the earliest. I guess we’ll see. The airlines are still being told a 2/20 move in day but that might change soon.

DL will be getting 5 gates and they’ll likely have access to the CUTE gates on A if they need them. Unless they are planning a large expansion I think 5 dedicated plus common use can probably hold them over. Then again, I don’t know what DL is planning.

I personally think the terminal was under built in terms of gates. Would have liked to have seen at least five more, from the get go. Hopefully, the next expansion is being planned as I type this.

if the terminal is delivered late the contractor will be paying crazy fines ..

LightningZ71 wrote:

The NO AV board is well aware of several things:
Passenger and flight operation growth has significantly outpaced their most optimistic projections for most of the last decade.
The NT is not large enough to comfortably handle even modest growth projections going forward. They already wish that they had 4-6 more gates to use.
There is a 'plan" for an additional expansion, but it is a minimum of five years from even beginning to get funded. It is not something that gets any more consideration than that.
There will never be any FIS in ST concourse D.
None of the carriers want to operate out of D after the NT opens.
There is nothing on the radar for scheduled wide body international ops beyond what they have, outside of two inquiries made in the last year. Neither of those would be anytime soon in starting, barring something unexpected happening.

this issue with international may even become less of an issue going forward if the Trump admin gets their way with more customs preclearance operations at originating airports.. I know Punta Cana is most likely next to have it.

DJSNOLA wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard from several sources recently (past week) that the terminal opening is going to get pushed back to May at the earliest. I guess we’ll see. The airlines are still being told a 2/20 move in day but that might change soon.

DL will be getting 5 gates and they’ll likely have access to the CUTE gates on A if they need them. Unless they are planning a large expansion I think 5 dedicated plus common use can probably hold them over. Then again, I don’t know what DL is planning.

I personally think the terminal was under built in terms of gates. Would have liked to have seen at least five more, from the get go. Hopefully, the next expansion is being planned as I type this.

if the terminal is delivered late the contractor will be paying crazy fines ..

I hope they have their checkbook ready.

SunsetLimited wrote:

DJSNOLA wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard from several sources recently (past week) that the terminal opening is going to get pushed back to May at the earliest. I guess we’ll see. The airlines are still being told a 2/20 move in day but that might change soon.

DL will be getting 5 gates and they’ll likely have access to the CUTE gates on A if they need them. Unless they are planning a large expansion I think 5 dedicated plus common use can probably hold them over. Then again, I don’t know what DL is planning.

I personally think the terminal was under built in terms of gates. Would have liked to have seen at least five more, from the get go. Hopefully, the next expansion is being planned as I type this.

if the terminal is delivered late the contractor will be paying crazy fines ..

I hope they have their checkbook ready.

i think the only terminal that they may have option to be late on is A since that was started after but I really dont see the terminal that far behind especially now that most work is interior and that can work all weather and multiple shifts if need be

LightningZ71 wrote:

The NO AV board is well aware of several things:
Passenger and flight operation growth has significantly outpaced their most optimistic projections for most of the last decade.
The NT is not large enough to comfortably handle even modest growth projections going forward. They already wish that they had 4-6 more gates to use.
There is a 'plan" for an additional expansion, but it is a minimum of five years from even beginning to get funded. It is not something that gets any more consideration than that.
There will never be any FIS in ST concourse D.
None of the carriers want to operate out of D after the NT opens.
There is nothing on the radar for scheduled wide body international ops beyond what they have, outside of two inquiries made in the last year. Neither of those would be anytime soon in starting, barring something unexpected happening.

Thanks for the insights. It seems that the AV board is guilty of the kind of thinking that usually plagues the region and holds back growth. It is depressing to think that an airport with so much available land is going to be so limited. Even AUS already has plans to double their gate count. I find it odd that you mention funding as an issue - one would think that if traffic has been exceeding projections, then revenue should as well.

I do think for a variety of reasons that keeping D open will be the best way forward, at least until another major expansion to the NT can built. The problem with the NT is that even if a few more gates could be added, it would probably exceed capacity for security, baggage claim, and roadways. The key would be to renovate it enough that a few airlines would agree to move there. Mostly it could use a larger food/retail court and larger gate areas. I don't see what the problem would be with either building a small FIS or connecting to the existing one below C.

As for your last point, it s interesting that some carriers have expressed interest, but again disappointing that the airport/region doesn't seem to be more aggressively courting more service, especially if DE ends up pulling out. Any word on them?3A

msycajun wrote:

LightningZ71 wrote:

The NO AV board is well aware of several things:
Passenger and flight operation growth has significantly outpaced their most optimistic projections for most of the last decade.
The NT is not large enough to comfortably handle even modest growth projections going forward. They already wish that they had 4-6 more gates to use.
There is a 'plan" for an additional expansion, but it is a minimum of five years from even beginning to get funded. It is not something that gets any more consideration than that.
There will never be any FIS in ST concourse D.
None of the carriers want to operate out of D after the NT opens.
There is nothing on the radar for scheduled wide body international ops beyond what they have, outside of two inquiries made in the last year. Neither of those would be anytime soon in starting, barring something unexpected happening.

Thanks for the insights. It seems that the AV board is guilty of the kind of thinking that usually plagues the region and holds back growth. It is depressing to think that an airport with so much available land is going to be so limited. Even AUS already has plans to double their gate count. I find it odd that you mention funding as an issue - one would think that if traffic has been exceeding projections, then revenue should as well.

I do think for a variety of reasons that keeping D open will be the best way forward, at least until another major expansion to the NT can built. The problem with the NT is that even if a few more gates could be added, it would probably exceed capacity for security, baggage claim, and roadways. The key would be to renovate it enough that a few airlines would agree to move there. Mostly it could use a larger food/retail court and larger gate areas. I don't see what the problem would be with either building a small FIS or connecting to the existing one below C.

As for your last point, it s interesting that some carriers have expressed interest, but again disappointing that the airport/region doesn't seem to be more aggressively courting more service, especially if DE ends up pulling out. Any word on them?3A

With all this split operations talk I starting thinking about things. At first I thought that would not be an issue doing that. Then I thought of a whole bunch of reasons that maybe its a no go.

First, coordinating security would be a headache and require a lot more ppl. Second, there is no way to move bags within the secure zone between the NT and ST. Catering and cleaning would have to maintain equipment on both sides. I presume that if they could find an airline willing to be a risk sharing partner they could possibly operate it as a seperate entity terminal within an airport (like the original JFK), and they would probably need to use all of the current D gates in several daily banks to make it worth their while. That would make it a hub and put some serious pressure on what may be an overtaxed taxi-runway system.

I think MSY is fully invested in the north side for pax ops going forward. It would maybe be different if our geology allowed for service tunnels in the watery muck but thats a no go.

But you make excellent points about terminal services being limited to 35 gates. I think a 15-20 narrowbody-gate LCC bare bones terminal to the west of A may be the best we can hope for in terms of gate relief and affordability. Also the airport HAS to buy some adjoining land to provide adequate land for this and not shoehorn it into existing land (which in my opinion was a big mistake with the NT)

The airport service development person was in Guangzhou at Routes World during a typhoon courting airlines to come to MSY, so I think the airport is being plenty aggressive. I find it encouraging and not disappointing that other carriers have sent people here to inquire about service. That shows interest, and when the pax and revenue numbers get to a point where they meet the airlines needs we could easily see those potential new routes being announced over the next few years. I just don't get the need for instant gratification of our current society. Airports and economic development groups play the long game when it comes to air service. Look at BA, it took nearly a decade of talks to get them here.

Also, why is everyone so hung up on issues with the terminal. Seems like a lot of complaining just to complain at this point. I'm personally over it. All of the past issues have been discussed ad nauseum, and it is frankly quite tiring to me. Yes, the airport ramps will not open for a few years after the new terminal opens. Yes, traffic will likely not be good around Loyola, but not nearly as bad as first feared with most parking remaining on the southside of the airport and shuttles running down Bainbridge. Yes, the airport will see higher gate usage, but the airport board knows this. Once they feel comfortable enough with issuing another bond package to pay for expansion, we'll see that get done. The airport will make it work in the meantime. RON aircraft will simply be parked remotely and towed over in the mornings. Think about it. We have around 160 flights a day in peak season. 160/35 = 4.6 flights per gate. There are common use gates, and the international gates will be heavily used in the morning for domestic service. Also, as has been the trend at MSY, the airlines will simply increase capacity by using larger aircraft if gates and growth become an issue in the coming years. Hell, the airport may even open remote stands and bus people out to them if we do run out of gates (believe it or not this is very common across the world). Also, AUS has far more traffic than us and is growing faster than us, and the expansion opening next year will simply put them on par with us in terms of gate space. They also have the same parking issues as us with an overflow lot being needed during busy periods. A plan is in place to build a new parking garage there, but that won't be done anytime soon. The expansion spoken of in a previous post will be years away from actually happening as it hasn't even gone through design and FAA approval yet. What was shared on the AUS thread was simply the master plan for the airport. Just be happy our airport is growing faster than projected. That is a good thing.

The whole idea of split operations is absolutely ridiculous from an operational standpoint in my opinion. All of the airlines will have ample gates to use throughout the day. Mornings are when gate usage peaks, but the international gates will be free to use for the most part along with the common use gates. It's not like F9, G4, and AS will be using their gates all day long. DL, AA, NK, etc. can easily fly out those gates when they are available. It happens now on Concourse C.

We'll find out tomorrow if the airport opening is delayed by 3 months to May as hinted at. Sometimes large construction projects take longer than expected to complete due to unforeseen issues arising. I'm sure the Hunt/Gibbs/Boh people are not happy since they will be paying big bucks out of their own pockets for these delays. Remember, this project is a Construction Manager at Risk project. Anything that goes over in terms of time or cost fall completely on the contractor. Trust me, they are going to be working like mad to get this done as quickly as possible, so the bottom line is not negatively impacted. Everyone on here is acting like it's the end of the freaking world because the opening may be pushed back a bit. The airlines will take this in stride just fine. They still have a functioning terminal to operate of in the meantime.

Agreed on all the above.. it will be a beautiful airport when done

Also looks like clear channel has won the bid for advertising program at new airport

SNN707 wrote:

At least it won't be like BER

*gasp* Hush yo' mouf!

...this is Louisiana; they might take that as a personal challenge!

DJSNOLA wrote:

this issue with international may even become less of an issue going forward if the Trump admin gets their way with more customs preclearance operations at originating airports.

How can something that's not an issue at all, become less of one?

MSY has never had a lack of processing capability/capacity for what int'l arrivals it has.

Looks like it's officially delayed. SIGH

I think the biggest issue I have is the lack of communication to the public. It's a common thing for area agencies to be unnecessarily secretive and it does not give the public confidence, even if they have a handle on the issues. While plenty of articles have come out detailing the potential issues, the AV board has never given the public a detailed plan of how they intend to manage those issues. Other airports have reports and long-term plans available to the public. Without those we are left to speculate. Think of how many aspects to the project we only learn about through construction document filings and RFPs. Is there going to be a second garage? Are they planning on a new CONRAC? Why keep those things a secret?

I do agree that traffic and gate concerns are overblown - for the current operations. My question is in the 1-5 years before additional expansion could happen, what were to happen if we had major service expansions or some sort of focus city operation. Things will be fine for now, but I would hate to see airlines avoid growth due to the facilities and the airlines are probably not going to come out and say "well we would give you 10 more flights, but there just aren't enough gates at the right times. Forgetting gates, at the current pace of growth, there is a risk of running out of check-in, security, and baggage space in just a few years.

May 15th opening date now. Glad the sewer subsidence issue was caught before road and parking paving started, and before they opened up the terminal.

https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_12951f68-bce3-11e8-b1bf-4b245ed3f94d.html

If an airline decides to expand service here dramatically, they can use remote stands as I stated earlier until any expansion is completed. A very common occurrence at airports throughout the world.

So the opening is pushed back til May 15 after Jazzfest... because of a sewerage pipe... curious to see how this effects tenant handovers since a sagging pipe shouldn't effect the delivery of the space to them... i guess the other positive is this means the terminal will open with long term garage ready as well .. maybe its better this way.. but my question is whos fitting the bill for this 7.5 million dollar cost?

It's likely the Hunt-Gibbs-Boh consortium that's footing this bill.

I'm glad to see that they are expanding the corridor to make 5 total gates international-capable. Hopefully we'll have some new routes to put them to good use.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 20, 2018
Contact:
Erin Burns
communications@flymsy.com
504.303.7631
City, New Orleans Aviation Board Secures $35 Million in Additional Funding for New Terminal Construction Project

Funding includes $20.3 Million FAA Grant; Allows Airport to Add New Features; Opening Date Adjusted
NEW ORLEANS - NEW ORLEANS – Today, the City of New Orleans and the New Orleans Aviation Board announced that it has secured an additional $35 million in funding for the new 35-gate replacement airport terminal currently under construction at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport (MSY). The $35 million increase includes a $20.3 million airport infrastructure grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as part of its Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for airports across the United States. This brings the total cost for the new terminal construction project—which will deliver a completely new, state-of-the-art airport facility to the Greater New Orleans region—from $993.7 million to $1.029 billion.

The terminal construction project is currently over 75% complete, and the new funding sources will allow the Airport to add new features into the project that will further enhance the operations for airlines and passengers, support continued coordination with architectural designers as the project approaches completion, increase the level of funds set aside for any necessary changes yet to be identified, and cover costs to address issues the contractors have come across in the construction process—which is common with any major construction project.

The Airport’s contractors, Hunt-Gibbs-Boh-Metro Joint Venture (HGBM), announced today at the New Orleans Aviation Board meeting that they are currently addressing an issue with settlement of a sewer line that requires an adjustment to the construction schedule. Because a functional sewer line is necessary for the facility to be completely operational, the Board approved a new plan to open the terminal to the public on May 15, 2019, instead of the previously scheduled date in February 2019.

“Our new world-class airport terminal will be a game changer for our great City and the region,” said New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell. “My priority is to ensure the new airport meets and exceeds the needs of our residents, our regional neighbors, and our visitors when it opens next year. I commend the Aviation Board leadership for proactively securing additional funds and responding to new circumstances. The impact this will have on our future makes it crucial that we get this right, enabling us to fully leverage the federal, state and private dollars that make this opportunity possible.”

Announced in April 2013, the new terminal has been under construction on the north side of the airport property since January 2016. Once complete, all airlines, concessions and other airport operations will move to the new terminal. The project is creating thousands of new construction jobs and significant opportunities for local businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) in the region. In total, the approximately 972,000 square-foot terminal will feature three concourses, 35 gates, a new short term, long term parking garage and surface parking lot next to the terminal plus an economy garage with shuttle service. It will also feature modern passenger conveniences like a consolidated checkpoint where passengers will have access to over 40 different food, beverage, news, gift and specialty retail concessions once they are beyond security. The current facility will be redeveloped. A land use study is currently underway to determine the highest and best use for that part of the Airport’s property.

Based on an economic impact study by Timothy Ryan, Ph.D., the airport’s economic impact will increase approximately 20 percent in the next six years. When the new terminal is open, MSY will support more than 64,000 jobs, $6.4 billion in local spending, and $2.4 billion in local earnings.

NOAB Chairperson Cheryl Teamer said, “We are building an airport terminal that this community will benefit from for generations to come. Over the last decade, we have reformed the New Orleans Aviation Board making the operation more efficient and attractive to airlines, and putting a system of governance in place that allows us to make timely and informed decisions impacting this major economic driver. I’m grateful to our experienced team of contractors and other professionals for identifying and finding solutions to issues before they become more costly and cumbersome in the future.”

NOAB Aviation Director Kevin Dolliole said, “It’s not every day that a project of this magnitude comes along in this country, and no city deserves a top-of-the-line new airport facility like New Orleans does. That’s why, as we enter the final phase of construction, we are diligently evaluating the project to maximize our use of resources and ensuring the proper checks and balances are in place. I’m pleased that we have a fully funded program that allows us add in features that will benefit the traveling public in the long run while maintaining affordable costs for the airlines.”

New Project Features
From the beginning, the new terminal was designed with flexibility to allow the airport to adapt as quickly as needed to meet the changing demands of the aviation industry. With part of the new funding sources identified, the Airport is now extending the secured corridor that connects passengers arriving from international flights to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection screening area. With this infrastructure in place, the Airport will have the ability to support future growth in international flights as market demand dictates with a total of 5 passenger gates. The Airport is also extending the canopy over the arrivals curb area on the outside of the building, providing more coverage for passengers standing outside.

New Funding Sources
While the majority of the $1.029 billion project cost is backed by the Airport’s 15 airlines through their lease agreement with the Airport, the new funding sources come at no additional costs to the airlines or the community. The $20.3 million FAA grant will cover the costs associated with expanding the existing apron area where aircraft park, load and unload. This will free up funds previously earmarked for that part of the project, and allow the Airport to find another appropriate use for them. Other new funding sources include a 10% match for the FAA grant from the State of Louisiana Aviation Trust Fund, additional funds from the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) Electronic Baggage Screening Program, Airport capital funds if needed, and other funds made available as a result of changes or new developments in the program.

Sewer Line Issue
HGBM discovered that the terminal’s main sewer line was sagging during a camera inspection in June before it was closed up and paved over. The sag in the sewer line compromises the gravity flow of waste from the entire terminal facility. Upon discovering this issue, HGBM immediately began working on a solution with the Airport’s design team and project management team. The New Orleans Aviation Board was notified of the issue with the sewer line at its July board meeting where it approved an emergency change order to quickly address this matter. The contractor has now finalized a solution that includes the installation of a force main sewer line with lift stations costing $7.5 million. The contractor will complete the installation by April 30, 2019, and the terminal will open to the public on May 15, 2019.

# # #

Here is the location of the sewer line that will be replaced.



Explains why there hasn't been any work paving over the last portion of the ramp in front of A and the main terminal building. I suspect the plan to move jetbridges over to A beginning in November will also have to wait until the ramp paving is complete. Glad this got caught before the terminal opened, or it would have resulted in a very shitty situation.

I wonder DE not being scheduled is related to the delay. Since they usually start up mid-May it would make sense to make sure that the first flight is scheduled for after the opening.

msycajun wrote:

I'm glad to see that they are expanding the corridor to make 5 total gates international-capable. Hopefully we'll have some new routes to put them to good use.

Same. I'd love to see them designate A as an official "international concourse," and maybe even give it a famous naming honor.

Feel me on this:
the John B. Moisant international terminal at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.

Whatcha think??

I like that idea. Honors the original namesake and an aviation pioneer

NolaMD88fan wrote:

I like that idea. Honors the original namesake and an aviation pioneer

Didnt he die in a plane crash with his cat ? Not sure how that would go over in an airport but interesting idea

msycajun wrote:

I wonder DE not being scheduled is related to the delay. Since they usually start up mid-May it would make sense to make sure that the first flight is scheduled for after the opening.

Thought the same thing when i saw that new May date

DJSNOLA wrote:

Didnt he die in a plane crash with his cat ?

He did.
Miss Paris, the cat, survived.

DJSNOLA wrote:

Not sure how that would go over in an airport

The airfield itself was previously named for him from 1946-1961, so that question's pretty much answered.
It's why the old folk still call it "Moisant airport."

...that, and you do realize what the "M" in "MSY" stands for, no?

I'm generally opposed to naming public structures. To me it cheapens whatever is being named. MSY is already named for one local celebrity (not to mention the M in MSY) and it's not like there will even be a separate terminal. Maybe if they ended up keeping the north and south terminals, I could seeing naming one or both to differentiate, but I'd still prefer North and South to keep it simple.

msycajun wrote:

I'm generally opposed to naming public structures. To me it cheapens whatever is being named. MSY is already named for one local celebrity (not to mention the M in MSY) and it's not like there will even be a separate terminal. Maybe if they ended up keeping the north and south terminals, I could seeing naming one or both to differentiate, but I'd still prefer North and South to keep it simple.

Yeah I agree with this especially since most people dont know the story of Moisant and why its called MSY.

August stats posted by the airport today. Monthly traffic is up 12.5% to 1,007,919, and year to date traffic is up 10.8% to 8,777,441. I will post later where the airport ranked year to date through August when more airports report August numbers. DE and CM had stellar numbers for what is typically the Summer doldrums in terms of tourism. BA also showed improvement over 2017 even with added capacity.

http://www.flymsy.com/Files/Press/August2018.pdf

Estimated international carrier load factor:

AC: 77.0% full outbound (MSY-YYZ) 1742 pax/2263 seats
80.3% full inbound (YYZ-MSY) 1818 pax/2263 seats
78.7% full combined 3560 pax/4526 seats

BA: 72.0% full outbound (MSY-LHR) 2883 pax/4066 seats
81.3% full inbound (LHR-MSY) 3305 pax/4066 seats
76.1% full combined 6188 pax/8132 seats

DE: 77.5% full outbound (MSY-FRA) 1778 pax/2295 seats
90.8% full inbound (FRA-MSY) 2083 pax/2295 seats
84.1% full combined 3861 pax/4590 seats

CM: 74.2% full outbound (MSY-PTY) 1563 pax/2108 seats
90.5% full inbound (PTY-MSY) 2019 pax/2232 seats
82.5% full combined 3582 pax/4340 seats

Miscalculated BA. Sorry about that.

BA: 64.2% full outbound (MSY-LHR) 2883 pax/4494 seats
73.5% full inbound (LHR-MSY) 3305 pax/4494 seats
68.9% full combined 6188 pax/8988 seats

Pretty cool to see DE surpass AC as MSY's second largest international carrier, if even for just a month.

LAX772LR wrote:

Pretty cool to see DE surpass AC as MSY's second largest international carrier, if even for just a month.

The seats are definitely getting filled for them this year.

Just noticed that CM snuck AC in pax as well!

Great to see such growth in the airport's new foreign flag carriers.... sad to see such stagnation in its current longest-serving int'l carrier.

Well...it is the slow season traditionally, and AC did see growth year over year. If the numbers keep improving for them, I think we'll see 2x daily E75 service extended to year round. I think they currently fly it 2x daily from December through part of May.

Also, ACI-NA published 2017 stats. Looks like MSY fell one spot to 42nd busiest airport in the US and Canada as SJC and it's ridiculous 15.6% annual growth surpassed us. MSY's growth in 2017 was tied for 10th fastest in both the US and Canada with SMF. https://www.aci-na.org/content/airport-traffic-reports

AC seems to offer a lot of cheap connections to Europe, but being 1 daily half the year doesn't allow it to be competitive. Adding an RON would help, as would YUL.

msycajun wrote:

AC seems to offer a lot of cheap connections to Europe, but being 1 daily half the year doesn't allow it to be competitive. Adding an RON would help, as would YUL.

is it easy to connect through toronto to europe ? never considered it before .. would be nice to see YUL

DJSNOLA wrote:

msycajun wrote:

AC seems to offer a lot of cheap connections to Europe, but being 1 daily half the year doesn't allow it to be competitive. Adding an RON would help, as would YUL.

is it easy to connect through toronto to europe ? never considered it before .. would be nice to see YUL

Very easy.

In fact, the fare structure that they offer typically promotes/encourages that. AC is competitive on MSY-Europe/Asia. Their fares for just a MSY-YYZ nonstop tends to be atrociously expensive.

I remember once that an MSY-YYZ-HKG fare I was researching was cheaper than the MSY-YYZ nonstop!

DJSNOLA wrote:

It sure looks unbalanced. They need to extend to the east.

Nola wrote:

DJSNOLA wrote:

It sure looks unbalanced. They need to extend to the east.

I'm not sure they have the space to do that!

Was mention elsewhere but WN is adding frequency to a few routes with the early summer extension. DEN/AUS/FLL to 3, MDW to 4, and MCO to 5. Including LGA, it's about 7 or 8 more year over year to 63 weekday departures. Sunday SJC returns, as does Saturday CUN, but SMF seems to be gone.

I wonder if UA will match DEN frequency - that route has had lfs consistently in the 90s.

msyflyer wrote:

Nola wrote:

DJSNOLA wrote:

It sure looks unbalanced. They need to extend to the east.

I'm not sure they have the space to do that!

They wouldn't be able to balance it completely but could at least add a small concourse.

I thought the original plan was for there to be space to add one concourse on each side of the original ones, but I guess that plan has changed with the long extension "A" and not having enough room on the east side. I remember reading something a while ago in this thread but don't remember any of the details.

If the next expansion is a long concourse off of A, they can probably do it with the existing head house, but any further expansions would likely require a second check in and security area.

DJSNOLA wrote:

msycajun wrote:

AC seems to offer a lot of cheap connections to Europe, but being 1 daily half the year doesn't allow it to be competitive. Adding an RON would help, as would YUL.

is it easy to connect through toronto to europe ? never considered it before .. would be nice to see YUL

I will let you know. Returning from Europe on AC through YYZ. Originally when I booked there were 3 hours connect time before the YYZ-MSY leg. Then AC moved up the MSY flight to where there was only 59min to connect. Not enough time considering you have to go through Canadian and US pteclearance. Now booked YYZ-ORD-MSY. AC will NEVER get in to the TATL connections game with this kind of schedule stupidity.

As stated by others, they need a late arriving RON flight and a morning departure if they want TATL connection business.

jbs2886 wrote:

Nola wrote:

msyflyer wrote:

I'm not sure they have the space to do that!

They wouldn't be able to balance it completely but could at least add a small concourse.

I thought the original plan was for there to be space to add one concourse on each side of the original ones, but I guess that plan has changed with the long extension "A" and not having enough room on the east side. I remember reading something a while ago in this thread but don't remember any of the details.

If the next expansion is a long concourse off of A, they can probably do it with the existing head house, but any further expansions would likely require a second check in and security area.

I'm not sure being "balanced" is really that important enough to construct a pier/extension.

It's not a good reason in and of itself, but it would be better for the passengers. Adding another concourse on to A would make for a very long walk from security and it doesn't seem that there will be room for moving walkways.

Hopefully with Disney announcing cruises starting in 2020, hopefully additional service will ensue!

jbs2886 wrote:

msycajun wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

I'm not sure being "balanced" is really that important enough to construct a pier/extension.

It's not a good reason in and of itself, but it would be better for the passengers. Adding another concourse on to A would make for a very long walk from security and it doesn't seem that there will be room for moving walkways.

The walk wouldn't be that long. You do far longer walks in most major airports (heck, the walk to the last gate in B would probably be about the same to the last gate in a new A tier).

i think the plan was that a new pier would be built on A that would be parallel to B and C, so the walk to the end of the new A would be pretty long compared to the other piers.

msyjay wrote:

Hopefully with Disney announcing cruises starting in 2020, hopefully additional service will ensue!

Waiting to see what happens, if/when it happens (despite the announcement).

Still sorta smarts about how spectacularly incompetent the whole Viking River Cruises USA project (didn't) turn out.

Disney is a bit different since the ship already exists, and this is actually scheduled. Viking had no ships and no schedule. The river cruising has actually grown quite a bit since Viking announced with a couple of new American based ships sailing out of the port.