JDawgboy512 wrote:

And that's the question really, is if a carrier decides to do a hub or if we are simply expecting an increasing number of new carrier additions along with current carrier route additions? How much of an additional expansion are they considering once this one is complete and how the new timeline will be implemented?

That is just it, there really isn't many carriers left to add. Domestically, I believe the only US carrier left that doesn't serve AUS is NK (I don't count Hawaiian because they barely serve anyone outside of the west coast). NK will come fairly soon (barring a merger with F9), but even when they come, they will only need a few gates. I don't see a lot of foreign carriers coming because of the lack of a hub for any airline at AUS.

As such, I don't understand where they are getting the need for up to 125 gates from. I see a lot of growth for AUS, but I only see it going into the 25-30 million range within the next 20 years unless a hub comes to town. Honestly, they could add a mirror image of the current terminal on the south side of the property with 25-35 or so gates (bringing the gate total up to 65-70), connect it to the current terminal via an underground people mover and it would be more than adequate for the foreseeable future IMO.

ADrum23 wrote:

JDawgboy512 wrote:

And that's the question really, is if a carrier decides to do a hub or if we are simply expecting an increasing number of new carrier additions along with current carrier route additions? How much of an additional expansion are they considering once this one is complete and how the new timeline will be implemented?

That is just it, there really isn't many carriers left to add. Domestically, I believe the only US carrier left that doesn't serve AUS is NK (I don't count Hawaiian because they barely serve anyone outside of the west coast). NK will come fairly soon (barring a merger with F9), but even when they come, they will only need a few gates. I don't see a lot of foreign carriers coming because of the lack of a hub for any airline at AUS.

As such, I don't understand where they are getting the need for up to 125 gates from. I see a lot of growth for AUS, but I only see it going into the 25-30 million range within the next 20 years unless a hub comes to town. Honestly, they could add a mirror image of the current terminal on the south side of the property with 25-35 or so gates (bringing the gate total up to 65-70), connect it to the current terminal via an underground people mover and it would be more than adequate for the foreseeable future IMO.

That’s a good question.

On the other hand, it’s kind of nice to see the Austin authorities actually planning liberally for growth instead of the usual “oh, our roads can handle all this growth. Heck, we’ll even take out car lanes and put in bike lanes!”

khowaga wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

JDawgboy512 wrote:

And that's the question really, is if a carrier decides to do a hub or if we are simply expecting an increasing number of new carrier additions along with current carrier route additions? How much of an additional expansion are they considering once this one is complete and how the new timeline will be implemented?

That is just it, there really isn't many carriers left to add. Domestically, I believe the only US carrier left that doesn't serve AUS is NK (I don't count Hawaiian because they barely serve anyone outside of the west coast). NK will come fairly soon (barring a merger with F9), but even when they come, they will only need a few gates. I don't see a lot of foreign carriers coming because of the lack of a hub for any airline at AUS.

As such, I don't understand where they are getting the need for up to 125 gates from. I see a lot of growth for AUS, but I only see it going into the 25-30 million range within the next 20 years unless a hub comes to town. Honestly, they could add a mirror image of the current terminal on the south side of the property with 25-35 or so gates (bringing the gate total up to 65-70), connect it to the current terminal via an underground people mover and it would be more than adequate for the foreseeable future IMO.

That’s a good question.

On the other hand, it’s kind of nice to see the Austin authorities actually planning liberally for growth instead of the usual “oh, our roads can handle all this growth. Heck, we’ll even take out car lanes and put in bike lanes!”

And "let's not build public transportation either! Our remaining roads can handle that! Also, stop complaining about traffic! Why do you even drive when you could ride your bike from Mueller/Manor/Cedar Park/West Lake/Circle C/Elgin/etc to downtown!"

tphuang wrote:

JDawgboy512 wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

AUS would make a dream mid america hub for B6. I hope Delta stays far away from it, will be rough enough as is.

I also thought the same about B6.
We've heard rumors that JetBlue was considering Austin as some sort of hub over the years but nothing ever came of it. They haven't added any flights from here in awhile either. Not really sure what Jetblue's plans are for Austin or if they are even interested in expanding here.

I took a hard look at how B6 could build Austin into a middle of the country focus city a while back and wasn't really sure how they could get there. They'd have to first solidify flights from existing focus cities, so 3 daily to JFK, 2 to BOS, 2 to MCO, 2 to FLL, 2 to LA area airport. And then probably make it some kind of gateway to Mexico/Central America gateway with 2 daily flights to MEX, 1 to CUN and maybe 2 to 3 flights to other destinations. After that, they could possibly add 1 to EWR, 1 to IAD and 2 to SFO. SFO would be really tough given competition from UA/AS/WN. Maybe on top of that, they could add 1 daily to MSY and LAS, but those would both be very low yielding and running into WN on both ends. Anything beyond that would be really difficult against existing competition.

WN will fight them tooth and nail. They have very competitive advance fares to BOS and NYC from AUS.

[quote="ADrum23" connect it to the current terminal via an underground people mover and it would be more than adequate for the foreseeable future IMO.[/quote]

Wouldn't this be problematic in terms of traffic, i.e. could the current terminal arrival/departure area handle road traffic for 70-80 gates?

ackerber wrote:

[quote="ADrum23" connect it to the current terminal via an underground people mover and it would be more than adequate for the foreseeable future IMO.

Wouldn't this be problematic in terms of traffic, i.e. could the current terminal arrival/departure area handle road traffic for 70-80 gates?[/quote]


Apparently there is a large tunnel from the old Bergstrom Airforce base days that would be utilized to connect the two terminals.

ackerber wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

connect it to the current terminal via an underground people mover and it would be more than adequate for the foreseeable future IMO.

Wouldn't this be problematic in terms of traffic, i.e. could the current terminal arrival/departure area handle road traffic for 70-80 gates?

Apparently there is a large tunnel from the old Bergstrom Airforce base days that would be utilized to connect the two terminals.

But to your question about the current terminal arrival and departure road infrastructure being able to handle traffic, I would say no. It's already to the point where traffic backs up well before the upper/lower split during peak times. There would either need to be a second entrance way to the south terminal or they would need to reconfigure and expand the current roads to the Barbra Jordan Terminal.

> Apparently there is a large tunnel from the old Bergstrom Airforce base days that would be utilized to connect the two terminals.

For roads between two distinct terminals, or people movers from Barbara Jordan to a satellite terminal?

>But to your question about the current terminal arrival and departure road infrastructure being able to handle traffic, I would say no. It's already to the point where traffic backs up well before the upper/lower split during peak times. There would either need to be a second entrance way to the south terminal or they would need to reconfigure and expand the current roads to the Barbra Jordan Terminal.

I guess the question is what is the cheapest way to do this. The master plan has some drawings of multiple new underground tunnels connecting two distinct terminals, but that seems like it would be extremely expensive. Seems like much cheaper to build a satellite terminal south of BJT, underground people mover between that and BJT, and then do something to deal with the arrival/departure road traffic (though I'm not sure what, and is there even enough check-in/luggage carousel space in BJT for 70-80 gates).

ackerber wrote:

> Apparently there is a large tunnel from the old Bergstrom Airforce base days that would be utilized to connect the two terminals.

For roads between two distinct terminals, or people movers from Barbara Jordan to a satellite terminal?

>But to your question about the current terminal arrival and departure road infrastructure being able to handle traffic, I would say no. It's already to the point where traffic backs up well before the upper/lower split during peak times. There would either need to be a second entrance way to the south terminal or they would need to reconfigure and expand the current roads to the Barbra Jordan Terminal.

I guess the question is what is the cheapest way to do this. The master plan has some drawings of multiple new underground tunnels connecting two distinct terminals, but that seems like it would be extremely expensive. Seems like much cheaper to build a satellite terminal south of BJT, underground people mover between that and BJT, and then do something to deal with the arrival/departure road traffic (though I'm not sure what, and is there even enough check-in/luggage carousel space in BJT for 70-80 gates).

Hopefully all of these questions will be answered with the new master plan. We should hear some more updates probably by mid year.

Quick update on airport upgrade news. They are installing 6 digital signs to replace the current blue flag signs indicating where to drop off for each carrier. The signs will also be able to show other info like times or delays and other pertinent information for people arriving at the drop off area.

My brother claims to have seen an Emirates 777-300ER on tarmac at AUS not taxiing w/out any stairs or hangar. I checked on Flightradar24 and did a little googling and found nothing. If there was an emergency landing I'm sure it would be online but I can't find anything, and I doubt Emirates would perform maintenance in Austin. What happened?

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE ... /OMDB/KIAH

Yup, looks like EK211 diverted from Houston Sunday afternoon. Unsure as to why.

It left for IAH later that evening.

I would bet my bank account on it being the weather. We had a lot around around East/Southeast Texas.

Yes, there was, I saw it myself. Weather in Houston was such that it would be too hard to fly around so they diverted to Austin. The passengers remained on the plane at cargo ramp for a couple hours, then flew back to Houston.

If Austin gets picked for Amazon HQ2 what are some routes that we can expect would pop up after this decision?

Anyone in Austin going to fly to Buffalo for a weekend with Frontier?

Niagara falls, some great breweries, casinos, and so on.

colindm wrote:

If Austin gets picked for Amazon HQ2 what are some routes that we can expect would pop up after this decision?

It won't. It doesn't have the infrastructure to handle the growth, nor the talent pool needed. Just more of the Austin hype machine at work. Austin as a whole has about 30,000 tech workers, compared to 140,000+ in the Dallas/Fort Worth area as a comparison. But nobody hypes up DFW as a tech center like Austin... despite being one of the top few technology centers in the country and the freakin' microchip having been invented in Dallas at Texas Instruments in 1959. Amazon HQ2 will also need a large amount of general business management types, logistics experts, and retail industry experts, all of which the DFW has in droves. Combine that with the ever globally linked DFW International airport, and being within 3-4 hours of all of North America by air, and the answer is in front of everyone but nobody is talking about it.

Anyway, back to aviation, I'm very curious to see which of the European routes in Austin is cut first. BA is upgauging to compete with DY which will likely trash yields, causing the BA service to be at risk. DY as a company could be not long for this world. And Condor's 3x/week summer only service to Frankfurt is really just a little blip in the grand scheme of things. The idea of Austin getting nonstop service to Asia is quite ludicrous. If anyone does try it, I could only imagine a Chinese carrier that doesn't have to consider making any sort of a profit due to being government run, or one of the middle eastern carriers that might have a similar setup.

But ask anyone in Austin and they fully believe multiple A380s will be landing every hour from every point in the globe.... because they are so important. Hilarious!

I think Austin actually has a shot at HQ2, in the same way that I think Raleigh-Durham has a shot at HQ2. Overall though, I don't think either will take it. Atlanta, Toronto, etc are still appealing, yet fit more of the criteria. Dallas-Fort Worth is not the type of city that Amazon is looking for. They want an attractive city. The DFW metroplex is a dreary overpopulated suburban mess of one. I just don't see it.


However, if Austin were to get HQ2, outside of obvious higher SEA-AUS frequency, I'd imagine that PDX, SJC, DCA all would be viable route candidates. Perhaps even an AUS-DFW route if they could compete

mfe777 wrote:

colindm wrote:

If Austin gets picked for Amazon HQ2 what are some routes that we can expect would pop up after this decision?

It won't. It doesn't have the infrastructure to handle the growth, nor the talent pool needed. Just more of the Austin hype machine at work. Austin as a whole has about 30,000 tech workers, compared to 140,000+ in the Dallas/Fort Worth area as a comparison. But nobody hypes up DFW as a tech center like Austin... despite being one of the top few technology centers in the country and the freakin' microchip having been invented in Dallas at Texas Instruments in 1959. Amazon HQ2 will also need a large amount of general business management types, logistics experts, and retail industry experts, all of which the DFW has in droves. Combine that with the ever globally linked DFW International airport, and being within 3-4 hours of all of North America by air, and the answer is in front of everyone but nobody is talking about it.

Anyway, back to aviation, I'm very curious to see which of the European routes in Austin is cut first. BA is upgauging to compete with DY which will likely trash yields, causing the BA service to be at risk. DY as a company could be not long for this world. And Condor's 3x/week summer only service to Frankfurt is really just a little blip in the grand scheme of things. The idea of Austin getting nonstop service to Asia is quite ludicrous. If anyone does try it, I could only imagine a Chinese carrier that doesn't have to consider making any sort of a profit due to being government run, or one of the middle eastern carriers that might have a similar setup.

But ask anyone in Austin and they fully believe multiple A380s will be landing every hour from every point in the globe.... because they are so important. Hilarious!

Wow, look at you Mr. Negativity, let’s take one more swipe at AUS, just one........

In all seriousness, you seem to be really down on the European service from AUS. You make it sound like all 3 flights will be cut or something. I only see DY being cut because I don’t see that company lasting forever and their AUS route doesn’t make much sense (they should be at DFW IMO). I agree the BA upgauge to a 747 is ridiculous, but they’ll right size it eventually back to a daily 789 service, which is what a market like AUS should have.

As for additional European service, I see DL adding AUS-AMS year round and maybe one of the Iceland carriers coming (though it may be out of range for the planes they use), then I think that will be all for AUS-European flights. I agree AUS isn’t the end all be all that deserves every international flight, but it can support more than they have now.

I'm not surprised to see such negativity from former Austin residents. You moved for a reason, and that's fine. However, if you no longer live here, how can you really provide accurate and up-to-date information about a city that seems to be changing almost daily (and with 100+ people moving in a day...it is)? I understand that not everyone thinks that the European service is a smart idea. I'm okay with that too. I will bring up 3 points however regarding that.

1) Compare the airfares on those European routes for the non-stop versus a one-stop. Especially look at the business-class fares. They are usually DOUBLE and sometimes TRIPLE the one stop option. You can fly a plane with a lower LF if your yield is higher. Demand and LF do not equal yield.
2) I don't have a ton of friends that travel for work...maybe a half-dozen to a dozen...but every one of them has flown on the BA service. Most of them flew in J. Small sample size, but still significant. Also, of my regular friends (who maybe travel twice a year, usually domestically) almost half have used the BA service in Y. Again, small sample size, drops in the bucket, but still perhaps indicative of the success.
3) BA has operated the route for years now and has continued to upgauge it, first from a 788 then to a 789, then to a 777 and now to a 747. I would say that they have before them enough data on the route to make educated decisions on whether its worth it or not. At the end of the day, no amount of armchair quarterbacking will change that.

Regarding the pissing contest about Dallas or Houston being better than Austin, I don't really think that has anything to do with Austin's Civil Aviation. I'm sure there are threads in the non-av forum that are more appropriate for that.

digitalman12 wrote:

I think Austin actually has a shot at HQ2, in the same way that I think Raleigh-Durham has a shot at HQ2. Overall though, I don't think either will take it. Atlanta, Toronto, etc are still appealing, yet fit more of the criteria. Dallas-Fort Worth is not the type of city that Amazon is looking for. They want an attractive city. The DFW metroplex is a dreary overpopulated suburban mess of one. I just don't see it.


However, if Austin were to get HQ2, outside of obvious higher SEA-AUS frequency, I'd imagine that PDX, SJC, DCA all would be viable route candidates. Perhaps even an AUS-DFW route if they could compete

I think Austin has a good shot at HQ2, better than anyone else. Amazon recently purchased Whole Foods which was founded and is still headquartered in ATX.

Not just that, but UT is likely the latest school in the country for it's quality. This provides a steady stream of students only matched by San Francisco. And another thing to measure is how many young people are willing to move to X City which I think Austin has got down, not to mention a low cost of living (for now) compared to any of it's tech counterparts like SFO, SEA, PDX, and BOS.

I know it's not likely but we definitely have a good shot. As good of a shot as anyone else including Atlanta.

tcfc424 wrote:

I'm not surprised to see such negativity from former Austin residents. You moved for a reason, and that's fine. However, if you no longer live here, how can you really provide accurate and up-to-date information about a city that seems to be changing almost daily (and with 100+ people moving in a day...it is)? I understand that not everyone thinks that the European service is a smart idea. I'm okay with that too. I will bring up 3 points however regarding that.

1) Compare the airfares on those European routes for the non-stop versus a one-stop. Especially look at the business-class fares. They are usually DOUBLE and sometimes TRIPLE the one stop option. You can fly a plane with a lower LF if your yield is higher. Demand and LF do not equal yield.
2) I don't have a ton of friends that travel for work...maybe a half-dozen to a dozen...but every one of them has flown on the BA service. Most of them flew in J. Small sample size, but still significant. Also, of my regular friends (who maybe travel twice a year, usually domestically) almost half have used the BA service in Y. Again, small sample size, drops in the bucket, but still perhaps indicative of the success.
3) BA has operated the route for years now and has continued to upgauge it, first from a 788 then to a 789, then to a 777 and now to a 747. I would say that they have before them enough data on the route to make educated decisions on whether its worth it or not. At the end of the day, no amount of armchair quarterbacking will change that.

Regarding the pissing contest about Dallas or Houston being better than Austin, I don't really think that has anything to do with Austin's Civil Aviation. I'm sure there are threads in the non-av forum that are more appropriate for that.

This. Take it into non-Av. AUS proper is over 1 million people now, before we get into the metro population, and will succeed San Antonio as the third largest metro in the state within the next 20 years. It has its growing pains, but let’s flip it around: the city is growing for a reason, as is demand for direct, premium services from AUS. AUS is never going to overtake DFW or IAH, but that’s not the point and never was.

Back on topic: bear in mind that BA is upgauging to a 744 this summer not only to compete with DY but mainly because they’re short on 789 frames (AUS’s frequency is going to open the SEZ route). I seriously doubt BA is under any illusions they’ll fill the Y cabin of the 744, but what they will do is fill the belly: that route is almost always over 95% full on cargo, which contributes to its profitability. I know we always like to focus on pax LFs, but don’t forget that’s an important part of the equation in BA’s success here.

khowaga wrote:

tcfc424 wrote:

Back on topic: bear in mind that BA is upgauging to a 744 this summer not only to compete with DY but mainly because they’re short on 789 frames (AUS’s frequency is going to open the SEZ route). I seriously doubt BA is under any illusions they’ll fill the Y cabin of the 744, but what they will do is fill the belly: that route is almost always over 95% full on cargo, which contributes to its profitability. I know we always like to focus on pax LFs, but don’t forget that’s an important part of the equation in BA’s success here.

Well that's good that cargo is bringing them $. Fares are cheap on the AUS-LHR route so take advantage of that. I just did a dummy booking for an Easter trip and BA is offering AUS-LHR for only $727 nonstop! In Spring! And there are cheaper options with connections as low as $616 for the remainder of Spring into Summer! Amazingly low fares for transatlantic especially from as far away as Texas.

mfe, you just illustrated my point exactly. There is a premium being applied to the non-stop fare, as should be the case. I would be worried if it was the other way around.

Does anyone think a Saigon flight is possible in the future with such a large Vietnamese population in Austin?

colindm wrote:

Does anyone think a Saigon flight is possible in the future with such a large Vietnamese population in Austin?

Considering that there’s no same plane service between Vietnam and the US on any airline, it’s entirely possible that direct service via molecular transporter might happen sooner.

tcfc424 wrote:

mfe, you just illustrated my point exactly. There is a premium being applied to the non-stop fare, as should be the case. I would be worried if it was the other way around.

Y fares are usually pretty competitive if you look in advance (compared with realistic alternatives—I don’t consider the B6/EI routing through JFK and DUB worth the $300 savings, but AA or UA are usually around the same price).

The 789 doesn’t have a lot of Y seating so it sells out quickly. On the other hand, the Y+ cabin is worth paying the extra for, imo.

tcfc424 wrote:

mfe, you just illustrated my point exactly. There is a premium being applied to the non-stop fare, as should be the case. I would be worried if it was the other way around.

Either way, they cannot be making much money if they're offering nonstop fares for $727 roundtrip with little advance notice, regardless of how much cargo they're carrying. There's nothing premium about a $727 rt 5,000NM transatlantic flight when it comes to yields.

mfe777 wrote:

tcfc424 wrote:

mfe, you just illustrated my point exactly. There is a premium being applied to the non-stop fare, as should be the case. I would be worried if it was the other way around.

Either way, they cannot be making much money if they're offering nonstop fares for $727 roundtrip with little advance notice, regardless of how much cargo they're carrying. There's nothing premium about a $727 rt 5,000NM transatlantic flight when it comes to yields.

Don’t forget the $6,000 seats up front. That’s what pays for the gas.

I'm fairly certain that BA has done the math on this. If they were making crap yields, they wouldn’t be in AUS, and they would have put the 744 somewhere else for the summer season.

Instead, their success in AUS convinced them to give MSY and BNA a shot, so...you’ll have to forgive me if I think the people at BA HQ know something we don’t.

So, while we are all waiting for the next big(ly disappointing) announcement from Delta (cup holders in the boarding area!) or the 4x daily A380 HY service to TAS via ICN, Sun Country has announced they’re increasing their seasonal service on MSP-AUS to 3x weekly this summer from the south terminal:

http://www.startribune.com/sun-country- ... 475593383/

khowaga wrote:

I seriously doubt BA is under any illusions they’ll fill the Y cabin of the 744, but what they will do is fill the belly: that route is almost always over 95% full on cargo, which contributes to its profitability. I know we always like to focus on pax LFs, but don’t forget that’s an important part of the equation in BA’s success here.

What cargo does BA carry?

lydh wrote:

On the other hand, Austinites love tooting their own horns more than anything—certainly, more than building adequate infrastructure or addressing affordable housing needs—so the masturbatory fanfare is to be expected.

As an Austin resident, I agree with you 100%

colindm wrote:

Not just that, but UT is likely the latest school in the country for it's quality. This provides a steady stream of students only matched by San Francisco.

Some programs within UT are pretty good but there is increasing mediocrity in a lot of programs. The quality of students in San Francisco, Boston, Greater NYC and even the DC area are much better. Apart from UT there are no other marquee universities in Austin.

colindm wrote:

If Austin gets picked for Amazon HQ2 what are some routes that we can expect would pop up after this decision?

I am optimistic about Austin's chances at landing HQ2. Simply because of their work culture and corporate values seem to align well with Austin along with a few other things that match Amazon's wishlist. IF it does land the HQ2 expect more flights to be added to SEA, NYC, SFO, DC area and BOS in the immediate aftermath.

SATexan wrote:

khowaga wrote:

I seriously doubt BA is under any illusions they’ll fill the Y cabin of the 744, but what they will do is fill the belly: that route is almost always over 95% full on cargo, which contributes to its profitability. I know we always like to focus on pax LFs, but don’t forget that’s an important part of the equation in BA’s success here.

What cargo does BA carry?

I haven’t seen an actual breakdown since the early days of the service, which described a lot of tech parts going in and out (also, apparently food), but apparently the flight also works well as a reliever when IAH and DFW are backed up on cargo loads. A few months after the service launch, BA said that the cargo loads had made the flight profitable from day one.

There are a couple of port insiders who have posted the stats from time to time and they seem to pretty consistently be in the high 90s.

SATexan wrote:

lydh wrote:

On the other hand, Austinites love tooting their own horns more than anything—certainly, more than building adequate infrastructure or addressing affordable housing needs—so the masturbatory fanfare is to be expected.

As an Austin resident, I agree with you 100%

You mean...$1500 a month for a 500 square foot studio apartment isn’t affordable?

mfe777 wrote:

tcfc424 wrote:

mfe, you just illustrated my point exactly. There is a premium being applied to the non-stop fare, as should be the case. I would be worried if it was the other way around.

Either way, they cannot be making much money if they're offering nonstop fares for $727 roundtrip with little advance notice, regardless of how much cargo they're carrying. There's nothing premium about a $727 rt 5,000NM transatlantic flight when it comes to yields.

Try looking at airfare during the week AISD is out (3/10-3/18)....$727 is only doable for people who have no job or no kids or both. I fly frequently to LHR from AUS and there simply hasn't been a fare for less or the same than a connecting itinerary on either UA or BA/AA. AUS is a very expensive market to travel from...

Naturally, everyone is giving away Y tix in the spring...nobody is making hey during that time. But you already know that.

This thread is about air traffic and airport news and updates for Austin. To those who felt the need to talk about their opinionated negative views, or feel that living in a place for 10 years makes them some sort of expert when clearly it doesn't, please take your Austin bashing somewhere else.

I bet a lot of people in San Antonio drive to Austin and fly out. But with the demand from Austin, it's good they have non - stop service to many cities. You don't need to fly to DFW or HOU just to fly to other cities.

Please keep your posts constructive and keep to the topic, that being Austin Aviation, non aviation items are to be discussed in the non-aviation forum only

The lack of nonstop service to CLE on WN or the US3 is a huge hole, and WN could add AUS-CLE nonstop service.

jplatts wrote:

The lack of nonstop service to CLE on WN or the US3 is a huge hole, and WN could add AUS-CLE nonstop service.

Why is it a “huge hole”? UA has tried it a couple of times and there wasn’t sufficient traffic to sustain the route. There’s virtually no connecting service through CLE that isn’t duplicated through other hubs. Is WN even that big in CLE?

jplatts wrote:

khowaga wrote:

jplatts wrote:

The lack of nonstop service to CLE on WN or the US3 is a huge hole, and WN could add AUS-CLE nonstop service.

Why is it a “huge hole”? UA has tried it a couple of times and there wasn’t sufficient traffic to sustain the route. There’s virtually no connecting service through CLE that isn’t duplicated through other hubs. Is WN even that big in CLE?

There was an average of 222 passengers a day who travel between AUS and CLE in Q2 2017 according to the DOT Domestic Airline Consumer Airfare Report.

Even though WN currently only has 20 daily nonstops out of CLE, WN has been at CLE for over 26 years. WN is already considering adding nonstop service to HOU and FLL from CLE, and WN could also add nonstop service to DAL, LAX, SAN, and TPA from CLE. Demand for WN service in the CLE market has also increased since the UA dehubbing at CLE, and the demand for UA service in the CLE market has significantly decreased after the UA dehubbing at CLE.

Wow. I had no idea there was that much travel back and forth. You're right - WN would probably be the best candidate for the route since UA seems not to be all that interested.

khowaga wrote:

jplatts wrote:

The lack of nonstop service to CLE on WN or the US3 is a huge hole, and WN could add AUS-CLE nonstop service.

Why is it a “huge hole”? UA has tried it a couple of times and there wasn’t sufficient traffic to sustain the route. There’s virtually no connecting service through CLE that isn’t duplicated through other hubs. Is WN even that big in CLE?

There was an average of 222 passengers a day who travel between AUS and CLE in Q2 2017 according to the DOT Domestic Airline Consumer Airfare Report.

Even though WN currently only has 20 daily nonstops out of CLE, WN has been at CLE for over 26 years. WN is already considering adding nonstop service to HOU and FLL from CLE, and WN could also add nonstop service to DAL, LAX, SAN, and TPA from CLE. Demand for WN service in the CLE market has also increased since the UA dehubbing at CLE, and the demand for UA service in the CLE market has significantly decreased after the UA dehubbing at CLE.

jplatts wrote:

There was an average of 222 passengers a day who travel between AUS and CLE in Q2 2017 according to the DOT Domestic Airline Consumer Airfare Report.

Even though WN currently only has 20 daily nonstops out of CLE, WN has been at CLE for over 26 years. WN is already considering adding nonstop service to HOU and FLL from CLE, and WN could also add nonstop service to DAL, LAX, SAN, and TPA from CLE. Demand for WN service in the CLE market has also increased since the UA dehubbing at CLE, and the demand for UA service in the CLE market has significantly decreased after the UA dehubbing at CLE.

Yea WN makes the most sense when you account for some connecting opportunities like ELP, HRL, LBB.

Of course, it could make an interesting DL P2P route, although it may drive traffic away from the forthcoming CVG service. WN seems like the best candidate here. Anyone know any other unserved markets from AUS without a nonstop similar to CLE?

digitalman12 wrote:

Of course, it could make an interesting DL P2P route, although it may drive traffic away from the forthcoming CVG service. WN seems like the best candidate here. Anyone know any other unserved markets from AUS without a nonstop similar to CLE?

The ones that stand out to me Immediately are Vail Eagle County (only seasonally November-March) and Cancun (likely only 2 days/week).

colindm wrote:

digitalman12 wrote:

Of course, it could make an interesting DL P2P route, although it may drive traffic away from the forthcoming CVG service. WN seems like the best candidate here. Anyone know any other unserved markets from AUS without a nonstop similar to CLE?

The ones that stand out to me Immediately are Vail Eagle County (only seasonally November-March) and Cancun (likely only 2 days/week).

CUN is seasonally lopsided - part of the year we have daily service on WN. (SJD is the other one - that's the 2x week service). Presumably service follows demand?

The other ones I can think of are mostly leisure destinations (RNO, GPT), or starting to fill in the holes in large metro areas with alternatives like MKE, PVD, MHT, RIC? *Maybe* PIT?

Then there's the question of full service carriers introducing service on routes that are currently only service by F9 and Allegiant a couple of days per week. But maybe that's why, for example, they're about to beat each other down on service to Columbus? Because those markets are untapped?

For any AUS spotters, SK and DL are both operating heavies in today for SxSW:

SK 6951 from ARN (A333) is due in at 1253, parking at gate 2: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/id/S ... rline-0036

DL 157 from AMS (B763) is due in at 1343, parking at gate 3: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/id/D ... rline-0200

Continuing my monologue:

Sun Country has announced AUS-CUN 3x weekly (MWF) between June 15 and August 18.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news ... ights.html

This'll be interesting because SY uses the south terminal - which (I don't think?) has US customs facilities anymore. I wonder how they'll handle that.

[twoid][/twoid]

khowaga wrote:

For any AUS spotters, SK and DL are both operating heavies in today for SxSW:

SK 6951 from ARN (A333) is due in at 1253, parking at gate 2: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/id/S ... rline-0036

DL 157 from AMS (B763) is due in at 1343, parking at gate 3: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/id/D ... rline-0200

Got a chance to spot them up close. Interested in seeing how many passengers are bound for Stockholm now as opposed to inbound.

khowaga wrote:

Continuing my monologue:

Sun Country has announced AUS-CUN 3x weekly (MWF) between June 15 and August 18.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news ... ights.html

This'll be interesting because SY uses the south terminal - which (I don't think?) has US customs facilities anymore. I wonder how they'll handle that.

If I had to guess they would probably at least de-plane at the BBJ terminal then pick up PAX at the South terminal. I’m not sure how leasing would work since the South terminal is cheaper.

Does anyone know when the official announcement about who will be getting the new gates will be,and what the actual shakeout will be for all gates?
Ive read several opinions as to how many gates DL. Will be getting and if they'll be keeping their current 3 .
Thanks in advance

Capn wrote:

Does anyone know when the official announcement about who will be getting the new gates will be,and what the actual shakeout will be for all gates?
Ive read several opinions as to how many gates DL. Will be getting and if they'll be keeping their current 3 .
Thanks in advance

I don’t know when the announcements will be, but it seems like the port insiders are agreed on 6 of the new 9 and, no, they’re not keeping the current 3.

Any updates on AUS ?

Capn wrote:

Any updates on AUS ?

On April 24, an IB A330, DY 787, and a BA 747 might all be on the ground at the same time. Not news, but exciting!