Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
jbs2886 wrote:DJSNOLA wrote:there absolutely needs to be a third lounge that you can pay to access
You can pay to access the SkyClub and United lounge
LAX772LR wrote:jbs2886 wrote:DJSNOLA wrote:there absolutely needs to be a third lounge that you can pay to access
You can pay to access the SkyClub and United lounge
Not SkyClub, unless you're ticketed aboard DL or a partner.
Even annual SkyClub members will be required to have a 006 ticket, starting in January.
Policy:
A Single Visit Pass must be used in conjunction with same-day ticketed air travel on Delta Air Lines or its partner airlines.
https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US ... rules.html
NolaMD88fan wrote:LAX772LR wrote:jbs2886 wrote:You can pay to access the SkyClub and United lounge
Not SkyClub, unless you're ticketed aboard DL or a partner.
Even annual SkyClub members will be required to have a 006 ticket, starting in January.
Policy:
A Single Visit Pass must be used in conjunction with same-day ticketed air travel on Delta Air Lines or its partner airlines.
https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US ... rules.html
That sucks. I guess the DL clubs in the hubs were getting to crowded.
I'm certain our airport could easily support a third party lounge. AA and BA business class pax alone would keep it pretty busy. Priority Pass would of course be best, but I'll take The Club, Airspace, or Wingtips.
jbs2886 wrote:
Priority Pass has access generally to The Club lounges.
NolaMD88fan wrote:UK CAA reported March figures. The BA flight had 7,923 total pax and a load factor of 80.5% assuming 788 seat count. A good month for the route.
http://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/ ... alysis.pdf
SNN707 wrote:NolaMD88fan wrote:UK CAA reported March figures. The BA flight had 7,923 total pax and a load factor of 80.5% assuming 788 seat count. A good month for the route.
http://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/ ... alysis.pdf
Do you think that if Thomas Cook announced rumored service at MSY in 2019 from MAN with the A330's that are based there, that BA will increase frequencies and/or gauge???
NolaMD88fan wrote:Someone posted this on another forum, and thought I would share.
This looks like the overall master plan for the airport. A CONRAC would be built to the west of the new terminal where the existing FBO/general aviation is located. The existing CONRAC would be converted over to additional parking. The FBO/general aviation area would move to the southside of the airport grounds where part of the existing terminal is currently. The existing terminal will be mostly demolished before the FBO moves there. Also plans to add a new taxiway for RWY 11/29 access. New cargo handling areas also planned along with an intermodal/corporate park. I also see that a commuter rail station could be added, if that ever got started.
Glad to see there are plans to build a new CONRAC closer to the new terminal.
NolaMD88fan wrote:Also, the airport board approved issuing $210,000,000 dollars in bonds for a new consolidated parking garage last month. Guessing this is likely related to the CONRAC.
SNN707 wrote:NolaMD88fan wrote:Someone posted this on another forum, and thought I would share.
This looks like the overall master plan for the airport. A CONRAC would be built to the west of the new terminal where the existing FBO/general aviation is located. The existing CONRAC would be converted over to additional parking. The FBO/general aviation area would move to the southside of the airport grounds where part of the existing terminal is currently. The existing terminal will be mostly demolished before the FBO moves there. Also plans to add a new taxiway for RWY 11/29 access. New cargo handling areas also planned along with an intermodal/corporate park. I also see that a commuter rail station could be added, if that ever got started.
Glad to see there are plans to build a new CONRAC closer to the new terminal.
That third finger doesn't make sense as it shows a much thicker Concourse A to connect the two. Also i can't imagine the terminal itself supporting all those additional gates when it comes to checkin, bag claim, security, and landside dropoff.
I can totally see a smaller terminal to the west supporting maybe 10-15 gates, possibly a dedicated international terminal with reversible domestic gates that has drive up landside, with a post security connector to A. But that would be at least 10 years at least.
msycajun wrote:It really seems to me that it was a short-sighted design that didn't leave much room for growth.
LAX772LR wrote:msycajun wrote:It really seems to me that it was a short-sighted design that didn't leave much room for growth.
Airport staff routinely ridicule the idea (one, obnoxiously so)....
...but fugg'em, I still say that (barring a market shock, oil spike or major disaster) they're going to be retroactively using the current Concourse D for routine ops again.
Make fun of it all you'd like, but I'm not doubting it.
LAX772LR wrote:msycajun wrote:It really seems to me that it was a short-sighted design that didn't leave much room for growth.
Airport staff routinely ridicule the idea (one, obnoxiously so)....
...but fugg'em, I still say that (barring a market shock, oil spike or major disaster) they're going to be retroactively using the current Concourse D for routine ops again.
Make fun of it all you'd like, but I'm not doubting it.
Nola wrote:Southwest would likely want to move to D and have a terminal all to itself. There are actually rumors that Southwest would prefer not to move to the new terminal at all.
LightningZ71 wrote:There is a "plan" that offers an additional 6 or so gates on another, smaller, finger concourse at the end of A. It's kind of like the picture above, but it's thinner than B and C, and would only have gates pointed at B. I'd say that it's a "design study" that has been blueprinted if needed. Of course, the airport still has it's plans for an additional north-south runway out at the end of the East-West runway in the swamp too, for what that's worth. That's still at least a decade or more away, if ever.
In a related note, construction work has commenced on increasing the vehicle capacity at the Loyola Dr. and I-10 interchange. Additional turning lanes on Loyola have been added, as well as additional capacity between Loyola and Veterans Blvd on the south bound side (working on 3 lanes instead of 2). It's a start, but, it'll still be rather badly over capacity at opening.
msycajun wrote:It would make sense to put an FIS into the current concourse D, especially if they are planning to use it for charters. If MSY has more of those days with 4-5 widebodies from Europe as cruise charters, there wouldn't be enough room in the NT
msycajun wrote:Several thoughts:
It would make sense to put an FIS into the current concourse D, especially if they are planning to use it for charters. If MSY has more of those days with 4-5 widebodies from Europe as cruise charters, there wouldn't be enough room in the NT, especially if AM and MT are coming. Same for diversions. There's room for what, 2 international widebodies/3 narrow?
As others have said Southwest was involved in the planning - actually a WN employee was/is chair of the steering committee, so I don't see them staying in the south terminal. I could see the ULCCs moving there if there ends up being a lack of space.
More parking is probably a good thing, but again too little to late. Better planning would have been to build a larger and taller garage in the first place - 2000 spaces is clearly inadequate. At this rate it would almost be better to rely more on ST parking as that would mean fewer cars needing to use the Loyola exits.
Another small "finger" from A seems again to be bad design. It would be a very long walk from security and most of the amenities unless they build an additional terminal area to go with it. Shifting the whole thing west and leaving room for a D concourse would have been a better plan. It might even be more convenient to keep part of the south terminal rather than do that.
LightningZ71 wrote:The tunnel under the runway hasn't been maintained beyond any requirements to keep the runway stable. To make it usable would be a very expensive undertaking.
Given the current finances of the project, they would more than likely start making use of Concourse D again before doing any further extensions to the new Terminal complex. Concourse D has ticketing and baggage claim all integrated with it and is rather more modernized as compared to the rest of the current building. I could definitely see a world where the big 3 and southwest consume almost all of the new complex and the ULCC/LCCs and smaller carriers are all relegated to D. Most of them don't interline much with the big carriers, making there very little need for passengers to get to the new terminal. The vendors at the new terminal won't care as the remaining traffic will still be in excess of the initial project expectations.
As I understand it, there are no plans to handle international arrivals at Concourse D. Any international arrivals will be going to A, unless they are pre-cleared. The FIS in new A is of a more modern design than the one in the ST. While it may be physically smaller, it will move more passengers in the same amount of time. It is also far more capable of supporting the new automated systems that are being implemented by US Customs (&BP for the sticklers) in other airports around the country which will have a big impact on passenger throughput. In short, don't worry about FIS. If the airport needs more international gates, the pathway to doing that is comparatively simple.
NolaMD88fan wrote:LightningZ71 wrote:The tunnel under the runway hasn't been maintained beyond any requirements to keep the runway stable. To make it usable would be a very expensive undertaking.
Given the current finances of the project, they would more than likely start making use of Concourse D again before doing any further extensions to the new Terminal complex. Concourse D has ticketing and baggage claim all integrated with it and is rather more modernized as compared to the rest of the current building. I could definitely see a world where the big 3 and southwest consume almost all of the new complex and the ULCC/LCCs and smaller carriers are all relegated to D. Most of them don't interline much with the big carriers, making there very little need for passengers to get to the new terminal. The vendors at the new terminal won't care as the remaining traffic will still be in excess of the initial project expectations.
As I understand it, there are no plans to handle international arrivals at Concourse D. Any international arrivals will be going to A, unless they are pre-cleared. The FIS in new A is of a more modern design than the one in the ST. While it may be physically smaller, it will move more passengers in the same amount of time. It is also far more capable of supporting the new automated systems that are being implemented by US Customs (&BP for the sticklers) in other airports around the country which will have a big impact on passenger throughput. In short, don't worry about FIS. If the airport needs more international gates, the pathway to doing that is comparatively simple.
Yup...I don't think we'll ever see that tunnel used.
If there is no room for G4, F9, and SY in the NT in a few years, the current concourse D is the perfect spot for them. Very comparable to the setup in AUS right now. Those carriers will likely never fly any international routes from MSY, so the need won't be there for a FIS facility. NK however I think would end up staying in the NT since they are a signatory carrier, and could potentially fly some international routes in the future. B6 and AS have interline/codeshare agreements, so I see them staying in the NT long term.
I'm looking forward to using the new FIS next Summer. Figuring it will be similar to the YYZ pre-check with passport kiosks to speed up the process.
NolaMD88fan wrote:November 2017 international pax and load factors by route, and February 2018 domestic pas and load factors by route caculated.
On the international side, AC saw a sharp decline of nearly 5% in pax and load factors from 2016 with a load factor of 74.2% on the YYZ route in November. This continues a trend of lower numbers for all of Fall. Could be a stronger US dollar or less Europe bound transfer pax now that BA is flying to LHR. We'll see if the trend continues. Year to date numbers are still solid with a 83.3% load factor on the route.
BA had a full month of flying 5x weekly, and the loads were a solid 76.1%. Year to date is at 77.1%. CM saw a gain in pax and load factors from 2016. Pax numbers were up nearly 7% on a 5% increase in seats, and loads increased by 1.2% to 74.1%. Year to date loads are at 76.7% through November for CM. Overall, the international load factor for all non-stop routes in November was 75.2% and pax traffic grew by 118% thanks to the BA flight. The year to date load factor for all international non-stop routes 78.6%.
Domestically, the overall load factor for the airport in February was 80.9%. This was a 2.8% increase over 2017, and that is impressive as overall seat count grew by 14.4%. Pax count increased by 18.4% year over year. The year to date load factor was 78.5%.
AS's MSY-SEA route had the highest load factor in February at 92.4%. WN's MSY-CMH route had the lowest load factor at 59.4%. DL started flying to SEA and BOS on a limited basis. The SEA route did very well with a 90.7% load factor. BOS had a lower load factor of 76.3%, but this is decent given the time of year and two other carriers flying this route. Year to date, WN's MSY-DEN route had the highest load factor at 92.4%, and NK's MSY-BOS route had the lowest load factor at 53.0%.
(Domestic)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J_XIgbK86N2kPFUiFgeyVdPNanrB2qatLCIShRtCRLs/edit?usp=sharing
(International)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yepoGdibyiVsViWrjIcouvFnmdUNzhYuBiOo9bBPV8Y/edit?usp=sharing
Nola wrote:With this indicate that delta would be successful running to Seattle beyond the weekend?
LAX772LR wrote:Nola wrote:With this indicate that delta would be successful running to Seattle beyond the weekend?
Not enough info to definitively say.
The loads are nice, but we don't know the fare yield, nor the opportunity cost.
It's probably a good sign though, as DL likely would not have bothered with it in the first place if they didn't feel that they could charge reasonable fares.
SunsetLimited wrote:I’ve heard that NK is reducing CLE to twice-weekly at some point over the next few months.
Let’s face it - with only a couple of exceptions - G4 has been a bust here.
Midwestindy wrote:SunsetLimited wrote:Let’s face it - with only a couple of exceptions - G4 has been a bust here.
Connections through ATL are so easy, plus DL is charging very competitive fares on routes like IND-MSY
LAX772LR wrote:Midwestindy wrote:SunsetLimited wrote:Let’s face it - with only a couple of exceptions - G4 has been a bust here.
Connections through ATL are so easy, plus DL is charging very competitive fares on routes like IND-MSY
What I've consistently heard is that many of the local hotels don't want to play ball with G4 on rates, in the same way that LAS/ORL do.
Tough for them to get the pricing on the packages they offer, if they can only rely on the excess capacity from national chain hotels.
That, and I'm shocked by just how many non-av NOLA people I've run into, know about their worrisome maintenance record. Granted, I'd never set foot on them, and I've warned my friends/family never to as well; but (anecdotal as it may be) it seems to go far beyond my little circle of acquaintance. Interesting.
msycajun wrote:G4 recently updated their schedule through FEB 19 and MSY has had a lot of routes cut that were previously scheduled to run into the fall/winter:
I don't mind seeing LCK cut if it helps NK at CMH, same with CLE, SFB, and PIE, but PIT and IND are surprising to see not running in the fall (they may even be permanently discontinued). Perhaps these are opportunities for WN/DL/NK.
NolaMD88fan wrote:NK and WN flying daily to TPA and MCO was the likely cause of these cuts.
DJSNOLA wrote:Silver Airways flights going to Branson.. surely this must be setting the stage for NOLA to be a connecting point to other destinations and not just a NOLA to Branson flight ?
SNN707 wrote:DJSNOLA wrote:Silver Airways flights going to Branson.. surely this must be setting the stage for NOLA to be a connecting point to other destinations and not just a NOLA to Branson flight ?
The flight will operate in a seperate network. You can book NOLA-Houston with a stop in Branson. Hopefully they will run a flight to Orlando to connect with their Florida network.
NolaMD88fan wrote:The airport set a new passenger record in March with 1,205,630 passengers recorded. NK and WN appear to the major drivers behind this growth.
NolaMD88fan wrote:Would love to see NK start up some international routes. SAP would be popular with the large central American population here.
