Lennundus wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

Nice to see the A321 show up for CLT. AA has ran BNA-LAX 3x daily before. Those were all A319s if I’m not mistaken. I would like to see PHX, but I’m not sure it’ll happen. Seeing mainline on DCA would be nice too.

I don't think PHX happens because I don't see AA expanding in PHX. I'm convinced the only reason PHX is still an AA hub is because they cannot fit everything at LAX. If I were them, I'd close PHX and shift the capacity to both DFW and LAX.

I also doubt AA mainline to DCA will happen, considering they only fly to hubs and other major cities on mainline there.

Why would AA close their PHX hub? They have added many new routes since the merger including EUG, MEM, OKC, AMA, LBB, SGU, STS, and MAF. Currently AA has seen sizable increases in there pax numbers at PHX. These recent adds might suggest AA could be looking at PHX-BNA.

Because I am not totally convinced AA is committed to PHX. Next downturn, I have a feeling a fair amount of cuts will come from there. They could shift capacity to DFW and LAX where they would probably make more money.

flymco753 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

A poster brought up a good theory in another thread. If someone can look out for a stage for a possible air service announcement for BNA at some point in the next 2 weeks, keep us updated. With NK's recent adds going westward, BNA could be next.

Where did you see that?

In the AVL Spirit thread. It's just speculation, they're making their way west towards BNA, it could be next I don't know. It's possible. I mean if they're not done, GSO-AVL-TYS?-BNA?-MEM?

Did they say there will be more announcements?

I doubt it will happen right now because of the lack of gates, but I hope I'm wrong. I'd like to see NK add BNA-DFW/DTW/FLL/LAS, etc.

TYS is probably a bit too small for NK, but MEM could be a decent candidate because of the lack of a dominant carrier. Then again, BNA is where all the tourism is happen, so I'd be surprised if MEM got NK before BNA.

I think AS should move to C and share a gate with AA in order to free up a gate in B for NK.

ADrum23 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Where did you see that?

In the AVL Spirit thread. It's just speculation, they're making their way west towards BNA, it could be next I don't know. It's possible. I mean if they're not done, GSO-AVL-TYS?-BNA?-MEM?

Did they say there will be more announcements?

I doubt it will happen right now because of the lack of gates, but I hope I'm wrong. I'd like to see NK add BNA-DFW/DTW/FLL/LAS, etc.

TYS is probably a bit too small for NK, but MEM could be a decent candidate because of the lack of a dominant carrier. Then again, BNA is where all the tourism is happen, so I'd be surprised if MEM got NK before BNA.

They didn't say if there was more or not. I also feel like BNA would've made a big deal about it, however GSO and AVL didn't.

ADrum23 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Where did you see that?

In the AVL Spirit thread. It's just speculation, they're making their way west towards BNA, it could be next I don't know. It's possible. I mean if they're not done, GSO-AVL-TYS?-BNA?-MEM?

Did they say there will be more announcements?

I doubt it will happen right now because of the lack of gates, but I hope I'm wrong. I'd like to see NK add BNA-DFW/DTW/FLL/LAS, etc.

TYS is probably a bit too small for NK, but MEM could be a decent candidate because of the lack of a dominant carrier. Then again, BNA is where all the tourism is happen, so I'd be surprised if MEM got NK before BNA.

TYS is currently serving more passengers than both GSO and AVL. We know what those 2 airports have in common over the last 2 days. With that being said, I do not expect NK to open TYS anytime soon given its close proximity to AVL.

TYSflyer wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

In the AVL Spirit thread. It's just speculation, they're making their way west towards BNA, it could be next I don't know. It's possible. I mean if they're not done, GSO-AVL-TYS?-BNA?-MEM?

Did they say there will be more announcements?

I doubt it will happen right now because of the lack of gates, but I hope I'm wrong. I'd like to see NK add BNA-DFW/DTW/FLL/LAS, etc.

TYS is probably a bit too small for NK, but MEM could be a decent candidate because of the lack of a dominant carrier. Then again, BNA is where all the tourism is happen, so I'd be surprised if MEM got NK before BNA.

TYS is currently serving more passengers than both GSO and AVL. We know what those 2 airports have in common over the last 2 days. With that being said, I do not expect NK to open TYS anytime soon given its close proximity to AVL.

In that case, adding AVL over TYS is a head scratcher for sure. What gives?

When will NK enter the TN market?

Supposedly some folks in RDU believe that NK chose GSO because RDU has gate usuage issues too.

ADrum23 wrote:

TYSflyer wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Did they say there will be more announcements?

I doubt it will happen right now because of the lack of gates, but I hope I'm wrong. I'd like to see NK add BNA-DFW/DTW/FLL/LAS, etc.

TYS is probably a bit too small for NK, but MEM could be a decent candidate because of the lack of a dominant carrier. Then again, BNA is where all the tourism is happen, so I'd be surprised if MEM got NK before BNA.

TYS is currently serving more passengers than both GSO and AVL. We know what those 2 airports have in common over the last 2 days. With that being said, I do not expect NK to open TYS anytime soon given its close proximity to AVL.

In that case, adding AVL over TYS is a head scratcher for sure. What gives?

When will NK enter the TN market?

I think TYS would have had potential but like other TN airports (BNA, and CHA) available gates might be an issue especially in the morning.

I also realized that gate C2 is never utilized. AA just uses it for an originating ORD flight.

Lennundus wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

Nice to see the A321 show up for CLT. AA has ran BNA-LAX 3x daily before. Those were all A319s if I’m not mistaken. I would like to see PHX, but I’m not sure it’ll happen. Seeing mainline on DCA would be nice too.

I don't think PHX happens because I don't see AA expanding in PHX. I'm convinced the only reason PHX is still an AA hub is because they cannot fit everything at LAX. If I were them, I'd close PHX and shift the capacity to both DFW and LAX.

I also doubt AA mainline to DCA will happen, considering they only fly to hubs and other major cities on mainline there.

Why would AA close their PHX hub? They have added many new routes since the merger including EUG, MEM, OKC, AMA, LBB, SGU, STS, and MAF. Currently AA has seen sizable increases in there pax numbers at PHX. These recent adds might suggest AA could be looking at PHX-BNA.

Agreed. They’re not going to give up an enormous hub in the 4th or 5th largest city in the country simply because they have a couple other productive hubs in that general quarter of the country. They share LAX with like 5 other airlines who have a significant presence, PHX they basically have to themselves (other than WN, but they don’t always target the same types of travelers).

I hope NK starts serving BNA as much as y’all, but this is very thin. I think if they were doing some sort of geographic roll across the country with new service announcements they would have advertised that.

pdt2f wrote:

I hope NK starts serving BNA as much as y’all, but this is very thin. I think if they were doing some sort of geographic roll across the country with new service announcements they would have advertised that.

Agreed. If it doesn't happen now I can't imagine it not happening. D won't be cheap so if NK wants to fly to BNA is has to be by next summer.

https://flynashville.com/news-and-media ... y2018.aspx As some have probably already seen, May was the busiest month on record at BNA. Good things happening at the airport. I wonder what other air service announcements we'll see this year. I'm thinking one more add from WN at least.

southwest1675 wrote:

https://flynashville.com/news-and-media/press-releases/Pages/May2018.aspx As some have probably already seen, May was the busiest month on record at BNA. Good things happening at the airport. I wonder what other air service announcements we'll see this year. I'm thinking one more add from WN at least.

Moving Bonnaroo a week after the CMA Fest is a good idea. I was at the airport after last years as fans from both headed out. It was easy to spot (and smell) those from Bonnaroo. A friend of mine works for an airline and says that's the worst day of the year to work.

We might see a new flight from WN. They've cut back their expected growth, but BNA could get a couple of newbies.

EvanWSFO wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

https://flynashville.com/news-and-media/press-releases/Pages/May2018.aspx As some have probably already seen, May was the busiest month on record at BNA. Good things happening at the airport. I wonder what other air service announcements we'll see this year. I'm thinking one more add from WN at least.

Moving Bonnaroo a week after the CMA Fest is a good idea. I was at the airport after last years as fans from both headed out. It was easy to spot (and smell) those from Bonnaroo. A friend of mine works for an airline and says that's the worst day of the year to work.

We might see a new flight from WN. They've cut back their expected growth, but BNA could get a couple of newbies.

The only other major things I see this year are PDX on either WN or AS (I’m indifferent to who starts it) and DE announcing seasonal 2x weekly to FRA for Summer 2019.

southwest1675 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

I am pleased to announce I will be taking the BA flight next month, flying out on July 11th and returning on the 21st.

Ironically, it will almost be exactly one year to the day I joined this site and posted this topic.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1368343

You will have to let us know how it is. I must say, a lot of comments on that thread did not age well.

Deecheck wrote:

Will they upgrade to a bigger 787 or right to a 747 like in Austin?

It would go daily, then most likely upgraded to a 787-9.

BA is doing well at BNA, MSY and AUS. Expect growth via freq and gauge at BNA. MSY has been getting the 787-9 quite a bit. I don't think you'll see much in terms of growth until the RR engine debacle sorts itself out.

I am wondering how BA is doing at BNA per belly cargo? BA is generating large amounts inbound to MSY. Guess is aircraft parts for the nearby Airbus plant in Mobile.

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

https://flynashville.com/news-and-media/press-releases/Pages/May2018.aspx As some have probably already seen, May was the busiest month on record at BNA. Good things happening at the airport. I wonder what other air service announcements we'll see this year. I'm thinking one more add from WN at least.

Moving Bonnaroo a week after the CMA Fest is a good idea. I was at the airport after last years as fans from both headed out. It was easy to spot (and smell) those from Bonnaroo. A friend of mine works for an airline and says that's the worst day of the year to work.

We might see a new flight from WN. They've cut back their expected growth, but BNA could get a couple of newbies.

The only other major things I see this year are PDX on either WN or AS (I’m indifferent to who starts it) and DE announcing seasonal 2x weekly to FRA for Summer 2019.

If there's just one arrival gate, it may take some schedule shifting to get another European carrier in there. I still think FI (my preference) or WW, but I don't think they are going to do a remote parking thing.

I wonder if DL could send a 757 to LAX.

southwest1675 wrote:

I wonder if DL could send a 757 to LAX.

With both AA and WN apparently going to three flights, and having superior hub options for additional connecting options, DL probably needs the frequency more so than gauge.

southwest1675 wrote:

I wonder if DL could send a 757 to LAX.

They've already gone from a single 319 to double, and in the summer 2x 73H. I think the 757 may a little too much a/c for a route that not so long ago had 3 flights a day.

SNN707 wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

I am pleased to announce I will be taking the BA flight next month, flying out on July 11th and returning on the 21st.

Ironically, it will almost be exactly one year to the day I joined this site and posted this topic.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1368343

You will have to let us know how it is. I must say, a lot of comments on that thread did not age well.

Deecheck wrote:

Will they upgrade to a bigger 787 or right to a 747 like in Austin?

It would go daily, then most likely upgraded to a 787-9.

BA is doing well at BNA, MSY and AUS. Expect growth via freq and gauge at BNA. MSY has been getting the 787-9 quite a bit. I don't think you'll see much in terms of growth until the RR engine debacle sorts itself out.

Will BA go daily at BNA eventually? MSY hasn't seen their flight go daily yet, and its been over a year.

EvanWSFO wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

Moving Bonnaroo a week after the CMA Fest is a good idea. I was at the airport after last years as fans from both headed out. It was easy to spot (and smell) those from Bonnaroo. A friend of mine works for an airline and says that's the worst day of the year to work.

We might see a new flight from WN. They've cut back their expected growth, but BNA could get a couple of newbies.

The only other major things I see this year are PDX on either WN or AS (I’m indifferent to who starts it) and DE announcing seasonal 2x weekly to FRA for Summer 2019.

If there's just one arrival gate, it may take some schedule shifting to get another European carrier in there. I still think FI (my preference) or WW, but I don't think they are going to do a remote parking thing.

Well, DE would only be 2x a week during the summer, so that won't be an issue. I would imagine FI or WW would only be seasonal to start, so that won't be an issue either.

The other thing I'd like to know is when will WS upgauge BNA-YYZ to mainline permanently. They have been experimenting with some mainline on the route for the summer, but I think it could be permanent.

ADrum23 wrote:

The other thing I'd like to know is when will WS upgauge BNA-YYZ to mainline permanently. They have been experimenting with some mainline on the route for the summer, but I think it could be permanent.

I think it could be permanent too. For a future, oddball new route out of Nashville, I could see WS adding seasonal YVR service. Might be far fetched, but I would have never thought Nashville would see a flight to Calgary.

southwest1675 wrote:

I wonder if DL could send a 757 to LAX.

Well like others have mentioned it’s not likely when they’re only running 2 daily 319’s or 738’s. Added frequency would come first. Plus you have to keep in mind that most DL transpac passengers flying from BNA are probably connecting in DTW. DTW sees almost hourly 717 or Mad dog service, so they’d be more likely to be upgraded to 752’s. I think American could upgauge service to 321’s to LAX because I assume that they connect most of their transpac BNA travelers through LAX, and thus need the extra seats. But as far as DL is concerned I think most of the traffic is just O&D from BNA.
I’m personally curious to see if UA ever adds their own LAX service from Nashville. I know we’ve discussed it before but I think there are definitely positives for both UA and BNA in another carrier serving that route.

southwest1675 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

The other thing I'd like to know is when will WS upgauge BNA-YYZ to mainline permanently. They have been experimenting with some mainline on the route for the summer, but I think it could be permanent.

I think it could be permanent too. For a future, oddball new route out of Nashville, I could see WS adding seasonal YVR service. Might be far fetched, but I would have never thought Nashville would see a flight to Calgary.

Vancouver would definitely be cool. I’d also love to see some Montreal service. I have no idea about PDEW, I just think it would be fun to have service to Quebec.

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

The only other major things I see this year are PDX on either WN or AS (I’m indifferent to who starts it) and DE announcing seasonal 2x weekly to FRA for Summer 2019.

If there's just one arrival gate, it may take some schedule shifting to get another European carrier in there. I still think FI (my preference) or WW, but I don't think they are going to do a remote parking thing.

Well, DE would only be 2x a week during the summer, so that won't be an issue. I would imagine FI or WW would only be seasonal to start, so that won't be an issue either.

That doesn't negate the fact that until the permanent FIS is built, there is the potential for three aircraft arriving from Europe at close to the same time, I doubt DE or one of the Icelandic carriers will sit down with BA and discuss gate usage. At least Iceland can be served with a narrowbody.

southwest1675 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

The other thing I'd like to know is when will WS upgauge BNA-YYZ to mainline permanently. They have been experimenting with some mainline on the route for the summer, but I think it could be permanent.

I think it could be permanent too. For a future, oddball new route out of Nashville, I could see WS adding seasonal YVR service. Might be far fetched, but I would have never thought Nashville would see a flight to Calgary.

YVR would be a great summer service, maybe 2x a week. They might even run it with Swoop.

EvanWSFO wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

If there's just one arrival gate, it may take some schedule shifting to get another European carrier in there. I still think FI (my preference) or WW, but I don't think they are going to do a remote parking thing.

Well, DE would only be 2x a week during the summer, so that won't be an issue. I would imagine FI or WW would only be seasonal to start, so that won't be an issue either.

That doesn't negate the fact that until the permanent FIS is built, there is the potential for three aircraft arriving from Europe at close to the same time, I doubt DE or one of the Icelandic carriers will sit down with BA and discuss gate usage. At least Iceland can be served with a narrowbody.

I thought the reason they put an additional jetbridge at the FIS facility was to accommodate more than one flight at a time? Certainly, two widebody flights could not fit in the space, but a narrowbody like FI could probably along with the BA flight.

Regardless, this only magnifies the fact that BNA needs to get going on the permanent IAB at once. It is a shame they couldn't do that first, but I guess D was more important.

pdt2f wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

The other thing I'd like to know is when will WS upgauge BNA-YYZ to mainline permanently. They have been experimenting with some mainline on the route for the summer, but I think it could be permanent.

I think it could be permanent too. For a future, oddball new route out of Nashville, I could see WS adding seasonal YVR service. Might be far fetched, but I would have never thought Nashville would see a flight to Calgary.

Vancouver would definitely be cool. I’d also love to see some Montreal service. I have no idea about PDEW, I just think it would be fun to have service to Quebec.

I don’t think YUL is totally out of the question. In the last round of transborder expansion, AC added some secondary cities to YUL (PIT and RDU IINM). BNA is reasonably similar to those markets.

ERJ170 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I don’t think YUL is totally out of the question. In the last round of transborder expansion, AC added some secondary cities to YUL (PIT and RDU IINM). BNA is reasonably similar to those markets.

Alas, RDU was left out of the YUL expansion and still waiting for something new from AC... It may have been BDL instead of RDU that you were thinking, maybe?

We’re both half right. The new cities were BWI and PIT. BDL was upgauged to Dash 8s from Beeches around the same time; I can’t recall if that was part of the same announcement.

Both RDU and BNA are interesting candidates for YUL service. I imagine both would probably throw some incentives at the route if AC wanted to give it a try.

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Well, DE would only be 2x a week during the summer, so that won't be an issue. I would imagine FI or WW would only be seasonal to start, so that won't be an issue either.

That doesn't negate the fact that until the permanent FIS is built, there is the potential for three aircraft arriving from Europe at close to the same time, I doubt DE or one of the Icelandic carriers will sit down with BA and discuss gate usage. At least Iceland can be served with a narrowbody.

I thought the reason they put an additional jetbridge at the FIS facility was to accommodate more than one flight at a time? Certainly, two widebody flights could not fit in the space, but a narrowbody like FI could probably along with the BA flight.

Regardless, this only magnifies the fact that BNA needs to get going on the permanent IAB at once. It is a shame they couldn't do that first, but I guess D was more important.

There's no simple way to do both at the same time. It's already going to be a hassle when TSA moved back to the old way of screening. D really has to be built before the IAB started. You just don't replace flights using 6 gates that easily. Should they have started earlier? Sure, but they didn't. So it's a fact of life for the next 5-6 years, BNA's terminal is going to be a mess.

EvanWSFO wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

That doesn't negate the fact that until the permanent FIS is built, there is the potential for three aircraft arriving from Europe at close to the same time, I doubt DE or one of the Icelandic carriers will sit down with BA and discuss gate usage. At least Iceland can be served with a narrowbody.

I thought the reason they put an additional jetbridge at the FIS facility was to accommodate more than one flight at a time? Certainly, two widebody flights could not fit in the space, but a narrowbody like FI could probably along with the BA flight.

Regardless, this only magnifies the fact that BNA needs to get going on the permanent IAB at once. It is a shame they couldn't do that first, but I guess D was more important.

There's no simple way to do both at the same time. It's already going to be a hassle when TSA moved back to the old way of screening. D really has to be built before the IAB started. You just don't replace flights using 6 gates that easily. Should they have started earlier? Sure, but they didn't. So it's a fact of life for the next 5-6 years, BNA's terminal is going to be a mess.

It wouldn't have been simple, and it would have created some headaches and some creative shifting around, but the central terminal/permanent IAB should have come first. Unlike it's peer airports (RDU, AUS, CVG, IND, etc), BNA does not have any proper widebody-capable gates, and until that issue is addressed, it will hold the airport back from further international flight growth. The permanent IAB will address that issue, creating gates that can handle aircraft up to the 747 if necessary, but it will be at least 5 years before they come online.

Yes, it would have resulted in six gates being lost for up to 3 years, but some of the gates are used by carriers that have only 1-2 flights a day at most, or less than daily service (carriers like F9, G4, AS, WS, etc). They could have shared for a few years.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I think the problem is BNA just underestimated the growth it would experience and now they are scrambling to catch up, nothing more or less. I'd rather the airport board be somewhat more conservative and have the growth exceed expectations rather than overly ambitious and having the growth not meet expectations. IMO, there is more that will be needed than what BNA Vision covers, but we'll see where things stand after the entire project is completed.

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

I thought the reason they put an additional jetbridge at the FIS facility was to accommodate more than one flight at a time? Certainly, two widebody flights could not fit in the space, but a narrowbody like FI could probably along with the BA flight.

Regardless, this only magnifies the fact that BNA needs to get going on the permanent IAB at once. It is a shame they couldn't do that first, but I guess D was more important.

There's no simple way to do both at the same time. It's already going to be a hassle when TSA moved back to the old way of screening. D really has to be built before the IAB started. You just don't replace flights using 6 gates that easily. Should they have started earlier? Sure, but they didn't. So it's a fact of life for the next 5-6 years, BNA's terminal is going to be a mess.

It wouldn't have been simple, and it would have created some headaches and some creative shifting around, but the central terminal/permanent IAB should have come first. Unlike it's peer airports (RDU, AUS, CVG, IND, etc), BNA does not have any proper widebody-capable gates, and until that issue is addressed, it will hold the airport back from further international flight growth. The permanent IAB will address that issue, creating gates that can handle aircraft up to the 747 if necessary, but it will be at least 5 years before they come online.

Yes, it would have resulted in six gates being lost for up to 3 years, but some of the gates are used by carriers that have only 1-2 flights a day at most, or less than daily service (carriers like F9, G4, AS, WS, etc). They could have shared for a few years.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I think the problem is BNA just underestimated the growth it would experience and now they are scrambling to catch up, nothing more or less. I'd rather the airport board be somewhat more conservative and have the growth exceed expectations rather than overly ambitious and having the growth not meet expectations. IMO, there is more that will be needed than what BNA Vision covers, but we'll see where things stand after the entire project is completed.

I really hope they look at the idea of turning B into a copy of C with the addition of 10-15 gates. This would probably never happen, but I’d love to see WN take all of D and C, and AA and other new carriers could be at the new expanded B concourse.

southwest1675 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

There's no simple way to do both at the same time. It's already going to be a hassle when TSA moved back to the old way of screening. D really has to be built before the IAB started. You just don't replace flights using 6 gates that easily. Should they have started earlier? Sure, but they didn't. So it's a fact of life for the next 5-6 years, BNA's terminal is going to be a mess.

It wouldn't have been simple, and it would have created some headaches and some creative shifting around, but the central terminal/permanent IAB should have come first. Unlike it's peer airports (RDU, AUS, CVG, IND, etc), BNA does not have any proper widebody-capable gates, and until that issue is addressed, it will hold the airport back from further international flight growth. The permanent IAB will address that issue, creating gates that can handle aircraft up to the 747 if necessary, but it will be at least 5 years before they come online.

Yes, it would have resulted in six gates being lost for up to 3 years, but some of the gates are used by carriers that have only 1-2 flights a day at most, or less than daily service (carriers like F9, G4, AS, WS, etc). They could have shared for a few years.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I think the problem is BNA just underestimated the growth it would experience and now they are scrambling to catch up, nothing more or less. I'd rather the airport board be somewhat more conservative and have the growth exceed expectations rather than overly ambitious and having the growth not meet expectations. IMO, there is more that will be needed than what BNA Vision covers, but we'll see where things stand after the entire project is completed.

I really hope they look at the idea of turning B into a copy of C with the addition of 10-15 gates. This would probably never happen, but I’d love to see WN take all of D and C, and AA and other new carriers could be at the new expanded B concourse.

Agree about B.

I must also add that another impediment to attracting widebody international flights is the fact that BNA only has one runway that is 10,000 ft or more; the 13/31 crosswind, and it is not ideally positioned for most takeoffs and landings. 787's can get away with 8,000 ft runways, but anything larger cannot. One of the N/S parallel runways will eventually need to be lengthened to 11,000 ft to better accommodate larger aircraft. The laster master plan called for 2L/20R, which is currently at 7,704 ft, to be lengthened to 11,030 ft like the crosswind runway. I am not sure why that isn't being included in the current work, but that will need to be a top priority post-BNA Vision.

ADrum23 wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

It wouldn't have been simple, and it would have created some headaches and some creative shifting around, but the central terminal/permanent IAB should have come first. Unlike it's peer airports (RDU, AUS, CVG, IND, etc), BNA does not have any proper widebody-capable gates, and until that issue is addressed, it will hold the airport back from further international flight growth. The permanent IAB will address that issue, creating gates that can handle aircraft up to the 747 if necessary, but it will be at least 5 years before they come online.

Yes, it would have resulted in six gates being lost for up to 3 years, but some of the gates are used by carriers that have only 1-2 flights a day at most, or less than daily service (carriers like F9, G4, AS, WS, etc). They could have shared for a few years.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I think the problem is BNA just underestimated the growth it would experience and now they are scrambling to catch up, nothing more or less. I'd rather the airport board be somewhat more conservative and have the growth exceed expectations rather than overly ambitious and having the growth not meet expectations. IMO, there is more that will be needed than what BNA Vision covers, but we'll see where things stand after the entire project is completed.

I really hope they look at the idea of turning B into a copy of C with the addition of 10-15 gates. This would probably never happen, but I’d love to see WN take all of D and C, and AA and other new carriers could be at the new expanded B concourse.

Agree about B.

I must also add that another impediment to attracting widebody international flights is the fact that BNA only has one runway that is 10,000 ft or more; the 13/31 crosswind, and it is not ideally positioned for most takeoffs and landings. 787's can get away with 8,000 ft runways, but anything larger cannot. One of the N/S parallel runways will eventually need to be lengthened to 11,000 ft to better accommodate larger aircraft. The laster master plan called for 2L/20R, which is currently at 7,704 ft, to be lengthened to 11,030 ft like the crosswind runway. I am not sure why that isn't being included in the current work, but that will need to be a top priority post-BNA Vision.

When China Airlines Cargo was serving BNA, I used to see their 744F taking off from one of the the three parallels. I'd heard they came in full and left virtually empty, so not sure. It looks like 2R/20L has the most real estate for lengthening. Even if growth continues and I get my wish of JL coming in, I think 13/31 will be ok. I'm not sure BNA will see anything larger unless BA replicates Austin and uses a 772.

southwest1675 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

There's no simple way to do both at the same time. It's already going to be a hassle when TSA moved back to the old way of screening. D really has to be built before the IAB started. You just don't replace flights using 6 gates that easily. Should they have started earlier? Sure, but they didn't. So it's a fact of life for the next 5-6 years, BNA's terminal is going to be a mess.

It wouldn't have been simple, and it would have created some headaches and some creative shifting around, but the central terminal/permanent IAB should have come first. Unlike it's peer airports (RDU, AUS, CVG, IND, etc), BNA does not have any proper widebody-capable gates, and until that issue is addressed, it will hold the airport back from further international flight growth. The permanent IAB will address that issue, creating gates that can handle aircraft up to the 747 if necessary, but it will be at least 5 years before they come online.

Yes, it would have resulted in six gates being lost for up to 3 years, but some of the gates are used by carriers that have only 1-2 flights a day at most, or less than daily service (carriers like F9, G4, AS, WS, etc). They could have shared for a few years.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I think the problem is BNA just underestimated the growth it would experience and now they are scrambling to catch up, nothing more or less. I'd rather the airport board be somewhat more conservative and have the growth exceed expectations rather than overly ambitious and having the growth not meet expectations. IMO, there is more that will be needed than what BNA Vision covers, but we'll see where things stand after the entire project is completed.

I really hope they look at the idea of turning B into a copy of C with the addition of 10-15 gates. This would probably never happen, but I’d love to see WN take all of D and C, and AA and other new carriers could be at the new expanded B concourse.

The B expansion idea will certainly be feasible (and the next logical place to expand) once the apron is expanded and the hole filled in. They’ll have to make sure they build the B expansion wider than the current B, to avoid the crowding issues that plague that concourse.

ADrum23 wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

It wouldn't have been simple, and it would have created some headaches and some creative shifting around, but the central terminal/permanent IAB should have come first. Unlike it's peer airports (RDU, AUS, CVG, IND, etc), BNA does not have any proper widebody-capable gates, and until that issue is addressed, it will hold the airport back from further international flight growth. The permanent IAB will address that issue, creating gates that can handle aircraft up to the 747 if necessary, but it will be at least 5 years before they come online.

Yes, it would have resulted in six gates being lost for up to 3 years, but some of the gates are used by carriers that have only 1-2 flights a day at most, or less than daily service (carriers like F9, G4, AS, WS, etc). They could have shared for a few years.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. I think the problem is BNA just underestimated the growth it would experience and now they are scrambling to catch up, nothing more or less. I'd rather the airport board be somewhat more conservative and have the growth exceed expectations rather than overly ambitious and having the growth not meet expectations. IMO, there is more that will be needed than what BNA Vision covers, but we'll see where things stand after the entire project is completed.

I really hope they look at the idea of turning B into a copy of C with the addition of 10-15 gates. This would probably never happen, but I’d love to see WN take all of D and C, and AA and other new carriers could be at the new expanded B concourse.

Agree about B.

I must also add that another impediment to attracting widebody international flights is the fact that BNA only has one runway that is 10,000 ft or more; the 13/31 crosswind, and it is not ideally positioned for most takeoffs and landings. 787's can get away with 8,000 ft runways, but anything larger cannot. One of the N/S parallel runways will eventually need to be lengthened to 11,000 ft to better accommodate larger aircraft. The laster master plan called for 2L/20R, which is currently at 7,704 ft, to be lengthened to 11,030 ft like the crosswind runway. I am not sure why that isn't being included in the current work, but that will need to be a top priority post-BNA Vision.

I think it would be a good thing to lengthen one of the runways, but I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think we’ll get more then maybe one larger-than-787 flight per day for a very long time, so it probably wouldn’t be worth the expense. Maybe if BNA expands its cargo side of the airport and needs the long runway for larger, laden cargo planes, but I don’t think we’d get the pax increase to justify it solely on scheduled pax flights.

EvanWSFO wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

I really hope they look at the idea of turning B into a copy of C with the addition of 10-15 gates. This would probably never happen, but I’d love to see WN take all of D and C, and AA and other new carriers could be at the new expanded B concourse.

Agree about B.

I must also add that another impediment to attracting widebody international flights is the fact that BNA only has one runway that is 10,000 ft or more; the 13/31 crosswind, and it is not ideally positioned for most takeoffs and landings. 787's can get away with 8,000 ft runways, but anything larger cannot. One of the N/S parallel runways will eventually need to be lengthened to 11,000 ft to better accommodate larger aircraft. The laster master plan called for 2L/20R, which is currently at 7,704 ft, to be lengthened to 11,030 ft like the crosswind runway. I am not sure why that isn't being included in the current work, but that will need to be a top priority post-BNA Vision.

When China Airlines Cargo was serving BNA, I used to see their 744F taking off from one of the the three parallels. I'd heard they came in full and left virtually empty, so not sure. It looks like 2R/20L has the most real estate for lengthening. Even if growth continues and I get my wish of JL coming in, I think 13/31 will be ok. I'm not sure BNA will see anything larger unless BA replicates Austin and uses a 772.

You're probably right, I personally can't see any regular scheduled service bigger than a 789, but they need to be prepared regardless, and that means they need gates that can at least handle a 777. I could see seasonal upgauges though, and let's not forget diversions from say ATL. BNA needs to be better prepared for anything (though I highly doubt they will build A380 compatible gates like AUS).

As far as runways, BNA does have a plan on paper to lengthen 2L/20R to 11,000 ft, but I have no idea if they plan to implement that anytime soon. I think cargo can get away with shorter runways, but passenger planes may be a different story. After all, RDU has a 10,000 ft runway and they plan to replace it with a 11,500 ft runway because they claim it will be needed for a flight to China.

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Agree about B.

I must also add that another impediment to attracting widebody international flights is the fact that BNA only has one runway that is 10,000 ft or more; the 13/31 crosswind, and it is not ideally positioned for most takeoffs and landings. 787's can get away with 8,000 ft runways, but anything larger cannot. One of the N/S parallel runways will eventually need to be lengthened to 11,000 ft to better accommodate larger aircraft. The laster master plan called for 2L/20R, which is currently at 7,704 ft, to be lengthened to 11,030 ft like the crosswind runway. I am not sure why that isn't being included in the current work, but that will need to be a top priority post-BNA Vision.

When China Airlines Cargo was serving BNA, I used to see their 744F taking off from one of the the three parallels. I'd heard they came in full and left virtually empty, so not sure. It looks like 2R/20L has the most real estate for lengthening. Even if growth continues and I get my wish of JL coming in, I think 13/31 will be ok. I'm not sure BNA will see anything larger unless BA replicates Austin and uses a 772.

You're probably right, I personally can't see any regular scheduled service bigger than a 789, but they need to be prepared regardless, and that means they need gates that can at least handle a 777. I could see seasonal upgauges though, and let's not forget diversions from say ATL. BNA needs to be better prepared for anything (though I highly doubt they will build A380 compatible gates like AUS).

As far as runways, BNA does have a plan on paper to lengthen 2L/20R to 11,000 ft, but I have no idea if they plan to implement that anytime soon. I think cargo can get away with shorter runways, but passenger planes may be a different story. After all, RDU has a 10,000 ft runway and they plan to replace it with a 11,500 ft runway because they claim it will be needed for a flight to China.

Looking from Google Maps, 2L/20R is going to be a tight fit if they make it that long. They could probably make one or two of the IAB gates with twin airbridges. This would suffice for diversions, or 777/350 models.

The MNAA Master Plan (2013, before the BNAVision plan) showed a 3200 ft extension to 2L/20R, along with a (way in the future) 4th parallel.
https://www.flynashville.com/about/Docu ... P-LAYT.pdf

southwest1675 wrote:

I also realized that gate C2 is never utilized. AA just uses it for an originating ORD flight.

It's a leased gate by AA. Once AA gave up C13 and C14, they were screwed so C2 had to be picked up. AA is in a mess gate-wise at BNA.

Lexy wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

I also realized that gate C2 is never utilized. AA just uses it for an originating ORD flight.

It's a leased gate by AA. Once AA gave up C13 and C14, they were screwed so C2 had to be picked up. AA is in a mess gate-wise at BNA.

AA RON's quite a few planes. Many people from other stations are surprised Nashville has that many planes sit overnight.

EvanWSFO wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

I wonder if DL could send a 757 to LAX.

They've already gone from a single 319 to double, and in the summer 2x 73H. I think the 757 may a little too much a/c for a route that not so long ago had 3 flights a day.

With the 757's coming into BNA from ATL starting in August I could potentially see a 757 continuing on to the west coast (LAX | SEA | PXD) I could also potentially see a A319 going to SFO or eventually the C-Series

gsg013 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

I wonder if DL could send a 757 to LAX.

They've already gone from a single 319 to double, and in the summer 2x 73H. I think the 757 may a little too much a/c for a route that not so long ago had 3 flights a day.

With the 757's coming into BNA from ATL starting in August I could potentially see a 757 continuing on to the west coast (LAX | SEA | PXD) I could also potentially see a A319 going to SFO or eventually the C-Series

I guess it's possible, but DL used to fly multiple 757s from Atlanta and just turned them around to go back down there. LAX is a maybe, but I don't see it. They might change the SEA flight, but it might cut out the 2nd flight planned. I see no business reason for Delta going into SFO. It would have to rely on O&D at both ends. AS and UA seem to be the best suited for that.

gsg013 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

I wonder if DL could send a 757 to LAX.

They've already gone from a single 319 to double, and in the summer 2x 73H. I think the 757 may a little too much a/c for a route that not so long ago had 3 flights a day.

With the 757's coming into BNA from ATL starting in August I could potentially see a 757 continuing on to the west coast (LAX | SEA | PXD) I could also potentially see a A319 going to SFO or eventually the C-Series

DL would only serve SFO or PDX from Nashville if we were an underserved market of more than 7 million people or so, or if a company/MNAA paid a bunch of money and guaranteed profits. Won’t happen with SFO because it’s already well served (if I remember correctly I don’t think AS’s LF’s are that impressive), won’t happen with PDX because it’s just a matter of time if MNAA stays patient. Even if they added those cities, it wouldn’t be anything bigger than maybe a 738. ATL and DTW are the only places where it makes sense for DL to use 757’s.

pdt2f wrote:

ATL and DTW are the only places where it makes sense for DL to use 757’s.

TBH, they can probably do A321's from DTW. Something larger but not quite the size of a 757.

flymco753 wrote:

pdt2f wrote:

ATL and DTW are the only places where it makes sense for DL to use 757’s.

TBH, they can probably do A321's from DTW. Something larger but not quite the size of a 757.

Good point. I guess the point I was primarily trying to make was that it wouldn’t be shocking for them to add 1-3 757 flights a day to DTW. Maybe a little excessive, but not shocking. Pretty much anywhere else it would be absolutely shocking. Like I think we’d be more likely to get widebody service to ATL than we would be to get 757’s to the west coast. Not that either is at all likely.

flymco753 wrote:

pdt2f wrote:

ATL and DTW are the only places where it makes sense for DL to use 757’s.

TBH, they can probably do A321's from DTW. Something larger but not quite the size of a 757.

The A321 is almost exactly the same seating wise as the B752, both could very likely be added on the BNA-DTW route.