I think DL is most likely, but a new terminal would need to be built first. The existing terminal is too crowded, and its really not set up for hub operations. There are several medium sized cities in Texas that don't have flights to DL's ATL or SLC hubs since DL dehubbed DFW. There's no way DL could try to hub at DFW again, because AA would crush them. Putting a hub at AUS would help fill a large void in DL's map.

STT757 wrote:

AUS and SAT will never be hubs, for one main reason that they're both outside of the perimeter of LGA which is the preferred airport in the Nation's largest market. DAL, DFW, HOU and IAH all have service to LGA. AUS and SAT do not because of the perimeter.

Did that prevent SLC, PHX, SFO, SEA, PDX and LAX from becoming hubs? I don't see how being outside the perimeter of LGA can be prohibitive.

I live in a market that competes with AUS, and I don’t really see Austin becoming a hub.

ERJ170 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

DL would be wise to put a CVG/RDU style focus city in AUS, but I don’t see anything more than that.

Just wondering why? WN is by far the largest carrier. When DL started building up RDU, it was because of the AA pull down and there was opportunities... that’s not the case with AUS. It has a huge lumbering beast already owning the market.. plus other big airlines already established.. RDu was not like that..

And an international flight does not make it a focus city.. or PIT would be one.. AMS would be another hub flight

Right now, AUS has hub and focus city flights and no non-hub flights.. once it gets flights to 6-7 non-hub flights.. we can start talking focus city but as of right now.. I think it’s far off...

No offense, I haven’t seen DL really go into WN strongholds and open focus cities or take over.. they find markets where there is no leader and opportunities.. and make a push.. like RDU and BOS.. and they have even slowed down in their hubs and focus cities and are doing more upguaging than expansions so they may be on a break for now..

AA started to draw down the hub in the 90s after it bought EA's Miami operation and built that out as a full hub. There was the short-lived "second Midway airlines" with a hub in RDU that fell apart post 9/11 and several years of not very much between AA's draw down and DL's build up....which really didn't start until 2010/11. I'm pretty sure that WN was the largest airline at RDU in the '08-'11 time frame. So in that case, DL in AUS makes some sense. In the AUS case, DL "needs" a Texas base whereas AA has DFW, UA as IAH and WN has LUV and HOU. It would seem to be that a 50 to 70 flight per day operation with flights to key business markets would fit into the S-curve strategy DL has used in BOS, RDU, IND and the with current rebuilding of CVG in developing a focus city/mini-hub.

AUS absolutely has room to grow, and it has started to act as a de-facto metro hub for the region as well (the competition between it and SAT is reminiscent of that between DAL and FTW years ago, albeit with 30 extra miles between the two). Still, there's such a thing as hub-shadow, and while Delta might certainly benefit from a focus operation, Texas doesn't need a fifth hub, and if someone tried at AUS there's only so far it can go before the lack of business O&D and the combined flaming oil which AA, UA and WN would pour upon the interloper renders the effort ineffective.

AUS/SAT is an interesting growing international lesiure destination, and should profit from that - Condor and BA (helped by DFW overflow) have done well catering to exactly that sort of market. But the days of opening big new exciting hubs in unclaimed airports is dead.

As an aside, if Delta were to come back (they aren't), their choice is painful but obvious - go where they'd have immediate gate access, recently had a pilot base, still have an FF base, and the first and second fastest growing MSA's in Texas. Austin fits none of those bills. https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthash ... 28ccc27feb

What I hope for is that somebody does for AUS and SAT what the FAA did for Dallas and Ft. Worth - sit them down and tell them that the path to sustained, century-long growth is working together.

It appears that the consortium building the Texas Highspeed Rails is making a lot of progress. If and when this happens, there will be a big churn in the intra-Texas market especially the Dallas-Houston-Austin-San Antonio corridor.

Even Southwest may find it has a few spare planes.

TransWorldOne wrote:

DariusBieber wrote:

It won't happen. Austin won't ever be a true hub. Maybe more routes, but it's the same problem as SAT has. Too close to megahubs.

I tend to agree. I think AUS will continue to grow and perhaps even become a focus city at some point. But I do not think we'll see AUS become a true hub, at least not within the next decade. If San Antonio were just a tad bit closer and the two metros had a joint airport (a la DFW, MSP, BWI, etc) I could possibly see the region gaining hub status but, for now, each city has a medium size airport and that seems to work just fine.

Yep. A joint San Antonio-Austin International Airport near the San Marcos/New Braunfels/Canyon Lake area would definitely have the potential to reach hub status. There is a lot of land out there for it to happen. Definitely not in the near future though.

If DL was really concerned about Texas they wouldn’t have shut down their second most busy hub at DFW. I could see B6 or AS, eventually. B6 moves slow and AS is still getting their bearings after their recent merger, though. WN could also expand to 100+ flights per day, too.

DariusBieber wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

DariusBieber wrote:

It won't happen. Austin won't ever be a true hub. Maybe more routes, but it's the same problem as SAT has. Too close to megahubs.

I tend to agree. I think AUS will continue to grow and perhaps even become a focus city at some point. But I do not think we'll see AUS become a true hub, at least not within the next decade. If San Antonio were just a tad bit closer and the two metros had a joint airport (a la DFW, MSP, BWI, etc) I could possibly see the region gaining hub status but, for now, each city has a medium size airport and that seems to work just fine.

Yep. A joint San Antonio-Austin International Airport near the San Marcos/New Braunfels/Canyon Lake area would definitely have the potential to reach hub status. There is a lot of land out there for it to happen. Definitely not in the near future though.

And why would Austin want to fund such an airport. They have an airport fairly close to downtown that has a 12,000 foot runway, a 9,000 foot second runway, and space for more runways and terminals. It is also connected well by freeways and tollroads.

San Antonio's airport is hemmed in by development along its periphery. Building new terminals or expanding a runway to allow longer range flights would require eminent domain. I'm not quite sure why its location was chosen. Sure freeways connect it well, but any airport would have had freeways built to it. There are lots of military air fields around San Antonio that have longer runways than SAT and could have been suitable for redesignation as San Antonio's main commercial airport after WWII.

pdt2f wrote:

If DL was really concerned about Texas they wouldn’t have shut down their second most busy hub at DFW. I could see B6 or AS, eventually. B6 moves slow and AS is still getting their bearings after their recent merger, though. WN could also expand to 100+ flights per day, too.

Because AA was able to crush DL there similarly to how it was able to crush BN. Smaller cities in Texas don't need a second airline to connect them to DFW. With the ability tp economically serve the larger Texas cities directly from ATL or SLC, DL no longer needed to feed a hub at DFW. A DL focus city at AUS would be harder for AA and UA to kill.

Hopefully it is Delta maybe?

DariusBieber wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

DariusBieber wrote:

It won't happen. Austin won't ever be a true hub. Maybe more routes, but it's the same problem as SAT has. Too close to megahubs.

I tend to agree. I think AUS will continue to grow and perhaps even become a focus city at some point. But I do not think we'll see AUS become a true hub, at least not within the next decade. If San Antonio were just a tad bit closer and the two metros had a joint airport (a la DFW, MSP, BWI, etc) I could possibly see the region gaining hub status but, for now, each city has a medium size airport and that seems to work just fine.

Yep. A joint San Antonio-Austin International Airport near the San Marcos/New Braunfels/Canyon Lake area would definitely have the potential to reach hub status. There is a lot of land out there for it to happen. Definitely not in the near future though.

Likely no, sorry. To far to get into both cities for business travels, especially with IH-35's traffic (and new rail options not for decades). LCCs would stay at the original airports so the only tenant would be whatever airline you gave really great rates to to make it a hub such as DL or B6 (again unlikely). Thus simply not realistic with DT Austin and DT S.A. roughly ~80 miles apart with much increasing traffic. Also, Austin's northward growth makes that even less attractive.

I think we’ll see wide bodies AUS-DFW before AUS becomes a major hub (30-40 million a year minimum, like Newark, but not like SAN). If AA wants to expand from AUS, they wouldn’t add new destinations: they’ll add frequencies or use larger equipment. Delta on the other hand...

AUS already connects the dots to most hubs of the airlines that serve it.

I however, don’t think Delta will be adding destinations for the sake of building connecting traffic (like with CR2s to small unserved destinations); they already did that in CVG (though through acquiring Comair) and downsized it drastically, so their goal isn’t to build hubs, but rather serve markets unserved by WN or that other legacies won’t connect because they’re not hub-to-spoke. However, if Delta sees an untapped market or otherwise an opportunity to expand, this I see happening (I couldn’t name any routes though until I learn how to use the FAA database).

I’m thinking Sun Country out of MSP, or Midwest (rip) out of MKE.

I heard a rumor that EK was going to open their first North American hub in AUS, with triple-daily A380s to DXB, plus fifth-freedom nonstops to ATH, EZE and BKK.

Noise wrote:

STT757 wrote:

AUS and SAT will never be hubs, for one main reason that they're both outside of the perimeter of LGA which is the preferred airport in the Nation's largest market. DAL, DFW, HOU and IAH all have service to LGA. AUS and SAT do not because of the perimeter.

Did that prevent SLC, PHX, SFO, SEA, PDX and LAX from becoming hubs? I don't see how being outside the perimeter of LGA can be prohibitive.

Those hubs are in different state, I was referring to in state competition. If you wanted a hub in Texas, why not pick an airport not outside the perimeter of LGA.

Imagine if in California the only permitted nonstops to NY were from LAX, SFO and SAN and you decided to set up a hub in SMF.

enilria wrote:

It's gaining intl service quickly.

Sure, it's gained multiple longhaul (and shorthaul int'l) destinations over the last half decade... but then again, so have the likes of SJC, MSY, TPA, SAN, RDU, and PIT.

AUS has enjoyed decent int'l growth, but nothing particularly anomalous.
(Before anyone brings up a BA 744, do realize that it's already scheduled to rightsize, er... I mean downgauge, back to a 787)

enilria wrote:

The geography is good for Latin connects.

Not for the most populous parts of the country it isn't, with the exception of those going to Mexico.

pdt2f wrote:

If DL was really concerned about Texas they wouldn’t have shut down their second most busy hub at DFW. I could see B6 or AS, eventually. B6 moves slow and AS is still getting their bearings after their recent merger, though. WN could also expand to 100+ flights per day, too.

DL was bleeding money at DFW at a time when they couldn't afford to. Delta dehubbed DFW during a desperate period for them. AA were slaughtering them so DL wisely decided to call it quits and pull out. Nowadays DL can afford to fly unprofitable parts of their network becuase they are so profitable overall, that explains SEA.

STT757 wrote:

Noise wrote:

STT757 wrote:

AUS and SAT will never be hubs, for one main reason that they're both outside of the perimeter of LGA which is the preferred airport in the Nation's largest market. DAL, DFW, HOU and IAH all have service to LGA. AUS and SAT do not because of the perimeter.

Did that prevent SLC, PHX, SFO, SEA, PDX and LAX from becoming hubs? I don't see how being outside the perimeter of LGA can be prohibitive.

Those hubs are in different state, I was referring to in state competition. If you wanted a hub in Texas, why not pick an airport not outside the perimeter of LGA.

We have seen exceptions and changes to perimeter rules over the years and UA already flies DEN-LGA which is 100 miles further than AUS-LGA.

LAX772LR wrote:

enilria wrote:

It's gaining intl service quickly.

Sure, it's gained multiple longhaul (and shorthaul int'l) destinations over the last half decade... but then again, so have the likes of SJC, MSY, TPA, SAN, RDU, and PIT.

SJC, RDU, and PIT were former hubs though and in most cases the service being added is not totally new.

People in this thread act as if becoming a hub is some sort of prize.

It doesn't work that way in the real world.

Ask places like STL, PIT, CVG, BNA, et al about how it actually goes down.

The airport authority invests tens of millions of dollars that they probably never get back.

The O&D passengers end up paying monopolistic prices.

The area's residents end up with air pollution, noise pollution, more traffic, higher taxes.

It's a crap deal.

AUS should do its best to avoid becoming a hub.

STT757 wrote:

Noise wrote:

STT757 wrote:

AUS and SAT will never be hubs, for one main reason that they're both outside of the perimeter of LGA which is the preferred airport in the Nation's largest market. DAL, DFW, HOU and IAH all have service to LGA. AUS and SAT do not because of the perimeter.

Did that prevent SLC, PHX, SFO, SEA, PDX and LAX from becoming hubs? I don't see how being outside the perimeter of LGA can be prohibitive.

Those hubs are in different state, I was referring to in state competition. If you wanted a hub in Texas, why not pick an airport not outside the perimeter of LGA.

Imagine if in California the only permitted nonstops to NY were from LAX, SFO and SAN and you decided to set up a hub in SMF.

OK but you can still fly into JFK and EWR without restrictions.

afcjets wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

enilria wrote:

It's gaining intl service quickly.

Sure, it's gained multiple longhaul (and shorthaul int'l) destinations over the last half decade... but then again, so have the likes of SJC, MSY, TPA, SAN, RDU, and PIT.

SJC, RDU, and PIT were former hubs though and in most cases the service being added is not totally new.

That's not material to LAX's point. Historic market structure has nothing to do with the current economic case for nonstop TA service from secondary cities.

Like many threads on a.net, this seems to primarily exist to fuel the you-know-what measuring contests between posters from secondary cites, who somehow think that an airline hub is a measure of their urban (self) worth.

Strong through AUS is as a market, I don't see any economic case for why, in this short termist stakeholder return-driven market context, AUS would grow to be anything more than a focus city a la DL at RDU.

The only variable that I think changes this conversation is government. If someone is willing to use public money the bankroll new facilities, a carrier might take the bait. But, like Revolution, I don't see this as a particularly good bet, nor a likely one in red Texas.

As an AUS resident, I believe that while the yield is there (airfare from AUS is VERY high and routinely much higher than flying out of DFW or IAH...which is why many Austinites drive there to fly out on vacations). But the mass/volume just isn't. Austin isn't small, but even with fast growth, it can't get to the kind of mass/volume that markets like DFW/IAH provide.

Now, if there was a AUS/SAT airport like prior posters speculated, then I believe that could absolutely become a hub because it would serve a population roughly similar to DFW/IAH. But even if urban planners had enough vision to make this happen, implementation of a project like this takes more than a decade.

So for now, I am in the "no hub" camp.

With wn so dominant at aus and aa ua providing connection nearby, nobody has a chance to build a hub at aus. Dl would get slaughtered. B6 would get slaughtered. As would get slaughtered.

Revelation wrote:

People in this thread act as if becoming a hub is some sort of prize.

It doesn't work that way in the real world.

Ask places like STL, PIT, CVG, BNA, et al about how it actually goes down.

The airport authority invests tens of millions of dollars that they probably never get back.
.

+1
More likely scenario is a SAN/SJC type of airport with a sprinkling of International flights and a bank of point to point service to the significant business routes.

In lots of sense, that is already happening with the likes of WN, AS and B6.

legend500 wrote:

What I hope for is that somebody does for AUS and SAT what the FAA did for Dallas and Ft. Worth - sit them down and tell them that the path to sustained, century-long growth is working together.

I don't see that happening as just about 20 years ago Ausitn shuttered it's old airport and moved operations to the air force base to allow for expansion. Austin just spent a whole lot of money on it's new airport..

I think you need to turn this question inside out: Which airline needs a hub in and around Texas? Right now none.

I can see a merged AS-B6 eventually shopping for a hub at AUS or BNA, but unmerged, their strategy will be picked apart by the big four.

bob75013 wrote:

legend500 wrote:

What I hope for is that somebody does for AUS and SAT what the FAA did for Dallas and Ft. Worth - sit them down and tell them that the path to sustained, century-long growth is working together.

I don't see that happening as just about 20 years ago Ausitn shuttered it's old airport and moved operations to the air force base to allow for expansion. Austin just spent a whole lot of money on it's new airport..

Three big differences between the DFW Metroplex and the Austin/San Antonio region:

• The DFW Metroplex is a single metropolitan area encompassing the city of Dallas, the city of Fort Worth, the suburbs of both Dallas and Fort Worth, and the surrounding area, whereas Austin and San Antonio are located in separate metropolitan areas.
• DFW Airport is closer to both Downtown Dallas and Downtown Fort Worth whereas an airport located in between Austin and San Antonio would be further from both Downtown Austin and Downtown San Antonio.
• An airport located between Austin and San Antonio would be too far from the northern suburbs of Austin and the Temple/Belton/Killeen area to serve as a replacement for AUS. On the other hand, DFW Airport is close enough to most of the suburbs in the DFW Metroplex.

These three big differences between the DFW Metroplex and the Austin/San Antonio region make a consolidated airport between AUS and SAT a less viable option. In addition, DFW did not completely replace DAL in the DFW Metroplex, IAH did not completely replace HOU in Greater Houston, and IAD did not completely replace DCA and BWI in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

axiom wrote:

afcjets wrote:

SJC, RDU, and PIT were former hubs though and in most cases the service being added is not totally new.

That's not material to LAX's point. Historic market structure has nothing to do with the current economic case for nonstop TA service from secondary cities.

Sure it can, especially in examples where routes are cancelled during a recession and added back during a booming economy.

axiom wrote:

Strong through AUS is as a market, I don't see any economic case for why, in this short termist stakeholder return-driven market context, AUS would grow to be anything more than a focus city a la DL at RDU.

The only variable that I think changes this conversation is government. If someone is willing to use public money the bankroll new facilities, a carrier might take the bait. But, like Revolution, I don't see this as a particularly good bet, nor a likely one in red Texas.

The four largest airline's all have at least one major hub in TX except for DL and AUS would fill a major void in their network. DL is the most profitable airline in the US yet only the third largest and is not short term focused.

Since AUS bankrolled the move to relocate the entire airport 20 years ago, I think adding a concourse would not be that much of a stretch. No doubt part of the move to a brand new location was so they would have room to expand for something exactly like this.

DFW was intended to replace DAL; but Southwest decided it does not need to play by the rules. Anyway, that was many years ago before the Wright amendment and so.

The main issue was the expected widebodies from Dallas Metro could never have happened unless the airport was moved away from DAL. Nor could either of Dallas or Ft Worth support an airport by themselves. However, if one were to add all the 747, 777, A330, A340, A380 flights per day, it does not and never has exceed 20. Building a separate airport just for a few flights would be a rather expensive proposition. Montreal Mirabel.

vadodara wrote:

The main issue was the expected widebodies from Dallas Metro could never have happened unless the airport was moved away from DAL. Nor could either of Dallas or Ft Worth support an airport by themselves. However, if one were to add all the 747, 777, A330, A340, A380 flights per day, it does not and never has exceed 20.

That may be true but if you replace A330/40/80 with DC10, L1011, 767, DFW saw just over 100 widebodies per day during their peak.

afcjets wrote:

axiom wrote:

afcjets wrote:

SJC, RDU, and PIT were former hubs though and in most cases the service being added is not totally new.

That's not material to LAX's point. Historic market structure has nothing to do with the current economic case for nonstop TA service from secondary cities.

Sure it can, especially in examples where routes are cancelled during a recession and added back during a booming economy.

axiom wrote:

Strong through AUS is as a market, I don't see any economic case for why, in this short termist stakeholder return-driven market context, AUS would grow to be anything more than a focus city a la DL at RDU.

The only variable that I think changes this conversation is government. If someone is willing to use public money the bankroll new facilities, a carrier might take the bait. But, like Revolution, I don't see this as a particularly good bet, nor a likely one in red Texas.

The four largest airline's all have at least one major hub in TX except for DL and AUS would fill a major void in their network. DL is the most profitable airline in the US yet only the third largest and is not short term focused.

Since AUS bankrolled the move to relocate the entire airport 20 years ago, I think adding a concourse would not be that much of a stretch. No doubt part of the move to a brand new location was so they would have room to expand for something exactly like this.

Re point 1 and old hubs -- That they were hubs once upon a time has little to do with the viability of TA opeations from those markets today. There are (limited) TA services from those markets because they can sustain demand on their own, not because (insert airline) had an operation there twenty years ago.

Re point 2 and Texas. This would be a compelling point if 1) AUS were remotely close to HOU or DAL in economic size and 2) if a network carrier (DL) actually needed a hub there.What competitive dimension would this add over ATL traffic flows, exactly, above and beyond capturing the solid (and admittedly fast growing) local demand? Do you envsion DL overflying 3-4 hubs to connect AUS, of all places, to new TA destinations, or flying fast-disappearing regional jets to minisule TX tertiary markets? DL needs TX far less than UA needs a true southeastern hub, as but one example.

It is one thing to build a new airport, and something entirely different to invest in a massive new facility *in this market context*.

jfklganyc wrote:

This, in my opinion, was Jetblues biggest mistake.

You didn’t even need the main terminal. Say JetBlue goes to the city and says we want to build a 10 gate concourse for starters.

Dirt cheap, mid continent hub and airline and city grow together.

A stupid, missed opportunity 10 years ago. Perhaps the worst missed opportunity in B6s history.

B6 really doesnt have an airport to call all their own and AUS could've been it. They share their three biggest hubs with many others, they really don't dominate JFK/BOS/FLL. Plus, this would have been a golden opporunity for B6 to have a sizeable operation somewhere other than the east coast so in the event of those terrible east coast storms, they could easily re-route pax through AUS.

Its to late now. I would love to see DL come in and make it a big focus city with flights to AMS/CDG. Maybe steal some international connecting traffic away from DFW and IAH. I bet there are tons of Texans that would love to fly internationally out of AUS similiar to how folks in NY seem to like to fly internationally out of SWF.

vadodara wrote:

DFW was intended to replace DAL; but Southwest decided it does not need to play by the rules. .

Not to hijack the thread into yet another of those " WN didn't play by the rules" threads, but WN wasn't even flying when the "rules" were formed, didn't agree to the rules, and thus did NOT have to follow them. The COURTS ruled on that matter, so give it up.

jplatts wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

"DFW Airport is closer to both Downtown Dallas and Downtown Fort Worth whereas an airport located in between Austin and San Antonio would be further from both Downtown Austin and Downtown San Antonio.[/quote]

Closer than what?

DFW is certainly not closer to downtown Dallas than DAL is.,and Greater Southwest was about the same distance to downtown Ft. Worth, and a new AUS/SAT combined airport will certainly not be closer to downtown Austin or downtown San Antonio
than their respective current airports are either.[/quote]

bob75013 wrote:

vadodara wrote:

DFW was intended to replace DAL; but Southwest decided it does not need to play by the rules. .

Not to hijack the thread into yet another of those " WN didn't play by the rules" threads, but WN wasn't even flying when the "rules" were formed, didn't agree to the rules, and thus did NOT have to follow them. The COURTS ruled on that matter, so give it up.

Ha, ha! I suppose the guys running the Texas Highspeed Rail seem to know this game pretty well. My sense is WN has bigger worries on their plate than the DFW-DAL discussion.

At anyrate, the point was both Love Field and Meecham field were supposed to be shut-down. Meecham did, Love did not. But DFW would not have happened unless both were frozen in time. And one cannot argue that the Dallas metroplex has grown in large part because of the improved connectivity out of DFW

In anycase, I am not an American/Delta/Braniff employee or a fan. I also have no personal grudges agains Southwest.

vadodara wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

vadodara wrote:

Ha, ha! I suppose the guys running the Texas Highspeed Rail seem to know this game pretty well. My sense is WN has bigger worries on their plate than the DFW-DAL discussion.

.

Since Love Field is gate constrained, I suspect that WN will have no problem figuring out what to do with the gates/planes that currently are used for DAL/HOU flights if Texas Highspeed rail ever comes to fruition.

To bring the discussion back to the purpose of this thread, I bet WN could even use the planes to increase servive out of AUS.

vadodara wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

vadodara wrote:

DFW was intended to replace DAL; but Southwest decided it does not need to play by the rules. .

Not to hijack the thread into yet another of those " WN didn't play by the rules" threads, but WN wasn't even flying when the "rules" were formed, didn't agree to the rules, and thus did NOT have to follow them. The COURTS ruled on that matter, so give it up.

Ha, ha! I suppose the guys running the Texas Highspeed Rail seem to know this game pretty well. My sense is WN has bigger worries on their plate than the DFW-DAL discussion.
At anyrate, the point was both Love Field and Meecham field were supposed to be shut-down. Meecham did, Love did not. But DFW would not have happened unless both were frozen in time. And one cannot argue that the Dallas metroplex has grown in large part because of the improved connectivity out of DFW
In anycase, I am not an American/Delta/Braniff employee or a fan. I also have no personal grudges agains Southwest.

I think you mean, "both Love Field and Amon Carter Airport were supposed to be shut-down". Meecham was a small, private-aviation-only airport when DFW was built in the 70's, and was not a factor in.building DFW.

lydh wrote:

This again?

I know, Right!? We had a thread on this topic like 2 days ago..

Back to the original topic:

First things first:

1. An AUS-SAT joint airport is not happening for atleast 10 more years. People have mentioned San Marcos as a location. But the ideal location within San Marcos will be somewhere closer to Highway 130. That location would be closer to south Austin but would be 60 miles plus to other locations in AUS and SAT areas. The current I-35 already chokes for much of the day.
2. The Texas High Speed rail is also not happening for atleast 10 more years
3. If No 2 does not happen then No 1 will almost certainly not happen
3. Austin city will grapple with haphazard growth, unplanned road system and congestion for the foreseeable future. They will have to plan the roads and other infrastructure before they embark on any new airport plans

enilria wrote:

Possibilities:
B6: I used to think so, but it seems to me they have lost interest. They should probably close LGB and move the planes to AUS.
AS: Maybe, but also not showing much interest yet. Should probably close DAL and move the planes South.
DL: It's a possibility, but DL has only pursued mega-cities lately. Still, I can see them doing something like they do in CVG.
AA: Bad geography UA: Bad Geography
WN: Anything is possible, but sits too close to DAL/HOU

B6: Never been a serious player in AUS. Their schedules to BOS, LGB, FLL and MCO are not conducive for Business travelers right now. They have one well timed flight to JFK and THAT'S IT. They have been a leisure carrier since the beginning.
AS: They have good schedules to SEA and SFO by way of Virgin America. BUT they are STILL a West Coast airline. All their schedules favor the West coast. They have very little market presence in Texas and the Southeast. To make AUS work as a hub they will have to add a lot of new routes to the East and South of Austin. Very risky for an airline that hasn't had a hub outside of West coast and going up against incumbent behemoths in DFW / DAL and IAH. We also have to see if AS will be able to hold on to Virgin America's routes out of AUS.
AA: Too close to DFW to even make AUS a focus city; AA already covers all their hubs quite nicely out of AUS and they can just upgauge or add frequencies as required. History also shows us that outside of the tech boom AA cannot make p2p routes like AUS-RDU, SJC, SEA and SFO work. They have an excellent frequent flyer base and it is possible that AA may bring some of these routes back in the future but that's about it.
UA: Too close to IAH.
F9: Let's see if 80% of new routes will be around this time next year!
WN: They already have a great market share in AUS. They may not open a hub but will likely compete fiercely with any airline that will attempt to open one.
DL: The ONLY realistic possibility of opening a hub. But why do they need a hub in AUS? Just so they can add a few flights to ABI, CRP, MFE and CRP? They've done well without these regional cities and there is no need to burn money in setting up a hub. While some California-Florida routes may be closer via AUS, the schedules offered over ATL are already superior. They would need to add a ton of new flights with competitive schedules (over ATL) to make AUS a viable hub. They can add a handful flights to Mexico with AM's cooperation. From what I know, DL doesn't have the corporate pull that AA, WN and even UA have at AUS. So at best, they can make it a 40-45 flight base in the near future. Anything more than that would be very costly without any ROI guarantees. Presently they have 25-27 flights a day.

axiom wrote:

afcjets wrote:

The four largest airline's all have at least one major hub in TX except for DL and AUS would fill a major void in their network. DL is the most profitable airline in the US yet only the third largest and is not short term focused.

Since AUS bankrolled the move to relocate the entire airport 20 years ago, I think adding a concourse would not be that much of a stretch. No doubt part of the move to a brand new location was so they would have room to expand for something exactly like this.

This would be a compelling point if 1) AUS were remotely close to HOU or DAL in economic size and 2) if a network carrier (DL) actually needed a hub there.What competitive dimension would this add over ATL traffic flows, exactly, above and beyond capturing the solid (and admittedly fast growing) local demand? Do you envsion DL overflying 3-4 hubs to connect AUS, of all places, to new TA destinations, or flying fast-disappearing regional jets to minisule TX tertiary markets? DL needs TX far less than UA needs a true southeastern hub, as but one example.

First of all I am not predicting DL will make AUS a hub, at least in the near term, however I do not believe like other a.netters that there is no possibility of there ever being a new US3 hub again. I do believe however DL could make a hub in AUS work in the near or distant future if they wanted to. Yes, I think they could possibly start with fast disappearing regional jets intra-TX and beyond (including MX) or even C-Series aircraft and they could even delay the MD88 retirement yet again (DL/NW flew the DC9 for almost 50 years) as they up-gauge existing markets. AUS could also provide more east/west connecting opportunities between cities where AUS can support or almost support a nonstop flight with local traffic. Just as WN makes approximately 15 mostly redundant east/west hubs work, DL could increase market share system-wide wide with an AUS hub without cannibalizing existing hubs in a industry with far fewer players and hubs than 25 years ago and near 90% LDFs.

axiom wrote:

It is one thing to build a new airport, and something entirely different to invest in a massive new facility *in this market context*.

Are you saying you thinking building an entire new airport 30 miles away is less of a feat than adding 18 gates onto an existing terminal and possibly building another one if DL went bigger than what is in the current terminal's master plan?

MIflyer12 wrote:

Nobody with brains.

This is the correct answer.

I can't believe this thread has gotten any legs whatsoever. The idea is asinine. Armchair airline CEOs, please go about your business, hehe...

slider wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Nobody with brains.

This is the correct answer.

I can't believe this thread has gotten any legs whatsoever. The idea is asinine. Armchair airline CEOs, please go about your business, hehe...

I thought the correct answer was Delta (after they finish building a hub at ORD). First things first.

Regarding an AUS/SAT joint airport:
I believe San Antonio has reached out on a preliminary level about a joint airport. Austin has very much shot it down. While San Antonio is weighted to the north as far as sprawl (much of it is within 30-45 minutes of San Marcos) so is Austin.

Round Rock and Georgetown would never go for a combined airport. The only chance San Marcos would have is trying to get Spirit and Allegiant to set up ops with a very cheap terminal much like Austin’s Souh Terminal. San Marcos wants a customs facility anyways and this could be a way to fund it.

The other point is I-35 is a nightmare to begin with. Especially around San Marcos. There are plans to start on Loop 110 soon which will give almost direct freeway access to HYI. Still relies on 35 to get there though. San Marcos has been one of the fastest growing towns in the US for the last 3-5 years and it’s infrastructure is barely keeping up as it is.

The reality is AUS is already serving passengers from the San Antonio area. An hour’s drive from the airport puts you in much of northeast SA. The city’s fine with the current situation.

I think “hub” is being way overused in this discussion however. It brings visions of fortress hubs like IAH and DFW. We get it. We know we’re not going to have hundreds of gates. A realistic vision for legacy carrier growth would be a focus city to about 15-20 cities with an international flight or two. I would be happy with that.

24Whiskey wrote:

I think “hub” is being way overused in this discussion however. It brings visions of fortress hubs like IAH and DFW. We get it. We know we’re not going to have hundreds of gates. A realistic vision for legacy carrier growth would be a focus city to about 15-20 cities with an international flight or two. I would be happy with that.

So in other words, the same number of destinations as AA's former SJC hub at it's peak. Based on AUS's geography, a significant number of connections would likely occur if they had 15-20 nonstop destinations and that would make it a hub. No one is suggesting DL is going to come in overnight and make AUS the size of hubs like ATL, CLT, or DFW which have been hubs for well over 50 years.

afcjets wrote:

24Whiskey wrote:

I think “hub” is being way overused in this discussion however. It brings visions of fortress hubs like IAH and DFW. We get it. We know we’re not going to have hundreds of gates. A realistic vision for legacy carrier growth would be a focus city to about 15-20 cities with an international flight or two. I would be happy with that.

So in other words, the same number of destinations as AA's former SJC hub at it's peak. Based on AUS's geography, a significant number of connections would likely occur if they had 15-20 nonstop destinations and that would make it a hub. No one is suggesting DL is going to come in overnight and make AUS the size of hubs like ATL, CLT, or DFW which have been hubs for well over 50 years.

15-20 n/s destinations is nothing. DL flies to 15 n/s destinations from IND, and it isn't even an official focus city for Delta, let alone a hub. The sheer amount of flights and destinations DL would have to add from AUS to make it into even a mini-hub, would be enormous. Especially since many of these new routes/flights would have to compete h2h with AA, DL, UA, WN, B6, e.t.c. If anything DL would grow to maybe or 50-55 flights a day to a few more destinations, but that isn't a hub, or a focus city per say.

Midwestindy wrote:

afcjets wrote:

So in other words, the same number of destinations as AA's former SJC hub at it's peak. Based on AUS's geography, a significant number of connections would likely occur if they had 15-20 nonstop destinations and that would make it a hub. No one is suggesting DL is going to come in overnight and make AUS the size of hubs like ATL, CLT, or DFW which have been hubs for well over 50 years.

15-20 n/s destinations is nothing. DL flies to 15 n/s destinations from IND, and it isn't even an official focus city for Delta, let alone a hub.

Including CDG which starts in May, DL flies to 14 n/s destinations from IND, however only 5 of these cities are non-hub cities, and only two of them have daily service, the rest are Saturday only. IND has two daily flights on Endeavor to RDU and Delta flies one daily flight per day to MCO, the only mainline flight Delta has to a non-hub city from IND on any day other than Saturday.

TWA902fly wrote:

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

Of all the above, B6 would have the most to gain from starting up a small connecting hub in AUS. LGB seems less important to them today than it was a few years ago. The leaves them with only BOS/JFK/FLL to route passengers through, and geographically, those aren't well positioned. Austin's problem is it's too far south to make a great mid-continent hub without the local O&D to support it. IAH only works because it lies in a metro of 6 million people and has strong business and ethnic ties to Europe and Latin America.
I will say, it's interesting that many Europeans I've met while travelling there will tell me they have visited Austin, but not Dallas or Houston. Austin's music scene seems to have a good international reputation.

For an airline that has no mid-continent hub, Austin could prove to be a valuable hub operation. There are hubs in existence in smaller cities (DL @SLC for example). However, AUS would be competing for connecting traffic with basically every hub between the coasts, whereas SLC's only real intermountain-west competition is DEN and PHX. Like others have said, the O&D and business connectivity are growing in AUS, and would make for a good focus city. However, it seems that all airlines that currently serve AUS are also growing along with AUS's importance. Should one airline show up and attempt to make a grab for a larger market share, I suspect it would come (at least initially) with poor yields, and for that, you need to have deep pockets.

'902

Something I don't think AUS could do is become as regionally and strategically important in a 600 mile radius, as SLC is to the Intermountain West. Austins O & D traffic comes mostly from within 75 miles of Austin, and there are other hubs in close proximity to Austin. Many communities in Idaho, Northern Nevada, Western Wyoming, and Southwest Montana and Utah are reliant on SLC for many things from Medical Services to everyday food supply warehousing etc, and With SLC having a huge Railroad Presence, a Huge interstate trucking presence, and warehousing for many companies to supply points in those states, SLC is the nucleus of the Intermountain Region. This catchment of a great number of souls dependent on SLC for these services has helped SLC to maintain the number of flights in and out of SLC which are there now. If DL had to totally rely on a 75 mile radius of SLC to put butts in seats from SLC only, you would not see as much O & D traffic as you see today. The nationwide feed alone could be accomplished in other hubs. Yes some of these communities now have spillover with direct flights into DEN, but that has not always been the case.

afcjets wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

afcjets wrote:

So in other words, the same number of destinations as AA's former SJC hub at it's peak. Based on AUS's geography, a significant number of connections would likely occur if they had 15-20 nonstop destinations and that would make it a hub. No one is suggesting DL is going to come in overnight and make AUS the size of hubs like ATL, CLT, or DFW which have been hubs for well over 50 years.

15-20 n/s destinations is nothing. DL flies to 15 n/s destinations from IND, and it isn't even an official focus city for Delta, let alone a hub.

Including CDG which starts in May, DL flies to 14 n/s destinations from IND, however only 5 of these cities are non-hub cities, and only two of them have daily service, the rest are Saturday only. IND has two daily flights on Endeavor to RDU and Delta flies one daily flight per day to MCO, the only mainline flight Delta has to a non-hub city from IND on any day other than Saturday.

I count 15: ATL, BOS, DTW, LAX, MSP, JFK, LGA, MCO, CDG, SLC, SEA, CUN, RSW, MIA, RDU.

IND-RSW is seasonally daily mainline, CDG is up for interpretation in terms of a hub for DL, BOS is considered a focus city. So, I guess there would be daily non-hub flights to MCO, RDU, CDG, BOS, and RSW(seasonally). Doesn't really change the point of my original point though....

Midwestindy wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Including CDG which starts in May, DL flies to 14 n/s destinations from IND, however only 5 of these cities are non-hub cities, and only two of them have daily service, the rest are Saturday only. IND has two daily flights on Endeavor to RDU and Delta flies one daily flight per day to MCO, the only mainline flight Delta has to a non-hub city from IND on any day other than Saturday.

I count 15: ATL, BOS, DTW, LAX, MSP, JFK, LGA, MCO, CDG, SLC, SEA, CUN, RSW, MIA, RDU.

IND-RSW is seasonally daily mainline, CDG is up for interpretation in terms of a hub for DL, BOS is considered a focus city. So, I guess there would be daily non-hub flights to MCO, RDU, CDG, BOS, and RSW(seasonally). Doesn't really change the point of my original point though....

I was counting JFK and LGA as one destination (NYC). IND-RSW is currently flying Saturday only and you would think the season would include early March. Delta's route map shows both BOS and CDG as hubs. I agree with your point that AUS would not be considered a hub if it had only one daily year round mainline flight and two daily DL Connection flights to non-hub airports

24Whiskey wrote:

Regarding an AUS/SAT joint airport:
I believe San Antonio has reached out on a preliminary level about a joint airport. Austin has very much shot it down. While San Antonio is weighted to the north as far as sprawl (much of it is within 30-45 minutes of San Marcos) so is Austin.

Round Rock and Georgetown would never go for a combined airport. The only chance San Marcos would have is trying to get Spirit and Allegiant to set up ops with a very cheap terminal much like Austin’s Souh Terminal. San Marcos wants a customs facility anyways and this could be a way to fund it.

The other point is I-35 is a nightmare to begin with. Especially around San Marcos. There are plans to start on Loop 110 soon which will give almost direct freeway access to HYI. Still relies on 35 to get there though. San Marcos has been one of the fastest growing towns in the US for the last 3-5 years and it’s infrastructure is barely keeping up as it is.

The reality is AUS is already serving passengers from the San Antonio area. An hour’s drive from the airport puts you in much of northeast SA. The city’s fine with the current situation.

I think “hub” is being way overused in this discussion however. It brings visions of fortress hubs like IAH and DFW. We get it. We know we’re not going to have hundreds of gates. A realistic vision for legacy carrier growth would be a focus city to about 15-20 cities with an international flight or two. I would be happy with that.

What would be the point of building an airport between San Antonio and San Marcos? San Marcos is closer to AUS than Round Rock or Georgetown. It's not much further from AUS than parts of Fort Worth are to DFW.