Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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.
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 ..
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.
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.
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
SNN707 wrote:At least it won't be like BER
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.
NolaMD88fan wrote:it would have resulted in a very shitty situation.
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.
NolaMD88fan wrote:I like that idea. Honors the original namesake and an aviation pioneer
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.
DJSNOLA wrote:Didnt he die in a plane crash with his cat ?
DJSNOLA wrote:Not sure how that would go over in an airport
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.
LAX772LR wrote:Pretty cool to see DE surpass AC as MSY's second largest international carrier, if even for just a month.
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.
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
DJSNOLA wrote:
Nola wrote:DJSNOLA wrote:
It sure looks unbalanced. They need to extend to the east.
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!
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
Nola wrote:msyflyer wrote:Nola 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.
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.
msycajun wrote:jbs2886 wrote:Nola wrote:
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.
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).
Nola wrote:jbs2886 wrote:msycajun wrote:
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!